Perspective

by: Brandon Friedman

Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 22:35:25 PM EST


Writing for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Gilles Dorronsoro argued last month that America's "main policy objective should be to leave an Afghan government that is able to survive a U.S. withdrawal."  That's something with which I agree.  Dorronsoro loses me, however, when he suggests that adding more troops won't do much to further this goal.  Now, that's a fine argument to make (and many are making it), but it's not realistic if Dorronsoro wants to do this:

The real question is how combat troops should be used. The two choices we face are whether to continue playing offense by going after the Taliban, especially in the south and the east, and spreading troops thin; or whether to adopt a new strategy focusing on protecting strategic sites, namely, urban centers and key roads, to allow for the development of a strong core of Afghan institutions.

Of course, he argues for the latter.  The problem is that we've been doing similar things for seven years inadequately with 30,000 American troops and limited resources and we haven't been able to secure much of anything outside Kabul.  I'm all for leaving Afghanistan with a government in place that could survive a U.S. withdrawal.  But that's likely not possible with so few troops.  We can't yet secure all the things, places, and people that need to be secured in order to reach that point.

To underscore my point, and to put these numbers in some perspective, it's worth considering the figures below:

Capacity of the American Airlines Center in Dallas: 21,000
Number of police officers in the New York City Police Department: 38,000
Capacity of Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge: 92,000

Number of U.S. forces currently in Afghanistan: 32,000

And remember, Afghanistan is a lot bigger than Iraq.  Worth thinking about.
Brandon Friedman :: Perspective
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Perspective | 19 comments
What do you think about the kinds of troops that are needed? (0.00 / 0)
I often hear the 'experts' talk about needing the right "mix" of troops in the right numbers in the right locations.

This is obviously a very complicated landscape - in more ways than one. And, it's pretty clear I think that if there is not a strong political and muscular diplomatic strategy to coordinate with the military strategy then it really doesn't make much sense to send any more troops at all...does it?

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
if there is not a strong .... strategy...then it really doesn't make much sense to send any more troops at all...does it?

That says it.

I really hope there is an "end game" blueprint.  Of course, we don't hear much about that, or our soldiers and their Hell-on-Earth, in the news media.  Why not!

[ Parent ]
Because, (0.00 / 0)
the "news" media, as a group, are incompetent and inept and couldn't "cover" a war if their lives depended on it.

Of course, there are rare but notable exceptions to this rule - though they are so far and few between that it hardly matters.

[ Parent ]
We (4.00 / 2)
should also probably take a much tougher diplomatic stance with Saudi Arabia and be prepared for military action in Pakistan. While the latter is a possibility, I don't see us getting tougher with the Saudis anytime soon.  
[ Parent ]
At lease we finally have a crew in the White House who understand (0.00 / 0)
how foreign policy is related to energy policy and that's half the battle in moving toward a tougher diplomatic stance with the House of Saud.

But I would gently suggest that we both stay the heck away from "Sleeping with the Devil..."  too depressing :(

[ Parent ]
I certainly (0.00 / 0)
hope so, but things are not looking good in that regard right now.  
[ Parent ]
Well, this is a tough one... (0.00 / 0)
And, it's not made any easier by the need for Saudi Arabia to be positively engaged in finally coming to terms with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Everything is so bloody interconnected!
[ Parent ]
Maybe that's why... (0.00 / 0)
... the Saudis are pretty much "hands off" for now.  We expect that they'll somehow help.  But good luck with that!
[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
the Saudis are probably the last party we want to see more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right now. I would much rather see the Syrians involved.  
[ Parent ]
The Syrians have to be involved, too. (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, I don't think we can choose who is in and who is out.

Right now, I'm just hoping for a lot of common sense in how US foreign policy is conducted...on this front and any number of others.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
we can't exactly choose who's in and who's out. However, I do not think we should encourage the Saudis to be involved, nor do much of anything to aid their involvement at this time.  
[ Parent ]
I just had a thought... (0.00 / 0)
...it happens.

How do you think the US-Saudi relationship would be affected if - miracle of miracles - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were to be resolved and there were normalized relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors?

I'm thinking that may be the only thing that can change the dynamics of US-Saudi relations...well, that and becoming less dependent on Saudi crude.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure (0.00 / 0)
a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have much effect on Saudi Arabia, as both the House of Saud and the Wahhabis were running Saudi Arabia long before Israel existed. Now, such a resolution might have much more of an effect on certain other Arab dictators, but the results could be good or very bad.  
[ Parent ]
Supply lines lost: (0.00 / 0)
US losing base in Kyrgyzstan. Bridge blown up in Pakistan.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251...

All things considered there's too much we can't control.

Not without a whole lot more international cooperation, that's for sure! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
More on Russia and Kyrgyzstan...forming new (0.00 / 0)
rapid response team to fight terrorists and drug traffickers with other former Russian states.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...

[ Parent ]
Hil speaks about the Kyrgyz base issue... (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Pentagon downgrading expectations as Kabul faces possible crisis (0.00 / 0)
Interview with Michael Hastings who just returned from Afghanistan (0.00 / 0)
Perspective | 19 comments
VetVoice on Facebook
VetVoice Recommends

"The War I Always Wanted,"
By Brandon Friedman

"The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

"Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

"A Time To Lead,"
By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

"A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

"This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

Buy A Time to Lead here.

"Love My Rifle More Than You,"
By Kayla Williams

"Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

"How to Break a Terrorist,"
By Matthew Alexander

"...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

" ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
RSS Feed Links

Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:


Forget your username or password?

Front Page Writers
PTSD Resources
TBI Resources
IRR Information
Casualty Reports
VA Information
Support the Troops
Veteran Candidates We Support
Congressional Committees
Contact Your Elected Leaders
Sites We Like
Search

Advanced Search

Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

Site Design: Articulated Man

VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

Powered by: SoapBlox