US General asks for more troops

[Agelastus]

You really should take the time to read more carefully.

If one or your posts has said the USA, Canada and the UK, I will apologise unreservedly; however, as I go back to re-read the thread, I am not convinced this will be the case, as I first posted a similar comment (albeit in much less...pronounced...form, two pages ago in this thread.

Basically, you have said or implied in your posts that only Canada supported the USA by sending its troops into harm's way, and the rest of NATO has not. As far as I am aware, the UK is part of NATO, and although we cannot match the proportion of dead to troops deployed, 216 of my countrymen have died supporting our American allies in Afghanistan.

[Berkut]

Basically, you have said or implied in your posts that only Canada supported the USA by sending its troops into harm's way,

That is basically totally untrue.

Go back and re-read the thread without the chip on your shoulder. I never said anything about the UK in particular, and the only thing I have said is that NATO in general needs to step up.

The does include the UK - it includes all the NATO nations - although obviously this is directed more at those who have done less than those who have done more.

[Agelastus]

According to Wikipedia:

29950 out of 1097050 (including reserves) 2.7%
9000 out of 146100 (including reserves) 6.2%

Yes, you are committed to Iraq as well, I know, but before you start mouthing off about -

* 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.

please note that as a proportion of our army we have twice as high a percentage as your country does in Afghanistan.

Canada did and is still doing sterling service in Afghanistan, but please do not blow off your other allies and their soldiers who have died alongside yours.

[citizen k]

Analysis: Obama's caught in a vise on Afghanistan troop levels

More U.S. troops to Afghanistan? Obama's caught in a vise
By Steven Thomma, Jonathan S. Landay and David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — With the military and Republicans publicly pressuring him to send more troops to Afghanistan soon and his own administration now deeply divided about how to proceed there, the eight-year war against al Qaida and the Taliban has become an increasingly urgent policy and political dilemma for President Barack Obama .

He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.

Obama's decision could be a defining moment of his presidency, and it will reveal much about how he leads. Friends and enemies around the world will be watching — and judging — whether he's firmly in charge or whether he instinctively seeks some safe middle ground.

"This is tough for Democrats. They own this war. They own what happens from here on out. This is a bit of a mess for them all the way around," said Juan Carlos Zarate , a senior adviser at Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former official in the Bush and Clinton administrations.

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider "dithering" from the White House . Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday that he isn't ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan , someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing that more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

The White House insisted anew Monday that the president won't be stampeded into a quick decision on more troops, saying that he first wants to make sure there's a sound strategy in place to secure Afghanistan and make certain that it can't be used as a haven for al Qaida terrorists, as it was before 2001.

His hesitation reflects deep divisions within his own administration and deep uncertainty about whether, even with tens of thousands more troops, the U.S. can succeed in Afghanistan without a less corrupt and legitimately elected Afghan government, greater cooperation from neighboring Pakistan and more time and money than the American public and the Congress may be willing to commit.

Opponents of escalation, led by Vice President Joe Biden and his national security adviser, Antony Blinken ; Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon; and deputy secretaries of state Jacob Lew and Jim Steinberg , fear that Afghanistan is a quagmire that will further undermine the administration's domestic political agenda and hurt the Democrats in next year's congressional elections.

The Pentagon itself is sharply divided over what to do, said several defense officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity, with much, but not all, of the uniformed military lined up behind Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan . McChrystal wrote the leaked memo, but top policy advisers such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy oppose his plan. Some senior officers also are concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan would add to the already severe strains on an Army and Marine Corps from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Opponents of a buildup contend that al Qaida , which they note is based in Pakistan , not in Afghanistan , could be neutralized by having U.S. special forces standing by and ready to attack bin Laden's followers once actionable intelligence on their locations is acquired.

This group "wants to find an area where you can pay off enough warlords to provide you with security and then launch from there," another defense official said, requesting anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. Meantime, he said, this group would continue building up and training Afghan security forces.

That alternative, however, would require more U.S. troops to train Afghan forces.

McChrystal and other proponents of committing more troops argue, as his memo does, that success in Afghanistan is "still achievable" but without more U.S. troops soon, the war "will likely result in failure."

The internal debate behind closed doors comes as the American people increasingly oppose the war. In one recent poll for CNN , 58 percent said they opposed the war, while 39 percent favored it. The poll was conducted Sept 11-13 .

They also don't much like the idea of sending more troops. A McClatchy-Ipsos poll at the end of August found 56 percent of Americans opposed to sending more troops, while 35 percent favored it.

Not surprisingly, many Democrats in Congress oppose sending more troops. Many of them will face re-election next year.

"It would be a major mistake to increase troop levels — we're getting sucked into something we'll never be able to get out of," said Rep. Jim McGovern , D- Mass.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey , D- Calif. , said it would be a waste of manpower to send more troops to Afghanistan . "There's no military solution to Afghanistan ," she said.

Other Democrats want to wait for Obama to take the lead rather than risk splitting with their leader over a controversial war in the first year of his presidency.

"Until the president makes a decision on this, I think we're really jumping way ahead of ourselves to find out what we need in Afghanistan ," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev.

Republicans are urging Obama to give McChrystal what he wants — and threatening to lambaste Obama if he backs down.

Rep. John Boehner , R- Ohio , his party's leader in the House of Representatives , noted that Obama in March endorsed the idea of a strong counterinsurgency strategy to secure Afghanistan .

"I am deeply troubled, however, by reports that the White House is delaying action on the general's request for more troops . . . . It's time for the president to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated, because the longer we wait, the more we put our troops at risk."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky echoed Boehner in calling for Obama to give McChrystal what he asks: "Anything less would confirm al Qaida's view that America lacks the strength and the resolve to endure a long war."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama refuses to be rushed into a decision and that he won't order more troops unless a clear strategy demands that.

"The president obviously has seen General McChrystal's report and has had a chance to look at it and is in the process of, with his national security team and those at the Pentagon , working through some of the strategic assessments that the president thinks need to be evaluated," Gibbs said.

Gibbs refused to say whether that might include scaling back the Afghanistan mission to a strategy focused more narrowly on al Qaida leaders.

"The president is going to focus on getting the strategy right," Gibbs said, "and I'm not going to go through what options he may or may not have."

There are currently 65,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan . There are expected to be 68,000 by November with the arrival of the last of the 17,700 troops and 4,000 trainers Obama ordered in the spring. There are an additional 39,000 NATO troops.

( William Douglas and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)

[Agelastus]

There are currently 65,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan . There are expected to be 68,000 by November with the arrival of the last of the 17,700 troops and 4,000 trainers Obama ordered in the spring. There are an additional 39,000 NATO troops.

It seems Wikipedia's behind or not recording correctly.

I don't have a breakdown for the above figure, but assuming it would mostly come under army personnel, that would be 6.2% as well. Same level of effort, Berkut, although your army is better equipped.

[Agelastus]

Actually, it would have been better if I expressed the figures as a percentage of total armed forces, although that still distorts the figures (due to the size of the US navy relative to he Royal Navy, neither of which service can have many troops on the ground.)

According to Wikipedia

68000 out of 2932400 inc reserves. - 2.3%
9000 out of 233600 inc. reserves. - 3.9%

The thing of it is, I don't disagree with you - NATO needs to get its' act together and flood Afghanistan with something like a hundred to a hundred and fifty thousand more troops. If we fail in Afghanistan it will be another message to the extremists that democracies cannot stay the course for a long war. If British troops need to be in Afghanistan 30 years from now, then they should be there 30 years from now.

What I can't stand is the way you have insulted the efforts my country has already put in with your off-hand remarks.

[Valmy]

He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.

Fuck the Liberal base...what are they going to do?  Vote Republican?

Isn't this the guy who was so gung ho about prosecuting this war he wanted to invade the Pakistan tribal areas during the primaries?  WTH?

Obama better not fuck this one up.

[Zanza]

I used to support German involvement in Afghanistan, I even supported more involvement, e.g. helping out in the south. But I am no longer convinced that it does anything tangible. We should consider withdrawing with the Canadians and Dutch in the next two years.

It's possible that an increased amount of soldiers and money like the surge might result in more tangible results, but frankly that's not a price I am willing to pay. I think there are other things that are more important and we should use our limited resources for that. 

[Hansmeister]

I wish the old languish hadn't gone tits up, I had said a few years ago to the people whining that Iraq was hopeless and we should focus on Afghanistan that Iraq was a much easier problem to solve than Afghanistan (while also stating that success in Iraq would have much higher external benefits than success in Afghaistan would bring).  Running COIN in Afghanistan has always seemed an incredibly difficult task, and even though big Army has finally grasped COIN the environment is still extremely difficulty.  Even the rumoured request for an additional 40,000 troops would leave Afghanistan with less troops than Iraq had prior to the surge, while having a landmass thrice the size with a 20 percent larger population and much smaller Afghani securty forces.  And I haven't even talked about the logistical challenges (which are about 2.5 times higher per Soldier than in Iraq).  We're looking at a very long path towards progress, probably at least three years before we can even think about reducing our footprint again, and that is under the most optimistic scenario.  When asked at my think tank about Afghanistan I always say that we have to think in terms of generations not in years.  Alas, most of them seem to think Afghanistan is either hopeless or not worth the effort and we should focus on hunter/killer teams chasing down Al Qaeda, a strategy that of course has about zero chance of success.

