More troops, but still no defined strategy

President Obama announced yesterday he’s determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan. Cool. Now, just define what means “job” and “finish” and then all that will worth something. Until then, it’s all words but strategy in Afghanistan is, so far, sinking fast. And in the lack of ideas, the White House is going back to the traditional solution: more force.

Next Tuesday Obama is expected to unveil -for the first time in prime time- a new boost to the troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The place to announce it will be perfect: West Point military academy. In fact, hours and hours of study and discussions are behind Obama’s decision. The options were between 15,000 and 40,000 extra soldiers. Finally, after several weeks of guessing, almost everyone has narrowed down that number to something between 30,000 and 35,000.

What doesn’t seem to change is the strategy for the war. Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal already warned about that in his timid report from August, little has been done. Karzai is still in the chair and, despite his promises to tackle corruption, it’s unlikely that will happen in his term, let alone in one year as McChrystal would have desired.

But yet, more troops are also needed. But what for? According to McClatchy papers, 23,000 soldiers would go to combat and support operations; 7,000 to develop, strengthen and co-ordinate the southern headquarters; with the rest 4,000 effectives destined to train the Afghan army and police. This increase of troops in Central Asia would mean, according to Spencer Ackerman, the deployment of almost every available battalion in operative theaters, leaving just a few back at home available for duty (see links below).

According to another report from The Washington Independent, in December 2009, a total of 50,600 soldiers and 24,000 National Guards will be available for deployment. The rest will be either in Iraq or Afghanistan or resting back from a tour in a combat zone. In January, those numbers would drop to 12,400 -of which most of them from heavy units (cavalry and tanks)- boots available to deploy in case there is a problem in, let’s say, Korea.

However, it seems yet insufficient, especially regarding the number of trainers. If NATO wants to accomplish its promise of doubling the numbers of the Afghan army, from the present 94,000 effectives to 250,000; the General in charge of the training mission -Lt. Gen Bill Caldwell- will need much more than 4,000 trainers.

As for the rest of the thirty-something thousand troops, the New York Times suggests that 10,000 soldiers could be deployed to Kandahar; 5,000 to Helmand and another 5,000 to the east of the country. His job won’t be easy.

Main target will be to stabilize the south and, once that’s done, recover the control of the rest of the country. Time for that, just until next year’s autumn. McCrhystal warns of it clearly in his August report: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -while Afghan security capacity matures- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible”.

As if those guys didn’t have enough pressure over their shoulders already.


(Available units from the National Guard and the Army now and in the close-mid term)

Afghan National Army soldiers practice firing during a NATO training.
Photo: U.S. Army Sgt. Matthew Moeller, 5th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment


Did you like it? Share it