Another 45,000 US troops needed in Afghanistan, military adviser says

[laststeamtrain]

Source: Times Online

From The Times
August 10, 2009
Another 45,000 US troops needed in Afghanistan, military adviser says

Michael Evans, Defence Editor



The United States should send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a senior adviser to the American commander in Kabul has told The Times.

Anthony Cordesman, an influential American academic who is a member of a team that has been advising General Stanley McChrystal, now in charge of Nato forces in Afghanistan, also said that to deal with the threat from the Taleban the size of the Afghan National Army might have to increase to 240,000.

If Mr Cordesman’s recommendation reflects the view of General McChrystal, who recently presented the findings of a 60-day review of Afghanistan strategy to Washington, it would mean sending another nine combat brigades, comprising 45,000 American troops, in addition to the 21,000 already approved by President Obama. This would bring the total American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000, considerably closer to the force that was deployed for the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq.

If General McChrystal believes that America should send nine more brigades — Mr Cordesman suggested it should be between three and nine brigades — there is bound to be pressure on Britain to send reinforcements as well. The British strength now is 9,000.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6789142.ece

[flyarm]

1. How many nations have gone under in wars in Afganistan? Anyone know the #'s?

This is nuts.we just sent 30,000 more of our kids into Afganistan...and where are the anti war dem folks??????

crickets...oh yeah..they are pushing pom pom sales..because it is now our Dems who are kicking up this war!

Well now the dems own the Afgan war...as does this Dem Pres.

well not in my name..damn it..not in my name.

This is a disaster!

And where are our Allies???????Bailing..they did not sign onto an endless war!

[laststeamtrain]

3. The Af/Pak War surge is a bail-out for the Military-Industrial-Media complex.

They're too big to fail.

[flyarm]

8. you bet your sweet bippy it is!! ..it's all about payoffs!..and i am damn sick of it! eom

[ieoeja]

16. Two. And the Pashtuns had extensive foreign help both times.

There were a lot of different invaders from 550BC to 1500 AD: Persians, Greeks, Bhuddist & Hindus, Arabs, Mongols and Persians again. But all of these were successful. So they definitely do not count as "gone under".

From about 1500 to 1747, Afghanistan was split. It finally came under Pashtun rule in 1747.

1. The British "went under" in Afghanistan. They fought the Pashtuns for almost a century from 1826 to 1919. Entire Russian armies occasionally sided with the Pushtun in this fighting.

2. The Soviets "went under" in Afghanistan. But only after the United States started supplying the Pashtuns with sophisticated weaponry that could defeat Soviet equipment. Prior to that they were losing badly.

[naaman fletcher]

20. To be successful, we need less troops:

The whole reason why we were successful in the early years there was precisely that we did not have a lot of troop there. The Afghans hate foreign invaders. We had a few hundred special ops. In fact, the first two guys on the ground were two ~30 year old captains with satellite phones, targeting systems, and suitcases of cash.

They organized local chieftans against the Taliban, and they were successful.

The regular army of course then wanted to move in and share the glory. The problem is that foreigners in foreign uniforms are exactly the one thing that can unite the Afghans- against us.

If we went back to providing air support to local chieftans, with a few hundred guys on the ground dressed in the native garb, we would be winning again.

[Vidar]

2. If the advisors & generals actually led from the front, the useless bastards

wouldn't be so careless with young lives.

[slackmaster]

4. General Westmoreland, Vietnam, 1967

It's all coming back...

[LuckyLib]

5. Yup. Here we go again -- Vietnam revisited.

[Brother Buzz]

6. Nine combat brigades?

I don't believe the US has another Battalion to pull out of it's collective ass without shortening the rotation cycle back home. Once upon a time the ratio of deployment to decompressing at home was 1:1. During the Bush administration the ratio was pared back to 15-month deployments with 12 month turnarounds; rough on soldiers and families.

General McChrystal, Rumsfeld almost has it right, "You go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.", or as the cynical old dumb draftee, Buzz says, "Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one gets filled first."

[subsuelo]

7. No, what is needed is for all US troops to leave.

Now.

[flyarm]

9. absolutely!.without a doubt..but that won't happen..gotta keep the MIC going! debts to pay you know!

[mbperrin]

10. Yes, now. Put them on planes and start the engines up.

The graveyard of empires is the other name for Afghanistan.

[hayu_lol]

11. The only invader to ever subjugate Afghanistan...

was Alexander The Great. No other foreign power has ever won control over the country.

Last two major efforts, the Raj and the Russians failed miserably.

[happyslug]

13. And Alexander promptly left the Country and headed for Pakistan.

Please Note this seems to be how Cyrus the Great also attacked the Indus River Valley two centuries BEFORE Alexander, and Cyrus's approach to Afghanistan was simple, it was just the best way from Persia to Pakistan, once both rulers had Pakistan both abandoned Afghanistan and transported their Army home via the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. Alexander marched with 1/2 of his men through Baluchistan, the desert between Southern Pakistan and Persia. In that March Alexander lost 2/3rds of the troops with him (The other half had gone by sea and survived more or less intact).

