The urge to surge in Afghanistan

Ann Marlowe:

Afghanistan needs many things, but two more brigades of U.S. troops are not among them.

Barack Obama said: "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.

Afghanistan's problems are not the same as Iraq's. Its people aren't recovering from a brutal, all-controlling tyranny, but from decades of chaos and centuries of bad government. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is largely illiterate and has a relatively undeveloped civil society. Afghan society still centers around the family and, for men, the mosque. Its society and traditions are still largely intact, in contrast to Iraq's fractured, urbanized and half-modernized population.

The Afghan insurgency has no broad popular base and doesn't mirror an obvious religious or ethnic fault line. It is also far more linked with Pakistani support than the Iraqi insurgency or militias were with Iran. Afghanistan needs a better president, judiciary and police force -- and a Pakistani government that is not playing footsie with the Taliban.

In Afghanistan, the situation can differ radically in provinces just a half-hour helicopter ride away. There has been much recent hysteria about an incident on July 13 when nine American soldiers were killed in an insurgent assault on a combat outpost in Want, in Nuristan (mistakenly reported as taking place in Wanat in neighboring Kunar Province). This was the deadliest attack on American soldiers since 16 troops were killed in Kunar in 2005. It was a tragic event, but does not demonstrate that the American effort in Afghanistan is on the brink of disaster, as some commentators have risibly argued.

...

I agree that the recent action involving the 173rd was by no means an indication of a disaster. I also believe that Obama hasn't a clue whether we need a surge in Afghanistan. That country has been used by Democrats so they can pretend to be tough on terrorism while opposing being tough on terrorism elsewhere including Iraq. It is ironic that the same people whose judgment was that the troop surge of 20 to 30 thousand troops in Iraq would fail think adding 10,000 to Afghanistan would be just right. In fact if we used the same logic they had in Iraq, we should be withdrawing troops from Afghanistan not adding them.

The fact is the Democrat and Obama have been clueless when it comes to strategic judgment about both theaters. Iraq has become a significant strategic defeat for al Qaeda and the terrorist have shifted their priorities toward Afghanistan in order to protect their flank in Pakistan.

Still I think Afghanistan could use more than just two additional brigades. We have seen the effect of adding the Marine unit near Garmser. It was devastating to the Taliban in the area and the Taliban have shown no ability to recover to date. There are several other areas that could use similarly aggressive action to deny real estate to the Taliban and their source of income from dope. Counterinsurgency operations are more effective when you have a high force to space ratio. We were able to achieve that in Iraq by adding our troops and even more Iraqi troops plus hiring local militias.

Afghanistan was originally planned as a small foot print operation. This was done to avoid the Afghan's perceiving US forces as an occupation force. That is one reason why the "taking the eye off the ball" nonsense is so far off base. What has happened is that we have developed a degree of trust with the Afghans so they would not be adverse to a larger force at this time.

If the forces become available because of success in Iraq then don't limit them to two brigades. Get enough to work with the Afghans in sealing the border. Also get more UAVs in country to stop the IED attacks and also to attack enemy forces in Pakistan.

A brief word about Pakistan is in order. We need to keep our main supply route through Pakistan open. That is why overt attacks in the tribal areas have been restrained. That said, Pakistan's posturing about not allowing foreign troops in the country is for local consumption. The fact of the matter is that if Pakistan can't handle a rag tag Taliban militia, they would have no chance in trying to resist combat forces from the US or NATO. In fact such an operation by coalition forces would be in Pakistan's interest, because it would rid it of a terrorist force that it has been unable to control.