Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Another 45,000 US Troops Needed in Afghanistan, Military Adviser Says
The United States should send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a senior adviser to the American commander in Kabul has told The Times.
Nato needs to change its strategy in Afghanistan, says Anthony Cordesman, a military adviser. (Times Online)
Anthony Cordesman, an influential American academic who is a member of a team
that has been advising General Stanley McChrystal, now in charge of Nato
forces in Afghanistan, also said that to deal with the threat from the
Taleban the size of the Afghan National Army might have to increase to
240,000.
If Mr Cordesman's recommendation reflects the view of General McChrystal, who recently presented the findings of a 60-day review of Afghanistan strategy to Washington, it would mean sending another nine combat brigades, comprising 45,000 American troops, in addition to the 21,000 already approved by President Obama. This would bring the total American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000, considerably closer to the force that was deployed for the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq.
If General McChrystal believes that America should send nine more brigades - Mr Cordesman suggested it should be between three and nine brigades - there is bound to be pressure on Britain to send reinforcements as well. The British strength now is 9,000.
Writing in The Times, Mr Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said: "The insurgents may have lost virtually every tactical clash [against Nato troops], but they have expanded their areas of influence from a presence in some 30 of Afghanistan's 364 districts in 2003 to one in some 160 districts by the end of 2008, while insurgent attacks increased by 60 per cent during October 2008 to April 2009 alone."Nato must change its strategy and tactics after years in which member countries, particularly the United States, failed to react to the seriousness of the emerging insurgency," he added.
The US reinforcements already approved by Mr Obama include 8,000 Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade who have arrived in Helmand province, replacing the British troops in the south of the province, and 4,000 US Army soldiers from the 5th Stryker Brigade, who are also arriving in the region.
Mr Cordesman appeared to confirm the strategy expected to be outlined by General McChrystal relating to the Afghan National Army. He says that the existing plan to increase numbers to 134,000 soldiers is inadequate. He says that it should be doubled to 240,000 by 2014, and the Afghan National Police should rise from 82,000 to 160,000.
To reach such levels, however, Nato would need to contribute thousands more troops to train the Afghans.
On Saturday in The Times, General Sir David Richards, who becomes Chief of the General Staff - the head of the British Army - on August 28, said he thought that Britain's commitment to Afghanistan could last between 30 and 40 years, although he envisaged that troops would have to stay only for the medium term. He is expected to repeat the call made by General Sir Richard Dannatt, whom he is succeeding, for more British troops for Helmand.
Tonight a former head of the British Army said it would not be possible for Britain to meet its commitment to support Afghanistan for decades if ministers approved a proposal to cut three infantry battalions.
As part of a current internal Ministry of Defence review, a reduction in the size of the infantry, from 36 to 33 battalions, has not yet been ruled out, because of the short-term savings that would ensue from cutting back on manpower - a total of £60 million a year for the loss of the three battalions.
However, General Sir Roger Wheeler, Chief of the General Staff from 1997 to 2000, said that it was illogical to reduce the size of the infantry at a time when there were so many casualties in Afghanistan and when it was now accepted that the mission in Helmand province was going to continue for decades. "And the MoD would be saving peanuts," he said.
- Posted in
37 Comments so far
Show Allodoco
The last time I experienced this feeling was at Bien Hoa in 1972 - we all knew the ship was lost, but we continued to float it with blood in order to prolong and promote the delusion that the cause was just.
I apoligize to all Afghans and Iraqis for all the death and destruction my totally insane nation committs.
Anybody notice Iraq is sliding back into civil war?
What did Tom Paxton sing 44 years ago, "We're not gonna esculate this war, just gonna send 45,000 more".
HMMMM!
General Stanley McChrystal, the NEW General William C. Westmoreland.
I've seen this movie before.
-- Another 45,000 US Troops Needed in Afghanistan, Military Adviser Says --
The military has been ordered by the President to fulfill Congress's goal (from Public Law 107-40) of 'preventing future terrorism'. NOBODY should expect the military to tell its C-in-C that this goal is insane, or that it can't ever finish this impossible job and that instead what should be done is getting the hell out of AfPak.
