Should the US send more troops to Afghanistan?

[nerdgirl 0]

What do you think?

There are strong suggestions that OEF-Afghanistan and NATO ISAF Commander GEN Stanley McChrystal has indicated that he would like, up to, an additional 30-40,000 troops, mostly soldiers and Marines, be deployed to Afghanistan. In August, the Commandant of the Marine Corps stated “There are over 11,000 Marines in Afghanistan, and I think we need more.” For anyone who’s been paying attention to national security, it’s all something of the equivalent of a rhetorical announcement from the “US Dept of Duh.”

Within the defense and security community, the debate over the last few years has been counterinsurgency-based approaches versus conventional approaches. The COIN v Conventional debate was personified in the LTC John Nagl, USA (ret) and COL Gian Gentile, USA. With the appointment of GEN Petraeus as head of US CENTCOM, the clear signal, for the time being, is that the COIN side prevailed. (There’s a whole ‘nother side on analysis of the budget priorities … but will leave that for other posts. There’s de jure strategy - what one finds in National Strategy documents, official white papers, NSC products, DoD Directives, QDR, etc.. That strategy and guidance is *supposed* to drive budgets; like many things in the real world, it doesn’t always/often work the way it’s *supposed* to. Therefore one gets de facto [or de numero, as I call it] strategy – what one finds in budget numbers, especially acquisition budgets.)

Foreign policy wonks and pundits are now surfacing in more substantive ways … or at last being listened to/given more prominence. (E.g,. in February, Ralph Peters had a USA Today editorial[/url] that argued for limited involvement emphasizing, if anything, counter-terrorism-based approach; no COIN: “Ralph Peters: ignore COIN theory and pull out of Afghanistan.”) The debate now is centering on questions of escalation versus containment. Last week conservative columnist George Will asked “Is it 1966 in Washington? Or 2003, with a Shinseki moment.”

Mr Will invoked mid-20th century history citing George Kennan’s 1966 testimony to the Senate foreign Relations Committee on Vietnam:

“There is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant or unpromising objectives … Our country should not be asked, and should not ask of itself, to shoulder the main burden of determining the political realities in any other country, and particularly not in one remote from our shores, from our culture and from the experience of our people. This is not only not our business, but I don't think we can do it successfully.”

Prof Andrew Bacevich (also a retired Army Colonel) has also reframed the debate along escalation versus containment lines, invoking the Cold War against the Soviets in general as the historical model:

“The counterinsurgency campaign proposed in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's strategic assessment will prolong the war for an additional five or 10 years. The war's most ardent proponents insist that President Obama has no choice: It's either fight on or invite another 9/11.

“Fortunately, there is an alternative to a global counterinsurgency campaign. Instead of fighting an endless hot war in a vain effort to eliminate the jihadist threat, the United States should wage a cold war to keep the threat at bay. Such a strategy worked before. It can work again.



“Containing the threat posed by jihad should follow a similar strategy. Robust defenses are key -- not mechanized units patrolling the Iron Curtain, but well-funded government agencies securing borders, controlling access to airports and seaports, and ensuring the integrity of electronic networks that have become essential to our way of life.

“As during the Cold War, a strategy of containment should include comprehensive export controls and the monitoring of international financial transactions. Without money and access to weapons, the jihadist threat shrinks to insignificance: All that remains is hatred. Ideally, this approach should include strenuous efforts to reduce the West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which serves to funnel many billions of dollars into the hands of people who may not wish us well.”

One part on which Prof Bacevich's argument is problematic unquestionably is his assertions w/r/t leadership decapitation, i.e., removing or killing the leadership of a terrorist group hastens its end. While ‘common-sense’ or ‘conventional wisdom’ might suggest it to be an effective strategy, the data clearly shows that leadership decapitation is rarely effective in hastening the decline or demise of terrorist groups, especially w/r/t large, older (>10 years) terrorist groups like al Qa’eda. (More here.)


Do you see Afghanistan being to Pres Obama what Vietnam was to Pres Kennedy or Pres Johnson?

To which historical conflicts do you think the US should be looking for guidance and options?

Do you think Afghanistan is a ‘winnable’ conflict? Why or why not? Is ‘winning’ even the best descriptor?

Should the US send more troops to Afghanistan? Why or why not?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

I voted yes, but my reasons are not the same as Obama and his minions.

[rushmc 23]

I voted yes but in this context.
Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives.

