Up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan by summer

[jeypore]

The surge tactic worked very well in Iraq, they are know applying the same for afganistan, 30,000 is just the initial figure, so the american people would not go upenarms about it. After few months you will see additional troops moving in. Why do you think Obama kept the same secretary of defense?

 

[Zovc]

All of them will be screwed as already taliban controls 70% of Afghani provinces. In the end the blame will come on Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hopefully the increased resources also mean dramatically increased resources for Afghan SF capacity building, reconstruction and addressing Taliban and other criminal supply chains by focusing on the drug and weapons trade.

The 'end goal' here has to be a self sustaining, militarily and economically (to some extent), Afghanistan.

More manpower may help in terms of 'clear, hold and reconstruct', but then again it may just attract more violence and therefore more collateral damage and who knows how local sentiment will shift.

Pakistan would be wise to not halt any operations on its side - otherwise we might see a massive influx of militants seeking sanctuary from the Afghan side, and then we fall back into the cycle that lead to the air strikes.

Given the US military's reassessment of the Afghan war, a look at the overall polices and strategy going forward, instead of merely focusing on the troop numbers, will offer a better idea of what's in store for Afghanistan and the region.

 

[SSGPA1]

It depends on the way you look at it, you say exposing more Americans to the Taliban. I say exposing more Taliban to the Americans.
In my experience and those who I have talked to it is not the Taliban who win the battles, even when they initiate fights on their terms.

I don't think Taliban want to win battles, their goal seems to do small demage to the ISAF forces.

Death of one soldier has a very high cost in the US and to replace one is also a challenge.

Adding more soldiers is basically making the area target rich.

Afghans are not Iraqis, they have a different mind set about forigners.

You must know this as you have worked there.

 

[roadrunner]

The surge tactic worked very well in Iraq, they are know applying the same for afganistan, 30,000 is just the initial figure, so the american people would not go upenarms about it. After few months you will see additional troops moving in. Why do you think Obama kept the same secretary of defense?

The "surge" tactic didn't do anything in Iraq.

Deals were made with Moktada Al-Sadr who was a problem in the South and his militia men.

As those rebels aligned with the Iraqi government, the additional militias lost their support from these influential people.

That doesn't mean all the warfare has definitely ended. Perhaps it will flare up again.

But Afghanistan cannot be pacified with 20,000, or 30,000 troops. The Soviets had nearly twice as many as the current forces plus another 30,000 troops. People make far too much of "Stingers". The Afghans never won the Soviet war by destroying their planes, it was won on the ground through guerilla tactics. Of which they're very good at.

It needs a lot more, and quite frankly America is too broke to fund this pointless war for much longer.

 

[jeypore]

The "surge" tactic didn't do anything in Iraq.

Deals were made with Moktada Al-Sadr who was a problem in the South and his militia men.

As those rebels aligned with the Iraqi government, the additional militias lost their support from these influential people.

That doesn't mean all the warfare has definitely ended. Perhaps it will flare up again.

But Afghanistan cannot be pacified with 20,000, or 30,000 troops. The Soviets had nearly twice as many as the current forces plus another 30,000 troops. People make far too much of "Stingers". The Afghans never won the Soviet war by destroying their planes, it was won on the ground through guerilla tactics. Of which they're very good at.

It needs a lot more, and quite frankly America is too broke to fund this pointless war for much longer.

I do disagree, The surge is a very new tactical idea, because of it, it has forced the insurgents to make deals with United States. You can clearly see the amount of insurgent in Iraq has had drastic turn within two years. The problem with Iraq is the gov't know. They had 15 points to accomplish, which they are taking there merry time to do so because of internal disagreements. I think Surge will work in Afganistan.

 

[roadrunner]

Surge or no surge. It didn't work with the Soviets, and it's going to need to be a much bigger surge.

 

[Shiny Capstar]

I don't think Taliban want to win battles, their goal seems to do small demage to the ISAF forces.

Death of one soldier has a very high cost in the US and to replace one is also a challenge.

Adding more soldiers is basically making the area target rich.

Afghans are not Iraqis, they have a different mind set about forigners.

