Published on
The Wall Street Journal

Top Troop Request Exceeds 60,000

Commander Prefers 40,000 for Afghanistan, but His Report Gives Obama 3 Options

Peter Speigel and Yochi Dreazen

A chart showing ISAF troop levels in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama has moved closer to a crucial decision on the US-led war in Afghanistan after receiving a request from his commander to send in more troops. (AFP/Graphic)

WASHINGTON -- The request for troops sent to President Barack Obama
by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan includes three different
options, with the largest alternative including a request for more than
60,000 troops, according to a U.S. official familiar with the document.

Although the top option is more than the 40,000 soldiers previously
understood to be the top troop total sought by Gen. Stanley McChrystal,
the top U.S. officer in Kabul, 40,000 remains the primary choice of
senior military brass, including Gen. McChrystal, the official said.

details of the three scenarios were first reported by ABC News and
confirmed by the U.S. official. The third option presented to Mr. Obama
would be only a small increase that would keep U.S. forces largely at
their year-end levels of 68,000 troops.

The troop request is expected to be deliberated today at Mr. Obama's
fifth cabinet-level meeting of his war council amid indications of
growing official unease about such a significant escalation.

most requests for forces include only a single troop figure, Pentagon
officials have acknowledged that Gen. McChrystal's request was unusual
given the continuing review of Afghan strategy. It is rather common in
military planning, however, to discuss three different scenarios in
order to illustrate why the middle option is preferable option.

Gen. McChrystal has warned that the U.S. faces possible "mission
failure" in Afghanistan unless it quickly sends large numbers of forces
there. But the Obama administration faces growing hurdles even if it
decides to go with a buildup of tens of thousands of troops.

Senior Army officers acknowledged in interviews, for instance, that
the U.S. doesn't have nearly enough helicopters in Afghanistan to meet
the current demand for safe movement of troops around the country. And
U.S. forces are just beginning to receive new vehicles meant to
function better on Afghanistan's poor roads.

Separately, a recent study by the Institute for the Study of War --
a Washington, D.C., think tank headed by Kimberly Kagan, a military
analyst who worked on Gen. McChrystal's assessment team -- suggested it
would be difficult to move enough troops from other posts to deploy
anywhere close to 40,000 troops before next summer at the earliest.

The military agrees with the institute's overall findings, although
has identified different units it could deploy over the course of the
next year.

White House officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama's review is
centering on ensuring the war is focused on preventing al Qaeda's
return to Afghanistan -- a narrower objective that could require fewer,
if any, new American troops. The officials acknowledged that the
administration's strategic review no longer sees the U.S.'s primary
mission in Afghanistan as completely defeating the Taliban or
preventing the armed Islamist group from any involvement in the
country's future.

Despite the narrowed focus, several White House officials said the
administration's broad review is ongoing and that the president hasn't
made any decisions. They said Mr. Obama wants to decide on what
military strategy to pursue before approving or rejecting Gen.
McChrystal's request.

Still, focusing the U.S. mission in Afghanistan solely on destroying
al Qaeda could make it easier for Mr. Obama to make a public case for
giving Gen. McChrystal the lowest end of his three options, which would
amount to only a small increase.

Political support for the war has been rapidly eroding among the
public and on Capitol Hill, even as Gen. McChrystal and the nation's
top military personnel argue for a counterinsurgency strategy designed
to protect Afghan civilians.

At the center of the ongoing deliberations, according to officials
involved in and briefed on the White House sessions, is an emerging
belief that a broad effort to defeat the Taliban and shore up
Afghanistan's weak central government may not be necessary to counter
the threat posed by al Qaeda.

White House officials familiar with deliberations said that while
some elements of the Taliban were inclined to harbor al Qaeda, which
operated freely in Afghanistan through 2001, other members were focused
on Afghanistan's internal politics and much less likely to support the
international terror group.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Thursday that al
Qaeda has focused on hitting the U.S., while danger posed by the
Taliban "was somewhat different" and less threatening.

The argument that a return of some Taliban elements would not
directly threaten U.S. security has been pushed by allies of Vice
President Joe Biden, who has argued against a major increase in force
levels. The distinction Mr. Biden draws is shared by Barnett Rubin, a
top aide to the administration's special representative to the region,
Richard Holbrooke.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, arguably the central player in the
deliberations, is one of the officials who appears to most strongly
disagree with that assessment. Earlier this week, the defense chief
said that a Taliban takeover of wide swaths of Afghanistan would allow
al Qaeda to "strengthen itself" by creating new havens for the
terrorist group.

But participants in the current review said that neither Mr. Gates,
who picked Gen. McChrystal for his job, nor Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton have yet made clear what strategy they favor in Afghanistan or
what forces should be sent there.

The Institute for the Study of War report detailed how the White
House must grapple with the fact that the stretched U.S. military has
only limited troops ready for deployment, which could mean that many
forces might not reach the war zone until the summer of 2010.

The study concluded that the U.S. has only three Army and Marine
brigades -- about 11,000 to 15,000 troops -- capable of deploying to
Afghanistan this year. An additional four brigades, or potentially as
many 20,000 troops, could deploy by the summer of 2010, the think tank

Lt. Col. Lee Packnett, an Army spokesman, said that the Army wanted
to only send units to Afghanistan that have had at least 12 months back
in the U.S. between overseas deployments.

But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, said that Mr. Obama could force the
military's hand if he decides winning the war requires a quick infusion
of large numbers of reinforcements. "In the real world you do what you
need to do," he said. "You don't tailor the war to maintain peacetime
readiness. You maintain peacetime assets precisely so you can consume
them in war."

Lack of helicopters and other equipment problems could present a
more intractable problem for a bigger force trying to reach
Afghanistan's key battle zones. The country is mountainous and lacks
reliable roads, so most troops and supplies are ferried to their bases
aboard helicopters rather than on trucks or other ground vehicles.

Last summer, the Army deployed a second combat aviation brigade to
Afghanistan, doubling the number of Army helicopters there from 114 to
about 228. But with U.S. troop levels almost doubling in 2009, senior
Army officers acknowledge that the U.S. still doesn't have nearly
enough. "Simply put, we just don't have enough birds," one officer said
in an interview this week. "The Taliban have made more and more of the
roads inaccessible to us, so the need for helicopters keeps growing."

The military has also found that the signature vehicle of the Iraq
war -- the giant armored trucks known as the "mine resistant, ambush
protected" vehicles, or MRAPs -- don't function well on Afghanistan's
poor roads. The Pentagon is in the process of purchasing hundreds of
second-generation armored vehicles that are specially designed to
function off-road or on dirt or gravel paths, but the first of the new
vehicles only began arriving in Afghanistan in recent days.

-Jonathan Weisman contributed to this article.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do.

Share This Article

More in: