Generals: More forces needed for Afghan offensive

By Steve Hynd

Following Ron's last post about piecemeal incremental escalation being a very real danger in Af/Pak - the Vietnam process whereby ceilings become floors - it should be noted that such escalation is already what the generals are advocating. But they'd prefer the escalation came from other than US troops.

The American general who recently left his post as the top commander in Europe said NATO allies could and should send more forces and specialized help such as medical helicopters for the widening fight in the south.

"Certainly I'd like to see more U.K. forces," Gen. John Craddock said, because home base for the major fight in the south is in Helmand province, where British forces have had the lead for years.

..."I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The fact of the matter is, we don't have enough Afghan forces," [Marine Brig. Gen. Larry] Nicholson said during a telephone briefing from Camp Leatherneck in southern Afghanistan. "And I'd like more."

...Nicholson also said he'd like more U.S. troops in the region, but that "I don't necessarily need more troops."

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen on Wednesday avoided discussing the possibility of sending more troops, telling a National Press Club audience that the new U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was still assessing his force needs.

Craddock said that review, due in mid-August, will be paired with a similar assessment by NATO.

"I think we'll hear shortly whether that's enough," he said of troops numbers.

The review will probably recommend subtle shifts in policy, such as an express focus on protecting civilians as the top mission, instead of hunting "bad guys," Craddock said.

That last sentence is highly significant. Although Obama stated plainly back in March that hunting bad guys and then getting out was the primary mission, military leaders like McChrystal have been speaking for months as if their Commander in Chief had never opened his mouth. Such a change in mission is definitely not a subtle one; it instead turns stated Af/Pak policy entirely on its head and means a major change in timeline. A full-on counter-insurgency campaign would take many years longer, involving many more deaths and billions more dollars, than a counter-terrorism one where COIN is simply part of the tool set at the operational level.

The military is preparing its infrastructure for exactly such a long war as well, to the enrichment of U.S. war profiteers.

DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corp. won Army contracts that could be valued at $15 billion over the next five years to build bases and other infrastructure for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The deals show how lucrative logistics contracts in Afghanistan will be, since the country has a far less developed infrastructure than Iraq.

Would anyone like to bet against there being thousands of more American soldiers bound for Quagmiristan before 12 months have passed, no matter what Obama might be saying publicly right now?

Comments

[John Ballard]

I'm not pro-war. In fact, I'm a card-carrying conscientious objector.

But I have to mention something that an eighty-seven year old senior mentioned a few hours ago. He was reading a retrospective on the sad legacy of Robert McNamara and making a comparison with US adventures in Vietnam and Iraq. In his mind wars=economic prosperity. And by that reasoning, ending the war in Iraq has contributed to the current economic mess.

One man's earmark is another man's stimulus. And I recall that when I was in Korea during the Vietnam era it was commonly believed that the Vietnam conflict presented for Korea the economic jump-start that the Korean conflict had been for post-war Japan. Consequently there were more Korean troops in Vietnam than American troops in Korea. So many, in fact, that Korean taxi drivers and teachers were going to Vietnam to work as drivers and translators for the forces there, sending money back home in the same way that immigrants to America routinely send money back to their homes in Central America, Africa or where ever they come from.

I have always regarded the military as the country's biggest employment program and spark plug to the economy. Is that cynical or what? In fact, I have been waiting for some time for a return to conscription.