Loser lobby switches to Afghanistan

CNN:

NATO has "lost" its military campaign in Afghanistan, a former UN envoy warned Thursday, as Britain's prime minister met his Afghan counterpart and coalition defense ministers struggled with strategies in the war-ravaged country.

Former UN High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina Paddy Ashdown warned major instability was inevitable in the region if resurgent Islamic extremists gained the upper hand.

"We have lost, I think, and success is now unlikely," Ashdown told British newspaper the Daily Telegraph.

He said the implications for losing in Afghanistan were worse than losing in Iraq.

"It will mean that Pakistan will fall and it will have serious implications internally for the security of our own countries and will instigate a wider Shiite-Sunni regional war on a grand scale," Ashdown said, comparing its potential scale to that of World War I or II.

His comments preceded a meeting between Gordon Brown and Afghan President Hamid Karzai at Downing Street in London.

At a press conference Karzai called for continued commitment from the international community, but added he wants to gradually give more responsibility to the Afghan people.

"Is it time to leave Afghanistan? No. Is it time to add more responsibility to the Afghan people? Yes," Karzai said.

"While that commitment by the international community is necessary and important, we must also concentrate on reducing the burden from the international community and adding more of that to the shoulders of Afghanistan," Karzai said.

Brown called for greater "burden sharing" in the battle against the Taliban.

"We have got the Taliban on the defensive by the combined efforts of everyone," he said.

"We are all determined that Afghanistan should never become a failed state again, and to support the democracy that's been created in that country."

...

Ashdown's comments make no sense. The Taliban is a crippled organization that has lost every confrontation with NATO forces sometimes at a rate as high as 100 to one. It is ridiculous to suggest we are losing to the poorly trained light infantry of the Taliban. We could speed the victory against them with more troops and that may be what all the buzz is about. Perhaps Ashdown is trying to motivate the other members of NATO to get serious about participating in the victory.

Richard Cohen who is also pushing for greater NATO participation makes the ridiculous statement today that "...NATO casualties have been significant." By know reasonable measure can NATO casualties in Afghanistan be considered significant militarily. To be significant militarily casualties have to effect the ability of a unit to operate as intended. It is rare that casualties in Afghanistan would wipe out a four man fire team, much less companies or battalions of troops. While a SEAL team may be wiped out, we have sufficient forces to absorb casualties and continue to pursue the mission.

The honest issue for Afghanistan force levels is that a modest surge of forces is needed to make the counter insurgency effort more effective. When you increase your force to space ratio and put the troops where they can protect the people the way Gen. Petraeus has done in Iraq you can be much more effective in destroying the enemy's ability to operate. If you are having to buy the same real estate more than once, that is a sign that you have an inadequate force to space ratio.

We should be able to get that commitment without have to exaggerate the casualties or the difficulty in Afghanistan.