(I think we should be there just to cover any doubt)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I voted yes, but my reasons are not the same as Obama and his minions.

What are your reasons?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I voted yes but in this context.
Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives.

(I think we should be there just to cover any doubt)

How do you think we should go about winning? By what methods or strategy? What would you recommend & why?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I voted yes but in this context.
Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives.

(I think we should be there just to cover any doubt)

How do you think we should go about winning? By what methods or strategy? What would you recommend & why?

/Marg

The generals on the ground there should be making those recommendations. Then we should follow those recommendations. Nothing wrong with getting more that one opinion.

Winning would be defined as those fighting are a minimal threat at best and the Afghan gov would be taking over all or nearly all operations within there country

Do not mean to be evasive but, only those there have a valid opinion of what would work.

My point in the earlier post relates to this post in this way.

If the admin does not follow the generals recommendations then get out. Cause it would not appear to me we are willing to "do what it takes" to win

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If the admin does not follow the generals recommendations then get out. Cause it would not appear to me we are willing to "do what it takes" to win

For clarification, by "get out" above, you mean get out of Afghanistan, yes?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If the admin does not follow the generals recommendations then get out. Cause it would not appear to me we are willing to "do what it takes" to win

For clarification, by "get out" above, you mean get out of Afghanistan, yes?

/Marg

Correct

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

The US Should send more SF, CA, and PO troops. They should also send more USAID, State Dept. governance types, military and police trainers, and lots more development money.

Door kickers will not win this war. We already have plenty of those there, IMHO.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I voted yes but in this context.
Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives.

Remember when people said the same thing re: what to do in Vietnam? Everyone was telling them to do either A or B; but instead we did C, and the rest is history. I won't be surprised if the same thing happens this time around, too.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Well at least Ted Kennedy is out of the picture.

He did say that Iraq will become another Viet Nam.

Well I giess he was right because he was part of the problem during that war, and part of the problem with the war in Iraq.

Now we see the same ideology being used to fight the war in Afghanistan.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I voted yes but in this context.
Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives.

Remember when people said the same thing re: what to do in Vietnam? Everyone was telling them to do either A or B; but instead we did C, and the rest is history. I won't be surprised if the same thing happens this time around, too.

Yes, that is the fear and the danger

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The US Should send more SF, CA, and PO troops. They should also send more USAID, State Dept. governance types, military and police trainers, and lots more development money.

Door kickers will not win this war. We already have plenty of those there, IMHO.

Concur. So very strongly concur with the first three sentences.

I'm not sure if we do have enough 'door kickers' there. It's what we're asking them to do, in some cases, with which I find problems. 'Door kickers' are trained and usually execute very well their training ... that training is rarely in population-centric, counterinsurgency operations; reconstruction; or stability operations (as you well know).

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I voted yes but in this context.
Either go in to win this thing or, get the hell out cause if we are not there to win then please do not waste anymore lives.

Remember when people said the same thing re: what to do in Vietnam? Everyone was telling them to do either A or B; but instead we did C, and the rest is history. I won't be surprised if the same thing happens this time around, too.

No, I don't remember. What was "C"?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

So far almost half of the respondants have voted 'no'? I'm genuinely curious as to the underlying thinking?

If you don't want to post, send me a PM.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DanG 1]

I agree with you about training and effectiveness. I suppose more door kickers would be useful under McChrystal's leadership. He seems to "get it". If you kick in 100 doors, and find bad guys behind 10 of them, you've taken 10 baddies out of the action, and made 90 new enemies.

- Dan G

[tbrown 26]

How about an undecided option ?

On the one hand, we've made a commitment and Afghanistan has been regarded as the "good war" by even the anti-Iraq war crowd.

The main reason I can see us being in Afghanistan at all is to keep the Taliban from destabilizing Pakistan and getting hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Seems like a good enough reason to me.....

On the other hand, the history of foreign military involvement in Afghanistan is one of miserable failure by any country that's ever tried it. As the Russians can tell you, and as the English have learned two or three times in a row. Afghanis hate foreigners and make a national sport out of hunting them down and killing them. Always have & always will.

So we'd better have a very clear idea of what we want, it has to be something we can actually achieve, and we have to have an exit strategy planned. and in the meantime we'll need to accept ongoing and heavy losses of young American lives.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Krip 2]

Hi N

Reminds me of General Westmorland in the Nam.

Recentl releassed info reveal LBJ was of the opinion that the war in the nam was lost but westmoreland kept asking for more troops and LBJ kept sending them.

Generals aren't going to go public and say the war can't be won and we need to pull out. They simply ask for more troops, which will delay the pull out until they get promoted or retire.

One Jump Wonder

[downwardspiral 0]

Remind me...isn't McChrystal a former SF commander and current COIN guru?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[DanG 1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

- Dan G

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I agree with you about training and effectiveness. I suppose more door kickers would be useful under McChrystal's leadership. He seems to "get it". If you kick in 100 doors, and find bad guys behind 10 of them, you've taken 10 baddies out of the action, and made 90 new enemies.

Very much appreciate that concept. Suspect that's not uniformly appreciated ... but more are getting it.

From a COIN perspective, there is a huge deficit w/r/t training Afghan police as well as the other skill sets you mentioned and the folks to do it. And that's something that GEN McChyrstal specifically noted throughout the 'leaked' COMISAF initial assessment, as well as by others.

At the same time I'm not sure that there are enough 'door kickers' to enable security in Helmand, in Farah (how many folks outside of Tehran, intelligence analysts, and me even have western Afghanistan on their proverbial radar?), in Wardag (where the Hizb-e-Islami fighters led by Gulbudin Hikmatya dominate), and a few other provinces. One might argue that much of east (Khost, Kunar, Nangahar, etc) has too many 'door-kickers.' Not sure if that the detailed knowledge one needs or if that's starting to go from strategic to operational: where are which 'baddies' and how to deal with them.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Remind me...isn't McChrystal a former SF commander and current COIN guru?

Yes, he's Special Forces. More specifically Army Ranger. (Others can debate/disagree with me whether or not or too what extent that qualifies as SF.) One of the best, imo, ....oh, what's the word I'm looking for (brain-farting at the moment ) ... narrative biographical sketches by another SF officer: The Pope.

I wouldn't necessarily call him a COIN guru. He's a definite convert and viewed widely as an operator who can execute and implement COIN-based strategic objectives. Dave Kilcullen is a COIN guru.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TrophyHusband 0]

i voted yes, but what i really mean is that we should either give the generals what they need to accomplish the mission they've been given, or change the mission.

as far as changing the mission, i have too many questions about the situation, what needs to be done, how long it will take, and the downside of just walking away.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[DanG 1]

I suppose I just don't believe that there are enough soldiers and Marines in the US military to enable security in Afghanistan through conventional means. In a lot of ways, having more "cops on the corner" just means having more targets. There are undoubtedly baddies all over Helmand, but how many troops do you need to secure a province the size of Vermont? I believe the technical term for the required amount is, "an assload." We can send every swinging dick in the DoD to Afghanistan and we couldn't prevent people from blowing themselves up.

For me, victory means an Afghanistan that can govern itself, is economically viable to the point that militantism is not seen as a viable career alternative, can protect its borders from militants in Pakistan, and can enforce the rule of law on its citizens. That can only be achieved through development aid, governance training and monitoring, and police/military training.

Sending more troops won't change the ground reality.

- Dan G

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Reminds me of General Westmorland in the Nam.

The situation or GEN McChystal's request for more troops?

Quote

Recentl releassed info reveal LBJ was of the opinion that the war in the nam was lost but westmoreland kept asking for more troops and LBJ kept sending them.

Can you point to the those docs? (Not necessarily questioning the veracity ... I'm just a 'primary data' addict ... & not a Vietnam scholar by any means.)

If Pres Johnson was of that opinion, was it not his obligation to act accordingly? I.e., should the President *always* defer to his generals w/r/t troop deployment?

From what I do know about Vietnam, I do think that the Westmoreland and escalation cases are useful models to consider. I.e., history is not predicted but it shouldn't be ignored either.

At the same time, one should, imo, recognize that the strategic emphasis was different and that the operational strategies were *very* different - "search and destroy," the aggressive bombing campaigns against North Vietnam that SecDef McNamara feared would constitute genocide if increased (as Generals wanted) in a classified memo to Pres Johnson, etc.

Quote

Generals aren't going to go public and say the war can't be won and we need to pull out. They simply ask for more troops, which will delay the pull out until they get promoted or retire.

Has there ever been a case of a General that has said that and has not been effectively removed from power? (I don't know.) Adm Fallon went too far in some of his comments and retired. Are there counter-examples? (Anyone?)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying