LetsTalk

Daily Herald | Pentagon officials ponder wider Afghan war

Pentagon officials ponder wider Afghan war
Associated Press
Published: 5/1/2008 12:08 AM

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials are quietly considering a significant change in the war command in Afghanistan to extend U.S. control of forces into the country's volatile south.

The idea is partly linked to an expectation of a fresh infusion of U.S. combat troops in the south next year.

Taliban resistance has stiffened in the south since NATO took command there in mid-2006, and some in the Bush administration believe the fight against the Taliban could be strengthened if the U.S., whose span of control is now limited to eastern Afghanistan, were also in charge of part or all the south.

The internal discussions about expanding the U.S. command role were described in recent interviews with several senior defense officials who have direct knowledge but were not authorized to talk about it publicly. All said they thought it unlikely a decision would be made anytime soon.

There are now about 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- the most at any time during the war, which began in October 2001.

At a NATO summit in early April, President Bush told the allies the U.S. would send many more troops to Afghanistan in 2009. He mentioned no numbers, but U.S. commanders say they need at least two more brigades, or 7,500 troops.

In early stages of the war, the U.S. military commanded forces across Afghanistan. NATO's security role initially was limited to heading an International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, in Kabul, the capital; but it spread, starting in 2004 -- first to the north, then west and, in 2006, to the south and the east.

The overall ISAF commander is an American general, Daniel McNeill, but the only sector headed by a U.S. general is the eastern area, where the 101st Airborne is in charge. If the southern sector were to be put under U.S. command, the American in charge there would still be subordinate to NATO.

Giving the U.S. more control in the south would address one problem cited by U.S. officials: the NATO allies' practice of rotating commanders every nine months -- and their fighting units every six months, in some cases. The 101st Airborne, by comparison, is in eastern Afghanistan on a 15-month deployment. In the U.S. view, nine-month commands are too short to maximize effectiveness.

U.S. combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq are to shrink to 12 months starting in August.

The idea of changing the command structure has not yet developed into a proposal to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The internal discussions reflect concern at a lack of continuity among NATO forces and a view that, in the long run, NATO may be better off focusing mainly on areas of Afghanistan, like the north and west, where there is less fighting but a great need for noncombat aid.

Changing the command structure to give a U.S. general more control in the south would, in effect, mark a partial "re-Americanization" of the combat mission. That could be politically controversial, given U.S. interests in maintaining close ties with NATO in fighting terrorism.

NATO now has overall responsibility for the mission in Afghanistan, and that would not change if a U.S. general were to be put in charge in the southern sector. But it would give the Americans a greater degree of control.

Settling the command issue has implications not only for the success of the overall mission in Afghanistan but also for the NATO allies' willingness to join with the U.S. in future military ventures beyond Europe's borders.

The defense officials doubted a decision would be made before fall and possibly not until a new administration takes office in 2009. Two officials said there appears to be no high-level advocate for making such a change in the near term, although there is growing concern that while higher U.S. troop levels in Iraq have helped reduce violence there, the trends in Afghanistan are less positive.

Daily Herald | Pentagon officials ponder wider Afghan war

S-2

...and it ain't pretty.

"A force of 3,500 U.S. Marines charged into southern Afghanistan this morning in an effort to reduce the heavy casualties suffered by Canadian and British soldiers in the region..."

globeandmail.com: U.S. brings Iraq-like surge to Afghan conflict

Eighty-eight comments to this article. If you find ONE that's complimentary to America, the U.S. armed forces, or the U.S. Marine Corps, please let me know. I quit after forty-four w/ nil, nada.

Worse- never have I read such a collection of uninformed nonsense. The ONLY tanks in Afghanistan are Canadian but, don't you know, it'll be AMERICAN marine tanks tearing up farmers fields and undoing all the good work of our Canadian brothers with our heavy-handedness and firepower.

GOD IN HEAVEN!

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

VarSity

Seems to me the USMC did a bang up job in Garmser.

Good show.

S-2

Yes. Many of the Canadian posters to the G&M article expressed their profound relief that our Marines first major operation in the area would actually be further west in Helmand (w/ the British).

Better that way so the worst of American tendencies can be curbed on British-controlled territory. Hopefully, we'll prove more malleable and properly respectful when returned to Kandahar as a result of the Helmand experience.

LetsTalk

I reviewed the article and comments in your link. as you say many of the comments are off base.

One thing that I am great full for is the contributions of our allies no matter how small or big. I find very little acknowledgment by some of our leaders for their service, if I was Canadian and was reading this article I might feel that there is little appreciation for our service but plenty of criticism of our tactics.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Left-wing nutjobs are just as ignorant as right-wing neo-cons, or they wouldn't be left-wing nutjobs. Most people have very narrow, half-baked views on issues not directly affecting themselves because they can't be bothered putting in the time to form an independent viewpoint when they can simply recycle someone else's and feel good about themselves. As I said, this goes for the other side too, too often I've found people who support the war do so for the wrong reasons, such as delusions regarding a clash of civilizations. But thats the way it goes I suppose.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

S-2

"Left-wing nutjobs are just as ignorant as right-wing neo-cons, or they wouldn't be left-wing nutjobs."

The Globe & Mail may be liberal, even very liberal, but it's hardly the repository of "left-wing nutjobs". Last I checked, btw, voting constituencies are comprised of the full spectrum.

My not-very-scientific straw poll showed 44 folks that I'd fairly guess wouldn't object and even likely endorse Canada's immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as a future disassociation with any military activity involving America. None that I read would feel very differently from each other.

Like it or not, they're voters.

I've often contended that European and Canadian gov'ts. sold their constituencies a bill of goods about Afghanistan. It was patently clear in the parliamentary debates held in England, Holland, and Canada during the spring of 2006. The mission was understated- by far- and billed as a Euro-rescue of good sense and civic responsibility from America's heavy hand.

The ground reality was starkly different. Anybody reading Christine Lamb of the London Times during the spring, 2006 knew what Kandahar and Helmand were, even then, really all about.

See no, speak no, hear no evil. In spades and it's still that way. I just read the comments of 44 people who haven't a clue but don't feel constrained by ignorance from expressing their opinion.

Makes me sad.