Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senators, Military Advisers Urge Obama to Double Afghan Forces
President Barack Obama and top U.S. military commanders are under pressure from influential senators and civilian advisers to double the size of Afghan security forces, a commitment that would cost billions of dollars.
U.S. Army soldiers from Gator Company, 2-12 Infantry, 4th Brigade run for cover from small arms fire following an attack on a transport convoy in the Pesh Valley in Afghanistan's Kunar Province August 4, 2009.
REUTERS/Tim Wimborne In private letters and face-to-face meetings, these supporters of mounting a stronger effort against the Taliban seek to boost the Afghan National Army and police to at least 400,000 personnel from the current 175,000.
"Any further postponement" of a decision to support a surge in Afghan forces will hamper U.S. efforts to quell an insurgency in its eighth year, Senators Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote to the White House in a July 21 letter provided to Bloomberg News.
General Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, will recommend a speedier expansion of Afghan forces beyond current targets in an assessment he will give Defense Secretary Robert Gates and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen by Aug. 14, according to a military official familiar with the review.
McChrystal has heard from civilian advisers who studied the war effort. The general won't suggest in the report how many more U.S. or NATO troops would be needed to train those Afghan forces or to boost the U.S. fighting effort, the official said.
In a meeting last week with Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, the deputy national security adviser who oversees Afghan policy at the White House, Levin said a substantial expansion of Afghan forces is essential and that he would support funding for that, according to Levin spokeswoman Tara Andringa.
Earlier Letter
In a May 19 letter to Obama, 17 Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Levin, Lieberman, and Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, urged a doubling of Afghan forces. They cautioned Obama against "taking an incremental approach" that "does not reflect the realities on the ground."
The U.S. already has agreed to fast-track the buildup of combined Afghan security forces to 134,000 Army personnel and 96,800 police -- 230,800 in all -- by 2011, according to U.S. Central Command. The Defense Department has requested $7.5 billion for fiscal year 2010 to fund the expansion.
More Afghan troops would bolster U.S. efforts to conduct joint operations, said Major General Curtis Scaparrotti, the commander for NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan, where the U.S. is the lead nation in the coalition.
‘Greater Capacity'
"I do see a need for a greater capacity within the Afghan national security forces," Scaparrotti told reporters at the Pentagon today via video link from Afghanistan. "General McChrystal has stated we look at not only building their competency but building their capacity at a quicker pace."
Training and equipping 170,000 additional forces would balloon costs and require thousands more foreign military advisers, a commitment the Obama administration has thus far been reluctant to make.
Senators argued in their May letter that building Afghanistan's own forces is far cheaper than sending American soldiers -- making clear they would support administration requests for funds to train and equip Afghan troops.
“For the cost of a single American soldier in Afghanistan, it is possible to sustain 60 or more Afghans,â€
A similar message was drummed home by a dozen civilian national security experts in meetings with McChrystal and in a written report they gave him after a month in Afghanistan assessing ground conditions.
McChrystal asked the analysts from the secretary of defense's office, the Congressional Research Service, Washington research institutions, the European Union and a French think tank for help in preparing the strategic assessment.
Decision ‘Avoided'
Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who has sought an expansion of Afghan forces, said the commitment "is a decision that we have avoided making for far too long."
Retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert, predicts doubling the size of the Afghan Army would likely be a five-year, $25 billion proposition that would require 12,000 U.S. military trainers. Those troops would have to be reassigned from other duties.
The realization in Washington "of the scope and scale of what would be required in Afghanistan is frankly causing waves," said Nagl, a member of the Defense Policy Board that advises the secretary of defense. He is president of the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
In February and March, Obama pledged 17,000 additional U.S. ground troops and 4,000 trainers, all of whom will be on the ground by the end of September, said Major John Redfield, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.
There are 62,000 U.S. troops and 40,500 non-U.S. NATO forces in Afghanistan, the highest number since the war to oust the Taliban began in 2001.

91 Comments so far
Show AllHey, hey, Barack Obama! How many more deaths to Afghan children and mommas?!!
Poet
Friggin war mongering SOBs. May they burn in some new hell created just for them.
Vietnam part II. Stay tuned. They probably have an artist waiting in the wings to create the next Vietnam Memorial ten years from now. Nothing like planning ahead, you know.
We cannot have a single payer health system or visionary environmental policy - but rest assured - when it comes to killing, occupation, murdering non-combatants with unmaned drones, and perpetual war, the pond scum hands over a blank check.
At least the Viet Nam occupation eventually ended.
Since then, the military industrial media complex has gotten smarter and will make sure the US has an eternal occupation in the Middle East to assure them an eternal revenue stream.
Shades of Nixon.
Lakshmanan sez: "For the cost of a single American soldier in Afghanistan, it is possible to sustain 60 or more Afghans."
***
If it weren't for all the death and destruction, this would read like something from The Onion.
This is probably just the MIC looking at the financial sector's recent windfall and the billions the wealth-care industry is about to reap, and deciding it's about time to boost its own take.
McChrystal has heard from civilian advisers who studied the war effort.
Now you're in real serious trouble. The true hardcore jerkoffs have studied the problem. Best of luck.
Pure Insanity and unfettered evil!!
It's spelled P-A-N-I-C.
If only Obama would have told us this was the plan while running for office!
Oh wait, right, he did... and the Democratic loyalists chose to ignore it.
Are you folks going to vote Dem again in 2010? 2012?
So with the midterm election coming up in a year, the choice is between the 2 big parties, for Congress and local.
Do you want more Republicans in?
Now the question is if the progressive 3rd parties can at least unite so that voting for an independent will have a chance in a few districts.
Saying "vote 3rd party" does not change anything ..... there are many of them including the right wing ones..
So if you know the reality of the winner take all system. What will you do?
Jim Glover - I will work as hard as I can for the candidate who supports my views. If none exists I will work for no one and write in a candidate. Maybe I will contribute to strengthing the third party of my choice in my area.
I will do everything but contribute to the winner take all system. My vote is my only political capital. It might be worthless, but I certainly am not prostituting it for the lesser of two evils.
I think I made the correct decision in 2008.
If everyone voted their conscience instead of making a calculated political decision, perhaps we would be in a different place. Perhaps not, but at least this way my karma is clean ;0)
But seriously, what does voting for the democrats do? Please provide me an example of legislation forwarded these past 2 years that benefits the people instead of the MIC and corporations.
What will you do Jim?
"If none exists I will work for no one and write in a candidate."
everyone should write in themselves!!!
anything's better than the lesser of two evils.
I will vote for the best I can find, I have made protest votes before and probably again.
I do not rule out voting for a Dem if they are progressive enough. The lesser of two "evils", I do not rule out because there are many shades of evil.
There are some good progressives in Congress but not enough, so I want to support more if I can.
My conscious is clear about that and I will never go along with this "vote 3rd party" rap that demonizes even the progressive Dems. I will choose for myself who is evil and it is against my conscious to demonize everyone in a party.
So on that subject maybe we can agree to disagree.
I will keep the option of the protest vote, but the Blue Dog Dems need to be removed and voting for yourself will not change anything. If everybody did it things would change but if everybody did the same thing we would not need elections.
Jim sez: "there are many shades of evil"
It all looks the same from here, friend.
Choosing the "lesser" is still choosing evil.
All "evil" looks the same to those who think they are pure.
stamping out "evil" has been the excuse for most war crimes too.
I sounds like an old myth.
Jim, it sounds like you want to talk in non sequiturs.
We aren't talking about abstract evil.
We are talking about the "evil" policies embraced by both Democrats and Republicans.
The "evil" we are referring to is real. It's our wars, our police state, our surveillance, our destruction of the environment etc...
Did you forget that?
So if we are urging people to stop supporting the "lesser of two evils" (AKA Democrats) would you care to explain how your statement -
"stamping out "evil" has been the excuse for most war crimes too"
- would apply?
Because it sounds like a flippant non sequitur.
Or are you seriously comparing the anti-war movement to, say, events like the Spanish Inquisition?
If you don't want to define "evil" as torture, false imprisonment and aggressive/genocidal warfare, then what are you saving the term for?
"All 'evil' looks the same to those who think they are pure."
I am far from pure.
The myth here is HOPE.
"I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want." Eugene Debs.
Jim - we don't have to disagree all that much - I said I would vote for the candidate that supports my views and I meant Democrat, Repbulican, Libertarian, whatever. They are just labels anyway. Of course to date the Republicans and Libertarians have yet to meet my criteria. So I am not opposed to voting for Democrats by any means. If I was in Kucinich's district I would vote for him without blinking.
However, if we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils we are guarnteed nothing will change. If we vote our conscience, it may be nothing may change, but the possibility is there. In his own weird way, Obama may be moving us forward more than he ever intended by pulling the veil completely off our corrupt government.
It is why in 2010 it is imperative to work for progressive candidates of any party and to make a statement that they cannot count on our votes without doing anything for them. After all that has happened since 2006, if we continue to blindly vote for Democrats and not show them we are a significant voting block - we will get s*#t on even more.
