Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Admiral Michael Mullen, the most senior American military officer, said the U.S. will probably deploy close to 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to shore up deteriorating security there.
In an interview, Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also said he is hopeful that other NATO nations will contribute additional military and civilian resources this year to the fight against a resurgent Taliban. The Islamist militia, which once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al-Qaeda, is threatening large areas of the country with mounting attacks.
Mullen said the new resources are needed to buy time for a broad, long-term buildup of Afghan security forces that will allow the U.S. to “put an Afghan face” on the effort and dispel perceptions of a foreign occupation.
“It’s fine for me to say this isn’t an occupation,” Mullen told Bloomberg editors and reporters yesterday. “But it’s important that the people of Afghanistan don’t think it’s an occupation.”
Mullen, 62, has said in recent weeks that the U.S. will probably send between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in response to a request from Army General David McKiernan, the American commander there. Yesterday, he said he anticipates the final level will “tend toward the higher number of those two” figures.
“I believe it’s not going well,” Mullen said of the Afghan conflict, “which is one of the reasons it’s important that we get these forces moving.”
Election Delayed
Afghanistan’s presidential election was postponed this week to Aug. 20 from May 22 because of security concerns and logistical difficulties. U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai has been unable to extend his authority much beyond the capital, Kabul, which itself is now menaced by the Taliban.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Jan. 27 Senate hearing that Afghanistan is “our greatest military challenge.”
“There is no purely military solution,” Gates said. “But it is also clear that we have not had enough troops to provide a baseline level of security in some of the most dangerous areas.”
Mullen said the military’s capacity to fulfill McKiernan’s request remains dependent on its ability to keep withdrawing forces from Iraq.
And that, he said, will in turn be shaped by whether Iraq continues to draw back from the sectarian violence that convulsed the country in 2006 and progresses toward political reconciliation along milestones like tomorrow’s provincial elections, which he called “absolutely vital.”
Improving Conditions
“It would be very difficult to slip back to the chaos that was there in 2006,” Mullen said. “The longer we are able to see conditions continue to improve, those words ‘fragile and reversible’ start to disappear.”
He cautioned that hard-core insurgents such as the group Al-Qaeda in Iraq still pose a danger. “They’re very much diminished, but there are still pockets of al-Qaeda, and the potential for major events is still there.”
In addition, he said, Iraqi leaders must still resolve some difficult political issues, such as passage of a law that gives all regions and ethnic groups a share of energy revenue and a dispute between Arabs and Kurds over control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
As a consequence, Mullen said, “we are in great part dependent on how the politics play out in 2009” as U.S. leaders consider prospects for new troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Deployed Troops
There are currently about 142,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and about 36,000 in Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department. Other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries have about 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, although some of those nations bar their forces from deployment in areas of intense combat.
The goal of the buildup in Afghanistan, Mullen said, is to enable the U.S.-led coalition to execute what he called the “classic counter-insurgency” strategy of expelling enemy fighters from an area, holding the territory against new incursions and then building up the area’s economic and physical infrastructure.
At present, the coalition has only enough resources to accomplish the first of those three stages, he said.
“When we’ve been in situations where we’ve been in combat, we’ve actually been able to significantly impact the Taliban,” he said. “The problem is, we haven’t had enough forces there once that occurs to hold the territory, so that we would then build in the classic counter-insurgency mode.”
Tribal Areas
Mullen said the situation in Afghanistan is closely linked to events in Pakistan, where Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters are roosting in the rugged mountains of that country’s northwest tribal areas.
Mullen has made eight trips to Pakistan in the past year to prod military leaders to take action against the fighters. He said he is encouraged that Pakistani leaders now are serious about battling the insurgents.
Even the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which is often accused of collaborating with Islamic extremists, is “evolving in the right direction,” at least at the leadership level, he said.
Mullen also said the Pakistanis have taken new and significant steps in recent weeks to crack down on Lashkar-e- Taiba, an Islamic extremist group blamed by India for the November terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
‘More Steps’ Needed
“There are still more steps to be taken” against the group, Mullen said, adding that Pakistani authorities were “working to get those who have been arrested into their judicial system.”
U.S. and Indian officials have previously asserted that Pakistani intelligence authorities have assisted and turned a blind eye to the group’s violent activities and training camps. Lashkar-e-Taiba, or “Army of the Good,” is dedicated to overthrowing Indian control of the disputed, Muslim-majority territory of Kashmir.
The group is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. It was outlawed by Pakistan in 2002, although its training camps in the Pakistani part of Kashmir continued to operate, according to U.S. and Indian intelligence officials.
In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani authorities arrested several alleged Lashkar militants.
In an interview, Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also said he is hopeful that other NATO nations will contribute additional military and civilian resources this year to the fight against a resurgent Taliban. The Islamist militia, which once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al-Qaeda, is threatening large areas of the country with mounting attacks.
Mullen said the new resources are needed to buy time for a broad, long-term buildup of Afghan security forces that will allow the U.S. to “put an Afghan face” on the effort and dispel perceptions of a foreign occupation.
“It’s fine for me to say this isn’t an occupation,” Mullen told Bloomberg editors and reporters yesterday. “But it’s important that the people of Afghanistan don’t think it’s an occupation.”
Mullen, 62, has said in recent weeks that the U.S. will probably send between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in response to a request from Army General David McKiernan, the American commander there. Yesterday, he said he anticipates the final level will “tend toward the higher number of those two” figures.
“I believe it’s not going well,” Mullen said of the Afghan conflict, “which is one of the reasons it’s important that we get these forces moving.”
Election Delayed
Afghanistan’s presidential election was postponed this week to Aug. 20 from May 22 because of security concerns and logistical difficulties. U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai has been unable to extend his authority much beyond the capital, Kabul, which itself is now menaced by the Taliban.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Jan. 27 Senate hearing that Afghanistan is “our greatest military challenge.”
“There is no purely military solution,” Gates said. “But it is also clear that we have not had enough troops to provide a baseline level of security in some of the most dangerous areas.”
Mullen said the military’s capacity to fulfill McKiernan’s request remains dependent on its ability to keep withdrawing forces from Iraq.
And that, he said, will in turn be shaped by whether Iraq continues to draw back from the sectarian violence that convulsed the country in 2006 and progresses toward political reconciliation along milestones like tomorrow’s provincial elections, which he called “absolutely vital.”
Improving Conditions
“It would be very difficult to slip back to the chaos that was there in 2006,” Mullen said. “The longer we are able to see conditions continue to improve, those words ‘fragile and reversible’ start to disappear.”
He cautioned that hard-core insurgents such as the group Al-Qaeda in Iraq still pose a danger. “They’re very much diminished, but there are still pockets of al-Qaeda, and the potential for major events is still there.”
In addition, he said, Iraqi leaders must still resolve some difficult political issues, such as passage of a law that gives all regions and ethnic groups a share of energy revenue and a dispute between Arabs and Kurds over control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
As a consequence, Mullen said, “we are in great part dependent on how the politics play out in 2009” as U.S. leaders consider prospects for new troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Deployed Troops
There are currently about 142,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and about 36,000 in Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department. Other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries have about 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, although some of those nations bar their forces from deployment in areas of intense combat.
The goal of the buildup in Afghanistan, Mullen said, is to enable the U.S.-led coalition to execute what he called the “classic counter-insurgency” strategy of expelling enemy fighters from an area, holding the territory against new incursions and then building up the area’s economic and physical infrastructure.
At present, the coalition has only enough resources to accomplish the first of those three stages, he said.
“When we’ve been in situations where we’ve been in combat, we’ve actually been able to significantly impact the Taliban,” he said. “The problem is, we haven’t had enough forces there once that occurs to hold the territory, so that we would then build in the classic counter-insurgency mode.”
Tribal Areas
Mullen said the situation in Afghanistan is closely linked to events in Pakistan, where Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters are roosting in the rugged mountains of that country’s northwest tribal areas.
Mullen has made eight trips to Pakistan in the past year to prod military leaders to take action against the fighters. He said he is encouraged that Pakistani leaders now are serious about battling the insurgents.
Even the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which is often accused of collaborating with Islamic extremists, is “evolving in the right direction,” at least at the leadership level, he said.
Mullen also said the Pakistanis have taken new and significant steps in recent weeks to crack down on Lashkar-e- Taiba, an Islamic extremist group blamed by India for the November terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
‘More Steps’ Needed
“There are still more steps to be taken” against the group, Mullen said, adding that Pakistani authorities were “working to get those who have been arrested into their judicial system.”
U.S. and Indian officials have previously asserted that Pakistani intelligence authorities have assisted and turned a blind eye to the group’s violent activities and training camps. Lashkar-e-Taiba, or “Army of the Good,” is dedicated to overthrowing Indian control of the disputed, Muslim-majority territory of Kashmir.
The group is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. It was outlawed by Pakistan in 2002, although its training camps in the Pakistani part of Kashmir continued to operate, according to U.S. and Indian intelligence officials.
In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani authorities arrested several alleged Lashkar militants.
12 comments:
Well, I'm glad to hear that the conflict in Afghanistan is finally going to be better taken care of. However, the problem with Afghanistan is that, just like in Iraq, here we have terrorist groups who know their land better than we do... And they also have these lovely guerilla tactics...
