Some issues weighing on the situation in Afghanistan.
We've increased our troop presence in Afghanistan for each of the last three years - to include >17k so far this year.
In January, the SecDef made clear the following:
Quote:
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee asks Secretary Gates about “the speed of our force drawdown in Iraq and our force increase in Afghanistan.”
Gates says that “should the president make the final decision to deploy additional brigades to Afghanistan,” two combat brigades could arrive “probably by late spring,” and potentially “a third by mid-summer.” But infrastructure to “support and sustain” a force that size would probably not allow additional troop increases in 2009. So three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan would have to be all for this year, if President Obama makes the decision to send more troops, and regardless of how fast a troop drawdown in Iraq proceeds.
http://washingtonindependent.com/274...ssible-in-2009
|
According to a former member of the Afghan Parliament:
Quote:
In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament.
<snip>
Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.
You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.
For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.
<snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...liban-warlords
|
GEN McChrystal's analysis:
Quote:
COMISAF's Initial Assessment
30 Aug 2009
<snip>
Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate.
NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) requires a new strategy that is credible to, and sustainable by, the Afghans. This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment.
To execute the strategy, we must grow and improve the effectiveness of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and elevate the importance of governance. We must also prioritize resources to those areas where the population is threatened, gain the initiative from the insurgency, and signal unwavering commitment to see it through to success. Finally, we must define the nature of the fight, clearly understand the impacts and importance of time, and change our operational culture.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100502241.html
|
It's a complex and messy situation - both internally and externally - for which I and so many others more knowledgable of the situation than me certainly have no absolute answers. Thus far, from what I've read and heard, nobody (except the former VP) seems to be clear either on the 'urgency' of GEN McChrystal's proposals and whether or not the Administration's actions are - in fact - 'dithering.'
So...would one call the former administration's and NATO's not acting on then COMISAF GEN McKiernan's request for more troops for over 8 months
'acting in a thorough manner' or '
dithering'?
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02