I agree and I certainly am not going to vote just because someone is a Dem.
I am selective also.
That is also why I ask folks who constantly complain to write your politicians so that they will know that you will not vote for them for nothing. Is this more effective than voting for yourself? That is a given I would hope.
Nader's last article here on CD ended by writing to make sure you let your politicians know how you feel.
He is not saying wait until the next election is he?
Jim, are you saying with a straight face, that politicians would represent their constituents if only they knew what we wanted? That they wouldn't sell-out to corporate interests and embrace fascist policies if we wrote them enough letters? I assume you are an adult. Do you really believe this?
"The lesser of two "evils", I do not rule out because there are many shades of evil."
Yeah, I feel the same way about torture. There are so many types of torture. I suppose I could just oppose it. But, as Progressives, we don't have enough votes to oppose torture, so I've decided to support it.
Of course, I don't support all torture. If Republicans tried to skin people alive, I would have to draw a line and not support it. Unless, that is, the Democrats needed to compromise on the issue of skinning people alive in order to stop the Republicans from passing worse legislation aimed at bringing back the Iron Maiden.
It may be The lesser of two "evils" but I tend to support the torturers who give me a feeling of hope. (BTW I put "evil" in ironic quotes because, come on, is torture really that evil?)
You wrote:
"My conscious is clear about that and I will never go along with this "vote 3rd party" rap that demonizes even the progressive Dems."
I agree. I too can support torture with a clear conscience. What other choice do I have?
"I will choose for myself who is evil and it is against my conscious to demonize everyone in a party."
True. Have I been too quick to call torture "evil"?
Which torturers give you a feeling of hope?
Obama.
"So if you know the reality of the winner take all system. What will you do?"
In the voting booth, I'll vote third party, because a vote for elite parties is consent for continuation of their past/current behavior which is clearly unacceptable. You're hoping your vote for elite parties will somehow change their behavior, which is delusional. It was delusional before you and 130 million USans voted elite constructs in Nov 2008, it's delusional now, and it will be delusional in the future.
We have a responsibility as US citizens to vote third party, else we help enable the imperial onslaught against Afghanis, and all the rest of the destruction, including against ourselves. Those who voted elite parties in 2008 are the imperial enablers while those who voted third party are the imperial disablers.
There's plenty more to do outside the voting booth to uphold our civic responsibility. We must contact our reps and issue terms for their earning our future votes. For example, to earn our votes in 2010/2012, the elite parties must enact single payer healthcare, vacate both Afrghanistan and Iraq, halve the Pentagun budget, and shut down casino royale, before election day else we vote third party.
We also must shift all of our individual exchange/association away from the power centers and toward our local communities, to bring the power back to the people where it belongs. Everyone do your civic duty and help the people achieve victory against the elites' class war aggression.
Sounds to me like the NATO commitment, such as it is, is unravelling quickly. Better double the U.S. quota real soon before that "insurgency in its eighth year" gets any ideas about success in its own country.
Silly Afghans! When will they ever learn that they just can't win against imperial forces?
"Silly Afghans! When will they ever learn that they just can't win against imperial forces?"
They have already won.
Because they understand the battle and the US military does not.
Poet
Nope, the military understand the battle, they ((most) even understand why they can't win. But its not their choice to be there. They can win any battle, they just can't win the war.
I been saying we are in AfPak, same as we went to Iraq, for Tel-Aviv. AND, sho 'nuff, The Voice of Tel-Aviv, Leibuhman, is sho nuff wanting MORE & MORE & MORE dead Arabs and Islam fractured.
Gas-Piplines? Stop this or that abuse? Come on now.
"We MUST free ourselves from the stupid and degrading consequences of conscience and morality. ONLY then will we be free to accept the Gifts of Our State."
Yesterday a "Katzman," was perverting US Foreign policy according to a CD article. I checked: Hard core Zionist-Arab-Hater. Old News. But know who drives the car you ride in.
Know why Arabs die in your name. Not gas pipelines, and not to stop abuses.
Hi azjoe. I read your adjunct in another thread regarding the conicident interest factor and I agree.
It's possible, I suppose, that the underlying truth of the geopolitical situation and the totality of interests involved are even more complex than either of us realize, but I think we're probably close enough to the heart of it.
They might as well have said "we'll make it a 2fer" as there is not enough money to go for killing people "overthere" to keep us safe and for healthcare here and so we will gut any reform and get people to pay more and in the process let them die and be sick and broke and then we can have more money to kill and maim and disposses more people over there where we dont have to see them.It is sickening and renders my heart,Soul and mind incapable of the understaning of it all.Tony
I am so pleased I voted for folks that told me they would bring our kids home from these wasteful and tragic enterprises.