The President isn't going to withdraw troops 'in the face of the enemy' and take the political hit by himself. Nobody should expect this, either.
The best chance to end this crap is to get Congress to pass a law ending the President's authority to order the military to fight future terrorism.
Of course, we need a new Congress for that, because the one we have now is worthless.
Sweep out the House in 2010!
Do these numbskulls realize that the best way to "prevent future terrorism" is to quit creating terrorists by killing people? Of course they probably DO realize it and purposely create terrorists so they can continue to spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
Looks like it's time to break out the Country Joe and the Fish album.
"Well, it's one, two, three, four. What are we fightin' for....?"
At least the Brit's were honest when they said they would be occupying Afghanistan for the next 40 years...
One has to wonder though. What will the effect on morale, troop replacement and resupply be like when the economic crunch REALLY hits? Who else has experience in abandoning occupation troops in Afghanistan?
Oh right.
Russia. The guys the US trained the Taliban and Al Quaeda to fight back in the 80's and early 90's, and got the Mujahadin insurgents to buy the latest milspec toys at the time by using the profits of heroin, via the CIA.
Wait-a-minute... aren't the Afghan drug lords BACK on the US hitlist?
Oops.
Talk about creating your own demand.
Walk in peace.
The Dogs of War are insatiable
The money to buy weapons is coming from drug sales,
Two questions ?
Which country buys the most iilegal drugs in the world?
Which country is suppying the weapons to the Taliban?
Kill the Afghan drug trade , and we have a shot at winning this war.
Well , we know where are troops from Iraq are going, dont we.
Live on less, pay less tax, and starve the beast.
Anthony Cordesman is a fraud and not very bright to boot. He has been "advising" and making lots of dough since the 9/11. None of his analysis has yielded any thing significant. Be that as it may, they should send 45000 or 90000 instead of nickel and dimming this so called effort.
Has anything changed in our foreign policy since the new regime took power? The secretary of state threatens Iran with extinction, torture and secrecy continues, and the president escalates In Afghanistan while ordering strikes in Pakistan. Obama kept Gates and appointed Rumy's old Iraq death-squad man McChrystal to hunt down Taliban. WIll democrats ever grow tired of being had?
Elsewhere on CD, Chris Hedges describes most politicians as "venal mediocrities". I'm afraid even Obama fits this description now. Watch him slip-slide in the best Vietnam War fashion into yet another imperial catastrophe. Forty-five thousand now, thirty-five thousand later. Light at the end of the tunnel. Bring back the draft. In 2012, Obama will claim to have a "secret plan" for Victory in Afghanistan. And if you don't think he's not getting a nice fat cut from all this misery, you're crazy.
It looks like we need to start building a new Afghan memorial wall.
If not for the greed of oil, we would not be in Afghanistan, and if not for the Bush Regime, the Taliban would not have been a threat, and if Obama would stand up to the generals, our troops would be be out of there,
According to Cordesman, "NATO must change its strategy and tactics after years in which member countries, particularly the United States, failed to react to the seriousness of the emerging insurgency."
Emerging insurgency? Do these people not read history books?
Change in strategy and tactics?
Looks to me like Uncle Sam's doubling down on the same old military strategy and tactics, sexed up with drone technology and some anti-heroin trafficking rhetoric stirred into the mix.
True to the spirit of the Anglo Atlantic partnership, General Sir David Richards "said he thought that Britain's committment to Afghanistan could last between 30 to 40 years, although he envisaged that troops would only have to stay for the medium term."
"Medium term" as in 35 years, or 20 years, or merely 15?
Odoco and Uncle Ho have got it right. It's deja vu from '72 all over again - this sequel being brought to a theatre of war near you by the same proud corporate sponsors and militarist shills who learned nothing from Vietnam except the need for a better public relations campaign.
Bill from Saginaw
Oh, if only LBJ, Robert Strange McNamara, Ellsworth Bunker, William Westmoreland, and Creighton Abrahms could just be here to see their failed history repeat.
Do you think they would finally "get it" or not?
Poet
Looks like a script is being followed to the bitter end....
one with a foregone conclusion....disaster in Afpak....for its citizens and for the U.S. troops and the U.S. citizens.