But it's best if we don't turn our backs on Iraq or Iran. We wouldn't want a knife between the ribs because a man with no military experience is leading our armed forces. Obama should continue action in Iraq until things are more stable. Yes we've been there a long time. I understand that people want their friends and family to come home--I have two cousins in the armed forces, and both have been to Iraq or Afghanistan multiple times, and I want them to come home as much as the next person--but people also forget that humanity takes a long time to change. A country that has been under such strict and aggressive rule for so long--like Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan--will not change overnight, or in three years, or five years, or maybe even ten years. This change will take possibly a quarter of a century before it can be called truly stable and permanent. I'm not saying we should stay in Iraq for the next two decades; I'm saying we should SLOWLY wean them from our support. And that means probably another few years in world time.
That knife I mentioned before--it's the knife that nobody sees until it's sliced them open and they realize the decision they made was stupid.
I think sending more troops to Afghanistan is something that has been needed for a very long time. The conflict in Afghanistan has cost many more American lives than it should. I've seen it written many times that Afghanistan is like the forgotten battlefield while Iraq got many battalions inserted at once on several occasions. As long as we're fighting in Afghanistan we must make sure to send appropriate amounts of troops to be able to help protect our troops and minimize casualties.
At the moment the U.S. does not have the financial resources or the man power to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The U.S. has deployed every branch of the military and the reserves, on multiple tours of duty. We rushed into this war on terrorism and nearly seven years later we still cannot end it. It is in the best interest of the United States and the troops that protect us, if we do not deploy anymore troops.
The ratio of troops in Iraq to the troops in Afghanistan is incredible! The land area in terms of square miles of Afghanistan is 250,000 compared to 140,000 of Iraq. Considering 142,000 troops are stationed in Iraq and only 36,000 are stationed in Afghanistan the numbers just don't match. It is common knowledge that the focus of US military and diplomatic actions have been on Iraq; however it may be too late the change tactics and focus on Afghanistan. Seven years after the fight on terror began and we still have not tracked down Osama bin Laden which considering the "troopage" in Iraq we could easily have one soldier per square mile in Afghanistan and be able to track him down. This is just another example of the convoluted and mismanaged mess the US is now involved in that has cost thousands of American lives, and countless civilian causalities that has gone on too long and is costing the next generation too much. It is a step in the right direction to increase troops in Afghanistan, but the timing is 7 years too late.
We are in a recession. I don't think it would be a good idea to send troops using money we don't really have. On the other hand I do think it would be a good idea to solve the problem in Afghanistan just maybe not right now when we can't afford the resources to do that.
I think this is a war based more on public relations and the swaying of the Afghan's minds than one of military power. We need to convince the people living there how wonderful a free democratic government and command economy is. The people there are resistant against our military and our country because they do not see what truly makes us great: our freedom and our successful economy. All they see are our military might and its violent outcome. We need to go to the people of Afghanistan and show them how wonderful their country can become if they, united, rose up against the terrorist aggressors and evicted them from forcefully from their country. We would lose less American lives and they would be united as a free country and as a safe one.
I think that we need to shift the forces gradually over to Afghanistan, instead of deploy more and more people there.
Shifting the troops would be a good thing for both the United States, and for Iraq. If we planned it right, we could get Iraq onto their own feet and governing themselves, while still fighting terror.
i completely agree with deploying more troops, if we do, it will end the war fster, and more efficiently
I think sending more troops to Afghanistan is something that has been needed for a very long time, but we still can't do it. The United States is in no posision to be sending more troops over sees. Costing us more money that we still don't have. Even though the conflict in Afghanistan has cost Americans lives, we just can't afford to send more. I've seen it written many times that Afghanistan is like the forgotten battlefield (which is kinda true.) As long as we're fighting in Afghanistan we must make sure to send appropriate amounts of troops. We should have sent enough to begin with.
I think it is a good idea to take away troops but we should help afghanistan as well.
In order for things to get better more troops are needed. I do believe we can't just pick up and leave, but we can't stay there forever. If we send vast amounts of troops at one time it will probaly stir up more trouble, but if we send troops in moderation maybe the people of Afghanistan could see what we are trying to do for them.
The truth is that this may be the last chance the U.S. has to to put a halting stop to the war in Afghanistan. People tend to forget about the war in Afghanistan but this war is still in progress. We can't sit around and wait for things to cool down because they won't. It is not exactly comforting to think that the U.S. economy will pay for the deployment of 30,000 more troops but this war has to come to a successful end. This situation presents a scary scenario for the United States because the last thing we want is for more men and women to be lost, but who's to say that if the deployment of these troops does not take place, the loss of life will not be even more than "what could have been".
Post a Comment