We are lucky that we have such paragons of veracity and morality in charge of our future and the lives of these kids that aerve with honor and loyalty.
Lie stacked upon lie upon lie from these paragons.
Actually, Henry, I don't think the paragons really told very many outright lies in order to get elected. They didn't need to as many people only heard what they wanted to hear.
Obama, for example, never made any secret about his intention to intensify the Af-Pak effort, nor his general support for the U.S. geopolitical agenda, including its Israel element. But, for some strange reason, his political platform was regarded as the "lesser evil" nevertheless, and some people went so far as to suggest that his campaign statements were necessary lies because they didn't want them to be true at the time.
Well....I thought he was the lesser evil. Mea culpa !
It's impossible to argue with that. If it's strictly an either/or choice, you may be right at least superficially, and no apology is required for choosing what one truly believes is the best option. On the other hand, one must sometimes wonder about the relative threats of evil in disguise versus evil with its horns in plain view.
Personally, I'd rather resist both and do what little I can to support something I actually believe in, even if the effort is likely to fail in my own lifetime. But I've never been a very good pragmatist.
Pragamatism is as Pragamatism does!
RV, Hi.
As OBombya defines himself as wrong, the next election cycles draw nearer, and no 3rd party candidate is organizing that I know of......do you predict anything at all to be different in terms of "best options?" I voted for BO, clearly dumb.
But knowing that does not lead me to a "Good," choice; Good defined as will change things for the better.
Do you see any possible path that might lead to progress? Manifest food in mouth-NOT I upheld my principles and voted for an unelectable saint so I could feelf good about my SELF and that works for ME. Not That......tho I feel no vote will change shit-that's why it's called a vote, you think anything, any vote, any act might help our world?
americus, national suicide
The lessor of two evils is still evil!
Ah-Ha....but its still lesser! Unless you make a mistake and choose the greater of the two evils (hows that for logic!). But there are still only two evils available.....so.......
OBOMBA, you are certainly living up to that name I gave you before you conned so many people into electing you!
Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who has sought an expansion of Afghan forces, said the commitment "is a decision that we have avoided making for far too long."
Why the hell is the Senator from the Knesset allowed to advise on anything? Can't the US government do anything without direction from the Israeli government?
The Afghans/Pakistanis have shown for millennia that they will die before they will allow some empire to occupy their territory. Die in their thousands and tens of thousands they did, but eventually the empires could not stand the cost and they departed. Ask the Ghost of Alexander. Ask the British. Ask the Russians. In a few more years, ask the Americans. The Pashtuns are empire breakers. They will see us leaving. Some sage in that area said, "Afghanistan is the place where empires bury their soldiers."
BUT! As long as there is a buck to be made, we'll continue the slaughter, continue to pour in cannon fodder in the person of our own young folks. It is the sickness of empire building.
minitrue- You are quite correct. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam as well. Escalate until we are defeated. And we will be defeated in Afghanistan just like every other empire that tried to colonize this country. The Vietnamese peasants defeated the best equipped and best trained military in the world. The Afghani peasants will do the same. The whores in Congress and the Whore-in-Chief will never learn these lessons of recent history. They are paid not to buy the war profiteers. May they all rot in hell. (too bad I don’t believe in hell) It would make things easier.
Truly imperial arrogance to assume that the US can succeed where others, like the Soviets and the British, failed, and where the US failed before (Vietnam).
We should all recall Brezezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, bragging how he enticed the Soviet Union into the "Afghan trap". Here's a section from the Wikipedia article:
"In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion, knowingly increasing the probability of a Soviet invasion. Brzezinski saw the invasion as an opportunity to embroil the Soviet Union in a bloody conflict comparable to America's experience in Vietnam. He referred to this as the "Afghan Trap"..."
But, of course, it's going to be different with the US, since they're the "good guys".
One sometimes wonders if the U.S. will ever outgrow a self-image based on comic book heroes where "truth, justice and the American way" inevitably prevail over "the forces of darkness and evil" as perceived in their own minds. Where's Agent 99 when you need him?
I'm sure there must be lots of good psychological studies of the adult retention of such juvenile characteristics. "Gott mit uns" didn't seem to work out very well either.
If Zionists, militarists and war profiteers think so, it must be true.
and it's one, two, three;
what are we fighting for?
don't ask me - i don't give a damn.
next stop: afghanistan.
That sounds familiar!
Deja Vu.
Seen THIS movie before.
It was bad then, still bad 40 years later.
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."