Increased troops for Afghanistan not a surge

Michael O'Hanlon:

What happens when the world's best counterinsurgency force meets a witch's brew of terrorists, multiple insurgencies and hardened narco-traffickers deep in the interior of Eurasia? In Afghanistan in 2009, we are about to find out, with huge consequences for that country and the region, as well as American security.

Geostrategically, Afghanistan is not as inherently important as Iraq, but the Afghan-Pakistan theater has become the focal point of extremist groups such as al-Qaeda, so we must treat this war as a priority. Thankfully, with U.S. forces downsizing in Iraq, President-elect Barack Obama and his new defense team may now have the means.

Under the new U.S. strategy proposed by Commanding Gen. David McKiernan, the United States will finally be playing for keeps in Afghanistan. It will roughly double its force totals from about 32,000 to almost 60,000, while increasing the number of U.S. combat brigades from two to six. A NATO-led coalition with particularly impressive contributions from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands provides an additional 30,000 troops. Those countries are unlikely to augment their forces, but they should at least hold steady into 2010-11.

...

Of course, Americans need to keep expectations in check for this country in which failure could mean a terrorist haven next door to unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan. The regional and national security implications for the United States are substantial.

Yet Afghanistan has a long way to go, and things are likely to get worse before they get better in 2009, as increased U.S. forces move into previously uncontested areas. Gen. McKiernan rightly emphasizes that the added U.S. troop totals should not be seen as a surge because they will be needed at these new, higher levels for years to come. One of their missions will be to better prepare Afghan security forces, which remain far too limited in number and in capability, and which must grow even beyond the recently increased target of about 200,000 personnel. It could also take five years to see Pakistan clamp down more effectively on its border regions assuming it is serious about trying to do so. Working with President Hamid Karzai (who must run for re-election this year), other Afghan leaders and key allies, President Obama will likely need all of his first term to really turn things around.

But as 2009 begins, and after decades of war and turmoil, there is finally reason for guarded hopefulness about the country of Afghanistan.

The point on the definition of surge is a technical one, but it is important. There should be no expected draw down after a year. I thought his statement on geostrategy was also very interesting, especially for a Democrat. O'Hanlon has always had more integrity than most Democrats on the issue of Iraq and this statement reinforces the point.

I think getting a better force to space ratio in Afghanistan is essential to a successful counterinsurgency operation.