This decision to go home via one of the driest deserts in the world rather then through the known lands of Afghanistan has always puzzles historians. Most Historians believe Alexander's propaganda that it was the fastest way home, other see it differently, that he had already lost Afghanistan in all but name and preferred to fight the desert then the growing insurgency in Afghanistan.

In many ways Alexander's Conquest of Afghanistan was like the Russian invasion, a quick deceive victory and had the Russians then pulled out would have been viewed as a Victory of the Soviet State. This did NOT happen and the growing insurgency lead to the Russian pulling out by 1990. A good comparison can be made with the US and French invasions of Mexico, the US in 1848 and the French in 1862. The American Invasion is viewed as a complete Victory for all the US wanted to do was to force the Mexican government to give to the US territories where Americans had become the dominant group over the previous 20 years. On the other hand the French wanted to rule that part of Mexico where the Mexicans were the vast Majority, and that could be and was opposed by the Mexican people. Both the US and French won the initial invasion but the US then promptly pulled out, the French stayed and by the late 1860s forced to withdraw. Alexander seems to have decided by his invasion of India to handle Afghanistan like the US did Mexico, invade and move on, avoiding the debacle like what the French ran into in Mexico (And why Alexander went home via the Persian Gulf NOT Afghanistan even through he did NOT have the ships to sail all of his army home).

My point is no one has ever Conquered Afghanistan AND stayed to rule it, those, like Alexander, who took it and left it and considered to have "Won", while those that took it and STAYED sooner or later lost. Thus not even Alexander truly conquered Afghanistan.

Alexander the Great:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html
http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/alexander/
The Gedrosia Desert (Modern Baluchistan):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Baluchistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_(region)

Cyrus the Great:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

[gratuitous]

12. And 45,000 more troops will "win"? Guaranteed?

Gosh, it's just heart-breaking to see that historic beacon of democracy and good government, Afghanistan, come to this. We're so close to restoring the country, we just need another 45,000 men and women, and that'll settle things there once and for all. You don't want to lose Afghanistan just because you were too miserly to send 45,000 troops in, do you?

[Lost Jaguar]

14. I fear that...

...President Obama has advisors telling him that the war can be won, if we do this, or if we do that. We can prevail where all the other forces through history have failed. Because we are the United States of America, and we have the resources and the know-how. Many of these Best and the Brightest are academics or theoretical types, who have never heard a shot fired in anger. There are also some who have been under fire, and even gotten dirty, which enhances their credibility. Some articulate guy with a sunburn and scars who puts on a necktie and goes to the White House and speaks with confidence. Remember how JFK was so enamored with Green Berets. And they all have the hubris to imagine a victory if we just do the right thing; if we persevere.

But I believe they're wrong. There are plenty of theoreticians who even today believe Vietnam could have been won if we had done this, or if we had done that. And I believe they're wrong.

Generals will always ask for more troops. What general would say no if asked for more? But from where will these troops come, short of a draft? This is a march of folly.

And we're almost neck deep in the Big Muddy.

[jakeXT]

15. 45000 new jobs, why not a million ?

[provis99]

17. only 45,000?

You'll need at least 500,000 just to keep the country from sliding into anarchy, let alone defeating the Taliban and creating some kind of functioning government. We were losing in South Vietnam with 600,000 troops in 1969, when South Vietnam's population was only 14 million; Afghanistan has around 30+ million people, and an uncontrollable population.

My guess is it would take around 2 million troops, stationed for decades, to calm Afghanistan down.

[ShamelessHussy]

18. Afghanistan - Population: 32,738,376 (July 2008 est.)

I'd say they will need a lot more than that, considering the longer we are there, the more people we will be pissing off.

Afghanistan: Where Empires (US, USSR) Go To Die
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/afghanistan-where-empires_n_164344.html

[undeterred]

19. Sorry, we can't afford it.

[and-justice-for-all]

21. uh, tough shit...we should not be there anyway...nt

[sofa king]

22. Holy smokes! That's a lot of troops.

Two or more brigades can be grouped to form a division. Two or more divisions can be grouped to form a corps. Two or more corps can be grouped to form an army. This recommendation is effectively a request to send an additional army to Afghanistan (albeit a very small army).

And that, of course, is the cluster(*&^%$ that is Afghanistan. Unless one can put troops within sight of one another along the mountains lining each of ten thousand valleys, those who wish to continue fighting will always be able to get away by taking a rifle and a backpack full of supplies over the range to the next valley.

Some of them will probably wish to continue fighting until we leave.

Voltaire would be amused by all this, though:

"If you have nothing to tell us, but that on the banks of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, one barbarian has been succeeded by another barbarian, in what respect do you benefit the public?"

Technically, he's referring to the area between the rivers Amu and Syr Darya, home of the Stans to the north of Afghanistan. But he'd have no trouble recognizing that the Americans are the new barbarians, that they will be succeeded by others in short order, and that their presence in that region is insignificant.