Now how was it we brought the soviet union to its knees? Oh yeah,we enabled their economic downfall. Now we insist on shooting ourselves in the foot....that is, our fearless, make that clueless leaders apparently suffer from a lemming
complex and want to take us over the cliff with them.
Well, HELL NO! F**K NO! We won't go quietly into their dark night. Support the troops....resisting the occupation.
the USA is like a "master of dominoes" trying to Control ALl the Pieces on a game of Chess.
it has been habitual in fomenting its "proxy wars" to bring down countries too powerful and large - such as russia and china - in a direct confrontation EVEN as the USA had every intent to wage war on THEM for generations - as far back as the 19th century .
it is through the Proxy wars that a country such as russia could be "brought down" by capitalising on russia's INTERNAL problems to become catastrophic through involving it deeply in afghanistan for example.
BUT THIS TIME -- the USA - thinking itself the "sole superpower" with its "victory in iraq" - thinks that it can continue its PROXY WARS - in pakistan and afghanistan, central asia etc. (now including colombia for south american proxy wars) -
this time - the USA Places ITSELF at the VERY CENTER of its own proxy wars...such as in afghanistan and iraq.
it hasn't learned from vietnam..nor from russia's failure..nor from ITS own failure in Iraq....
the USA leadership continues to think the usa "will be victorious"
and why is that thinking rampant?
because it is a DELUSIONAL leadership for a nation that has gone Deranged, in Denial, Overly "Certain" about things in teh world it has NO control nor any understanding about due to its own Myths of superiority that only leads it to be the most "advanced" IGNORAMUS nation in the world.
and THAT is a DEADLY combination to all concerned.
the USA thinks in "black and white" war = but the world is in shades of grey.
that is why - the USA will NEVER achieve its delusions of victory - nor even maintain a semblance or ILLUSION of it for long.
even these wars - costly as they already are - are designed and intended by the Pentagon, the White House, Congress, the Industrial "base" of america to CONTINUE THE DELUSION that the USA is STILL "prosperous" according to what they wish americans to believe or according to what americans lead THEMSELVES to believe or according to what americans BELIEVE
"can still be regained".
it can't. ESPECIALLY the more the USA wages wars.
it is like in Vietnam and iraq - the more the USA openly imposes its will , or tries to, the MORE it is revealed as IMPOTENT. like a giant with big feet that can squash little ants --
but can't really PRODUCE any SPERM worthy of being grown into a complete healthy living entity.
Interviewing Bill Maher, Wolf Blitzer recently asked the humorist if he wanted to back off from his assertion that Americans are stupid, since he'd made a lot of enemies by saying that, Blitzer explained, and this was his chance to redeem himself. Maher declined.
Americans really are stupid. I met one yesterday in the windy Starbucks, Winston-Salem or rather he met me. He wanted to know the book I was reading (THE HUNGERED ONE by Ed Bullins). And wanted to know what I blogged about. He wasn't interested in the tennis but was in the politics. We ended as friends-- I guess.
As we started an hour-and-a-half-long debate about Afghanistan, it became clear that he was full of information, that he wanted to get drug lords, that he thought we'd been wonderfully successful with our military presence in about 72 different countries, that war is always inevitable, that the military knows certain things the public doesn't need to know, and Darwin was wrong.
At times he made sense, as when he said the Iraq war was wrong. But on Afghanistan, he said the jury was out and we wouldn't know for twenty years. "No," I said. "We know right now." I added that if there is any uncertainty about our being in Afghanistan we shouldn't be there, shouldn't be doing the horrible things we are, there.
He'd been in the army. He had so much information at his fingertips, so much on the nuance of this or that, that it was difficult to debate with him. (I presented this as a compliment at the end). He said I'd made some points. He had a really nice dog, Leo.
Thinking about it all now, I feel nauseated. He didn't really disagree with me when I said that whether the president was George W. Bush or Barack Obama, we were dealing with an emotional age (possibly) of 14. I told about the European women I'd known who thought that all American males, myself included, were overgrown adolescents.
