The press continues to be full of leaks about the administration’s troop drawdown plans in Afghanistan. The latest is this article in the Wall Street Journal, which reports that, at the White House’s insistence, the Pentagon has offered troop options post-2014 lower than those favored by General John Allen, the commander on the ground. His options call for between 6,000 and 15,000 troops (some other accounts have suggested his top-end figure is 20,000). The new set of options: 3,000, 6,000, or 9,000 troops.
As the Journal notes, this is part of a continuing decrease in the size of forces envisioned for Afghanistan: “In late 2010, some senior administration and defense officials told NATO allies that the U.S. may need to keep at least 40,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, when the current NATO mission concludes. A year later, officials suggested troop levels could be closer to 20,000. As recently as November, Gen. Allen spoke privately with Pentagon chiefs about the need for 15,000 troops from the U.S. alone.” But now the administration seems to be leaning toward cutting the current force by more than half this year (from 66,000 to 30,000 or so) and leaving perhaps 6,000 or even fewer troops post-2014. And as U.S. troop number decreases, so do those of our NATO allies: nobody is going to do more than we are.
Why the decrease? If you believe administration spokesmen, it’s because the Afghan National Security Forces are performing far better than expected and the security situation is far better than envisioned. If that were indeed the case, I, too, would favor keeping substantially fewer troops: drawdowns should be conditions-based. But conditions on the ground are not rosy enough to permit massive troop decreases.
True, there have been some encouraging trends–according to official NATO figures, enemy-initiated attacks fell 7 percent during the January-November 2012 period compared with the same months in 2011. But enemy attacks were rising as recently as May and June and overall attack levels are still higher today than they were when the surge began in 2009.
While Taliban fighters have been routed out of many strongholds in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, they have proven resilient thanks to their sanctuaries in Pakistan, and similar progress has not been seen in the eastern part of the country. There are still Haqqani sanctuaries located only an hour’s drive from Kabul–and that is with 66,000 U.S. troops still in the country.
While the ANSF are more capable than before, their ability to hold onto, and expand, recent gains without substantial support is highly questionable. The Defense Department’s own “Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan” notes that the ANSF still have considerable deficiencies in areas such as logistics, planning, and air support that will require coalition backstopping for a long time to come; Afghanistan will not even have a functioning air force until 2017 at the earliest.
In reality, the gains that have been made are extremely fragile and dependent on massive U.S. support. Pull that support and there is considerable risk of the Taliban once again extending their control to the gates of Kabul. There is, quite simply, no reason to imagine that Afghanistan could remain reasonably secure with 6,000 or fewer U.S. troops remaining post-2014.
That is why General Allen has recommended a higher troop figure. But there is a very real risk that his recommendations will be overridden not for strategic reasons but for political ones.
A cancer patient visits a doctor, who advises a treatment plan that will defeat the cancer. The statistics of the success of this plan are such that out of 100 similar patients with this treatment, 80 will survive and live normal lives. All our decisions must be based upon statistics, for all reality is based upon statistics. There is no absolute truth.
You cut me off! Here is the rest: n nThe patient then goes to another doctor to get a second opinion, something we must all do. The doctor advises a treatment that will degrade the cancer. The statistics are that out of 100 similar patients with this treatment, 10 will survive and live normal lives. It is suicidal for the patient to opt for the treatment to degrade the cancer. Cancer must be defeated and not degraded, for it can flare up and become fatal. n nThe first doctor's name is retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who presented a war goal to the White House to defeat the Taliban. The other doctor is President Barack Obama, who advised to degrade the Taliban. The White House plan is suicidal to the United States, for the Taliban can attract more converts spreading their dangerous evil. n nWe Americans must stop discussing politics and numbers of people who support various issues. We must cease doing suicidal acts. We know many Americans are suicidal, people who take guns killing many other innocent people before killing themselves. It seems that our national leadership is also suicidal. We must do what we can to defeat our leaders and save our country. n
“Strategy, not politics, should dictate troop levels.” What a nice idea. Let’s all repeat it three times and clap our hands. n nHow about, “competence, not Hollywood star quality, should determine presidential elections.” How about, “information, not leftist propaganda, should determine news content.” How about, “merit, not racial engineering should determine college acceptance and hiring.” n nMax Boot is a twentieth-Century fossil far behind the times. Hopelessly logical and square. n
The headline is fine. However, strategy would have dictated toppling the Taliban with the help.of the Northern Alliance, and then getting the hell out. We have no vital interests in that godforsaken country, with supply lines controlled by Putin and Pakistan. n nWe never should have gone in and now should get out. That's strategy.