You must know this as you have worked there.

They want to wear down the NATO forces and make us lose support at home, the loss of soldiers is felt back in our countries as we have become casualty intolerant. They think that if we lose support back home our troops will come out, to this end they are going to more unconventional tactics using such things as IED's and suicide bombers, they also want to distance us from the local populace so they kill or try to kill those who cooperate with us and are now targeting our people with suicide bombers when interacting with the local populace. Not to mention shooting at us from cover of villages. Sadly in places they are distancing our people from the population and some of our actions to ensure out own troops are as safe as possible and the fact that if we are shot at from cover of villages we often have no choice but to retaliate are fuelling this problem.
The thing is that there is still common support for the conflict in Afghanistan in countries like the US and UK, it is a fight worth fighting and people know this, the support we received from people back home really is touching. Pretty much anywhere you went in the UK if you were in uniform you got a great reception. For example when we came back from Afghanistan thousands of people lined the streets to welcome us back as we paraded, people support the forces and what is done over there and we wont be going anywhere for some time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do disagree, The surge is a very new tactical idea, because of it, it has forced the insurgents to make deals with United States. You can clearly see the amount of insurgent in Iraq has had drastic turn within two years. The problem with Iraq is the gov't know. They had 15 points to accomplish, which they are taking there merry time to do so because of internal disagreements. I think Surge will work in Afganistan.

The 'surge' in Iraq was not successful merely because there was an increase in the number of troops and tempo of operations in Iraq.

The success in Iraq was due to a combination of political and military changes. The term 'surge' is misleading in the sense that it suggests the exercise was primarily military in nature.

Looking at Afghanistan right now, there is little (visible) to indicate that the non-military dynamics are being reworked in favor of the end goal. Whether there are factors and actors at play behind the scenes I do not know, though the talk about some of the Taliban leadership engaging in talks through the Saudis suggested that some sort of realignment is being attempted.

Again, increasing troop numbers alone is not what will stabilize Afghanistan and the region - we need to see what US strategy in the region going forward is.

 

[SurvivoR]

Hardly going to add anything positive but will destabilize the region.
The strategy did not work at all in Iraq and withdrawal is outcome of US realization that Iran was far from having nuclear capabilities hence its at bottom of priority list of US for time being.

 

[Shiny Capstar]

Hardly going to add anything positive but will destabilize the region.
The strategy did not work at all in Iraq and withdrawal is outcome of US realization that Iran was far from having nuclear capabilities hence its at bottom of priority list of US for time being.

They would not be allowed to use Iraqi territory to launch an attack on Iran anyway, nor can they fly through Iraqi airspace on their way to attack anybody either.

 

[SSGPA1]

They want to wear down the NATO forces and make us lose support at home, the loss of soldiers is felt back in our countries as we have become casualty intolerant. ... For example when we came back from Afghanistan thousands of people lined the streets to welcome us back as we paraded, people support the forces and what is done over there and we wont be going anywhere for some time.

Canadian troops get the same respect in Canada. If it was a conflict involving all these forces except for the US then there was a bright chance.

People from the ME region or from Pak-Afghan region will never forget Abu Gharib and other atrocities. Beside the arrogance and corruption of the US forces is also an issue.

British troops were able to achieve peace in Basra far earlier in the war with far less casualities but the US troops are still fighting in Iraq.

Increase of troops will not work in Afghanistan.

 

[Knight of Knights]

In gurilla war numbers are not important.Russia had 150000 army but failed due to poor strategy

 

[Vinod2070]

The USA was supporting the Afghan rebels against the USSR. There was an unlimited supply of weapons, training, funds, stingers. They were secure in the rear.

Now the situation is completely different. They will be thoroughly destroyed. By the Pakistani army in the East and the US forces in the West.

They are anyway always ready to sell themselves to the highest bidder, at least a very large number if them. That is what happened in 2001 when the USA bought out many of the warlords supporting the Taliban. The same will be replicated now.

 

[Shiny Capstar]

In gurilla war numbers are not important.Russia had 150000 army but failed due to poor strategy

A ratio of 10 soldiers to each insurgent is optimum.