US General asks for more troops

[Warspite]

My issue with the current mission is that while I do think we should keep at it, no one has actually asked why were the Taliban successful in holding sway of most of the country until 2001? Until we know this, I don't think we can really beat them.

Support from the Pakistani Intelligence Services?

I'd be worried if support from a third-world state's intelligence service was a decisive factor in favour when our billions of dollars can't produce a stable countryside.

[Valmy]

I'd be worried if support from a third-world state's intelligence service was a decisive factor in favour when our billions of dollars can't produce a stable countryside.

The Taliban didn't  produce a stable countryside, warlordism was rampant.  Our goals and means are totally different.

[Berkut]

I don't buy the idea that we cannot manage to control Afghanistan, even if NATO put a decent effort into it, therefore, there is no reason to put a decent effort into it.

We ahve experts there who say what they need, and they have been saying the same thing for a long time - they need more troops, more money, more support.

We are going to not give it to them, then sit back and say "well, we don't think it would really work even if we gave you what you say you need". Bullshit - that is just excuse making.

If Afghanistan ends up a failure, it will be because the West decided it wasn't important enough to succeed. It is just that simple.

[Warspite]

I don't buy the idea that we cannot manage to control Afghanistan, even if NATO put a decent effort into it, therefore, there is no reason to put a decent effort into it.

We ahve experts there who say what they need, and they have been saying the same thing for a long time - they need more troops, more money, more support.

Are these experts saying it's a sure thing with money and support?

I know the money hasn't exactly been limited. All the reports I read are about its wasteful use; in Western donor culture, the focus is on disbursement, rather than effective use. Politically, despite all these resources, Afghanistan is a sorry state. The Ministry of the Interior is a corrupt morass of self-serving kleptocrats. Locals joke that, to remove crime in an area, you should remove the Police. (The Afghan National Army, however, is quite good, although smaller than needed)

We are going to not give it to them, then sit back and say "well, we don't think it would really work even if we gave you what you say you need". Bullshit - that is just excuse making.

If Afghanistan ends up a failure, it will be because the West decided it wasn't important enough to succeed. It is just that simple.

So you dismiss without consideration the school of thought that says state-making in a rugged, backwards, tribally-dominated state is, in practical terms, near enough impossible?

[Valmy]

Also I guess I considered the goals of the operation was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and leave Aghanistan in somewhat decent shape.  I did not realize it was considered a reasonable expectation to create a stable democratic sort of state.  I mean naturally we want it to be as stable and democratic as possible under the circumstances.

[Warspite]

Also I guess I considered the goals of the operation was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and leave Aghanistan in somewhat decent shape.  I did not realize it was considered a reasonable expectation to create a stable democratic sort of state.  I mean naturally we want it to be as stable and democratic as possible under the circumstances.

The problem is that even creating a functioning centralised state has proven extremely difficult.

[Berkut]

So you dismiss without consideration the school of thought that says state-making in a rugged, backwards, tribally-dominated state is, in practical terms, near enough impossible?

I dismiss the argument that almost anything is "impossible", yes. Not sure where you get "without consideration" though.

People were saying the same thing about Iraq, btw - that any success there was absolutely impossible no matter what was done. Oops.

We can control Afghanistan, if we put in enough troops and enough funds. If we do not, then I suppose we can try to make ourselves feel better by claiming that there was never any chance to begin with, although that would then suggest that we should never have toppled the Taliban to begin with, even if they were hiding AQ.

[Berkut]

Also I guess I considered the goals of the operation was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and leave Aghanistan in somewhat decent shape.  I did not realize it was considered a reasonable expectation to create a stable democratic sort of state.  I mean naturally we want it to be as stable and democratic as possible under the circumstances.

The problem is that even creating a functioning centralised state has proven extremely difficult.

No question it is extremely difficult - especially on the cheap and when the people trying to accomplish anything are hamstrung by lack of resources or will.

The sad thing is that when it does fail due to laack of resources, the people who created the failure in the first place get to sit back and say "See, told you it would fail!"

[Agelastus]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Berkut, do I have to take you off my (non-existent) Christmas card list on behalf of 216 men who will now and forever be better men than I could ever be?

[Barrister]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

Look up "paltry" in the dictionary.

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

We've had between one and two thousand troops in Afghanistan nearly continuously since '03.  Our armed forces only total about 50k, of which sadly many are more administrative people, or are in the airforce or navy.  We don't have all that many more troops we could send.

And our troops have been fighting and dying that entire time.  They have not been restricted to Kabul like some nations.

On a per capita basis we have done our share.  You can argue we ought to have a larger army and so ought to be able to send more troops.  You can make that argument.  But to call our contribution "paltry and sad" when we literally sent as many trooops as we could is just not accurate.

[Warspite]

AFAIK the Canucks had the highest casualty rate per thousand personnel years - by far.

[The Minsky Moment]

We already went through this with Iraq.  The generals asked for an infusion of more troops and delineated a strategy for their use.  Many people expressed skepticism, along similar lines as here.  I was one of those skeptics.  The generals were right.  The skeptics were not.  The policy worked - not 100%, but just about as well as any counterinsurgency strategy could reasonably expected to work.  One could reasonably argue about whether we should have been there in the first place, etc. but as to whether the Iraq "surge" was good policy I can't really see the other side of the argument anymore.

Now of course one could say Afghanistan is different, the strategic posture is different, the planned use of the troops is different, etc. etc.  But bottom line is that a choice is presented - does one take the generals at their word and give them their shot or not? 

I think they earned their shot.

[Warspite]

The generals in Iraq also fused their efforts with an effective political strategy. I am sure (or I hope) they have a better one for Afghanistan, beyond 'back Karzai'.

[crazy canuck]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

While what we did contribute stretched our armed forces to the breaking point, it is still a drop in the bucket compared to what should have been contributed by the world community.

[Barrister]

The generals in Iraq also fused their efforts with an effective political strategy. I am sure (or I hope) they have a better one for Afghanistan, beyond 'back Karzai'.

I don't think the US has been backing Karzai for at least a year now.