And on talk radio, there was so much today about our sending troops into South America, and the overgrown adolescents, even some women, were all puffed up about what we should do in this or that country. Puff and power, that's what it largely seems about to me. The permission certain international agencies have given us to shoot Afghan civilians. But I've been to Afghanistan, don't think we should shoot one, ever.
Why isn't taking care of our own troublesome country the priority? I never in my life thought I would become an isolationist but I have. We should draw back our chess pieces to the first and second rows. We're not only stupid but we've become idiots!
It really gets obscene when you begin counting the money squandered on the war and spent lobbying against universal healthcare.... stupidity and idiocy don't even begin to describe the average member of the US populace.
But I could be wrong !
Oooops, I forgot to mention the obvious - the more troops we send, the less jobs we need to provide here. The most needy will enlist and this will keep them from becoming an army of malcontents on our streets.
I guess this is what has been described as ' by fighting there, we make the streets safer here.'
But I could be wrong !
If it wasn't for war there would be no jobs at all.
No wait hold on here- 45,000 more NEEDED? when did the world agree that the assassination of Afghanistan was what we needed?
or that the Taliban is "the enemy"?
or that there is some reason- any reason- why any foreign troops should be in Afghanistan?
JUST GET OUT!
Maybe this is trivial - since when did "NATO" become "Nato"? Is this some kind of psyop, so as not to draw attention to the "North Atlantic" part of NATO, and thereby remind someone of the rationale behind the formation of NATO in the first place? It's not just in this article - which is from The Times, UK. There was this other news story yesterday - from the BBC. And "The Independent" calls it "Nato" from time to time, as well. Maybe it's just that it has become so commonplace, that some of the journalists don't bother to use it as an acronym. Or maybe not...
Alcyon, you could be right about the psyop angle on this. NATO in capitals kind of shouts at you in a belligerent manner but Nato sounds more like an individual and gives it that human touch. It makes all the difference.
Now isn't that nice? Nato is your friend and needs your support, didn't you know?
Vietnam deja vu???
Yes. Another trumped up threat. Another fiercely independent country.
Remember the song:
"Although it isn't really war
We're sending 50,000 more
To help save Vietnam from Vietnamese"
Joe
We have to destroy Afghanistan in order to save it.
the Wars escalated and "permanent warfare"
are of course for 2 reasons:
American Empire.
and
to Distract Americans from what is being done TO THEM domestically.
these things come hand in hand.
WARS are never only "against foreigners and threats to national security"......
they are simultaneously Wars AGAINST the Domestic Population..while simultaneously also coercing them in those wars against foreigners and against domestics as well as distracting them from the war "within" against themselves by their own State.
if the USA had to stop making war against other countries and peoples...the american people's ATTENTION would be singularly focused that THEY have been victimized economically by their own state and corporations. therefore a PERPETUAL WAR "against threats" (starting with foreigners and then domestic terrorists and threats) -- must be waged to keep them
":patriotic" enough to be willing to go along with anything the STate and Corporations -- their FASCISM - imposes on them domestically
and of course - so that that leaders and industries can CONTINUE to wage MORE wars.
the USA is in all simplicity --
a WAR NATION - i always say.
WARMAKING economically against nations and peoples, and WAR MAKING against americans themselves.
ultimately , this is of course - CLASS WAR.
the Warmaking Class of the Rich and Powerful, corporatism, security state, profiteering business and "commerce" CLASS
against ordinary people, in the USA and in the rest of the globe.
Let's draft Obama voters first. Only fair.
Oh I guess the McCain/Palin voters should be exempted huh?
Obama knows, those pipelines must be protected at all costs! Mr. Cheney won't have it any other way.
In the long run it might have been cheaper to buy Afghanistan and Iraq rather than to desimate them and leave them to rot. And, we wouldn't have had to put in puppet governments, just our own disfunctional idea of government.
Here's a joke...
When deciding upon a new term to call our combat troops in their vain attempt to "rebrand" them, so as to legally fudge the number of troops that will remain in Iraq... Why did the Owebama admin settle on "Advisors"...?
Because "Predator Drones" was already taken...
Is it Tet already?