As Richard has noted, President Obama is expected to announce this next week his decision on Afghanistan. General Petraeus has cautioned that this decision should be well thought out and that President Obama was right to take some time. IN 2006, President Bush took four months to make a decision on the surge strategy in Iraq. With that in mind, I wanted to take a look at some of the possible strategies that have been discussed. The first assumes that we have the full compliment of 40,000 troops to work with:
WASHINGTON - Should President Obama decide to send 40,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the most ambitious plan under consideration at the White House, the military would have enormous flexibility to deploy as many as 15,000 troops to the Taliban center of gravity in the south, 5,000 to the critical eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for the Afghan security forces.
The rest could be deployed flexibly across the country, including to the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the capital, and in clandestine operations.
As pointed out, this is the most ambitious plan. This includes a comprehensive mission of CT with border control and a training component as well.
If Mr. Obama limited any additional American troops to 10,000 to 15,000, the military would deploy them largely as trainers, with some reinforcements likely in the southern province of Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home. The neighboring, and opium-rich, Helmand Province and the eastern border with Pakistan, military analysts say, would receive few if any American troops and would remain largely as they are today.
Such trade-offs are part of the discussions under way in the West Wing and at the Pentagon as Mr. Obama and his top advisers debate escalating the eight-year-old war. And they drive home the basic point that while the numbers will dominate the headlines, what is really at stake is how to fight the war.
One thing that has remained unmentioned is the effect any of these strategies would have on the reliance on defense contractors. I have to wonder if more are being factored in or if the extra troops would allow the higher command to end some of those contracts. In either case, here is a small primer on the three main strategies being offered:
If the president approves the full 40,000 troops:
With 40,000 troops, the military priority would be to deploy as many as 10,000 to Kandahar, the desert province abutting Pakistan; its big city, also called Kandahar, is the second largest in Afghanistan. Currently there are about 3,200 United States troops and 1,600 Canadian soldiers in the area. The Taliban control much of Kandahar Province and are contesting control of the city.
An additional 5,000 American troops would probably be sent to the contested Helmand Province, home to the poppy crop that is a major source of income for the Taliban who traffic in opium.
Some 4,000 Marines are now in the area, but they have been unable to secure large parts of the province, including guerrilla strongholds in southern and central Helmand.
Yet another 5,000 would probably be sent to the eastern area that some military planners refer to as "P2K," for the Afghan provinces of Paktika, Paktia and Khost.
Perhaps as many as 10,000 troops would be deployed as trainers with the Afghan security forces, with NATO pledging to send thousands more.
Of course, the president could also decide to send close to 40,000 troops, reduce the number of trainers,or send different sets of troops in waves for different missions. For instance, the 10,000 to Kandahar could be deployed immediately, while the 10,000 for training missions could be the last to go. If the president decides to send 20,000 - 35,000 troops:
The difference between 30,000 and 40,000, military analysts say, is that there might be 5,000 trainers rather than 10,000, and fewer troops to spread flexibly across the country over all, although there would still be a strong concentration in the south.
Military officials say that three-quarters of any additional troops sent, no matter the number, will be working side by side with Afghan security forces in a "partnering" or apprentice arrangement. They will be separate from American trainers, whose job is to put raw recruits through a basic military training regime.
Under the partnering arrangement, Afghan troops will share the same bases as the Americans, a defense official said, and although there will be separate sleeping quarters and dining facilities, "they're going to live together, work together, plan together and operate together."
Administration officials estimate the cost of sending 30,000 more troops at $25 billion to $30 billion a year and the cost of sending 20,000 troops at $21 billion a year.
Finally, the smallest number of troops that has been discussed is 10 - 15,000 troops
Under this approach, advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the United States would accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces and focus on eliminating the Qaeda leadership in Pakistan through drone strikes.
Mr. Obama is likely to announce his new Afghanistan strategy in the first week of December, administration officials say.
Despite the attention to the troop number, Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned that it would be about as helpful to understanding the president's war strategy as counting the number of parts in a Ferrari to determine how it would handle the road.
I am expecting President Obama's announcement to be some hybrid on these three basic strategies. AT the same time, however many troops are sent, I hope President Obama outlines how they will be used, for how long, and what that will accomplish in the long run. For a good primer on Afghanistan 101, check out this pdf file. |