Obama's been sitting on the report because he doesn't want it to distract from the health care issue, which isn't going anywhere.  Thus, the report was leaked to the press to force his hand.  McCrystal was ordered to provide a strategy report without accompanied force level requests, which is odd but again played into the WH strategy of trying to evade debating the subject.  The problem is that even without the request for forces element the report is dire enough to cause alarm.  The NSA advisor Jim Jones had already flat-out stated that any additional request for forces would result in a WTF? from the WH.  The WH and their advisors are against any increase of troops, while Gates, Hillary, and Holbrooke are very much for it.

In the end I don't think Obama can refuse the request, because he then would own failure in Afghanistan.  There is no way Obama could convince a sceptical public that he knows better than McCrystal, whom he put in charge in Afghanistan, and Patreus, who won in Iraq, how we can achieve success in Afghanistan (though he does seem at times delusional as to the ability of his own oratory, no doubt helped along by the idolation of the msm). 

[Valdemar]

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

I do, unfortunately, believe that sad record is with the Danes atm

And despite the US centric ways of Berkut and the usual overloking of small nations, Denmark has been in from the start, in Kandahar, with the british, in full combat roles, with, in terms of ratio men/total armed forces sizes, one of the largest contributions at all.

V

[Sheilbh]

And despite the US centric ways of Berkut and the usual overloking of small nations, Denmark has been in from the start, in Kandahar, with the british, in full combat roles, with, in terms of ratio men/total armed forces sizes, one of the largest contributions at all.

Danes and the Dutch have both taken on quite a lot, I believe.

[Warspite]

Thanks for your post Hans, we were talking today here at work about whether Obama could refuse this request.

[Valdemar]

And despite the US centric ways of Berkut and the usual overloking of small nations, Denmark has been in from the start, in Kandahar, with the british, in full combat roles, with, in terms of ratio men/total armed forces sizes, one of the largest contributions at all.

Danes and the Dutch have both taken on quite a lot, I believe.

Aye But there are 3 times as many Dutch to throw at the Taliban as there are Danes

We are atm close to 1000 men there (927 IIRC, penquin would know) most if not all in combat roles in forward bases in Helmand and of those we have lost if memory serves me 29.

I know these numbers seem small to the US, UK, CA, but in relative terms this is very close to the limit of what can be supported with the very small armed force base of pro soldiers Denmark has avaiable while still contesting Canada over HAns island  and fighting pirates of Somalia with a frig

V

[KRonn]

He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.

Fuck the Liberal base...what are they going to do?  Vote Republican?

Isn't this the guy who was so gung ho about prosecuting this war he wanted to invade the Pakistan tribal areas during the primaries?  WTH?

Obama better not fuck this one up.

I agree. I support Pres Obama on Afghanistan, but that's dependent on him pursuing policies for success, or at least putting forth a strong, good faith effort. Seems we, finally and belatedly did so in Iraq, and while it remains to be seen over the long haul how that turns out, I feel we showed that we/West could win an insurgency. I think that should now be touted more strongly that we have some good success in Iraq and that we can pursue similar goals in Afghanistan, rather than the doom and gloom even before Obama makes a strong commitment.

On that note, I am getting a bit annoyed that the admin can't decide what to do, though in their defense they have added more troops already. But are now indecisive on strategy and direction. After all, they had massive TARP, Stimulus bills passed, Cap and Trade and Health Care bill proposals, and more, all in the first few months. For Afghanistan the administration has smart Generals who have good ideas, plans and knowledge; put more of that into action, and get going.

[Berkut]

According to Wikipedia:

29950 out of 1097050 (including reserves) 2.7%
9000 out of 146100 (including reserves) 6.2%

Sorry, but I don't accept the excuse that you have a pathetically small military. That is a choice, and one that could have been rectified at any point in the last decade had there been a little will to do so.

Yes, you are committed to Iraq as well, I know, but before you start mouthing off about -

* 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.

please note that as a proportion of our army we have twice as high a percentage as your country does in Afghanistan.

A meaningless measure of national will.

Canada did and is still doing sterling service in Afghanistan, but please do not blow off your other allies and their soldiers who have died alongside yours.

I have not blown anyone off.