Pentagon to Obama: Send more troops or lose war in Afghanistan

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Pentagon to Obama: Send more troops or lose war in Afghanistan
By James Cogan
13 August 2009

The stage has been set for the Obama administration to announce
another major escalation of the war in Afghanistan, amid warnings that
the Taliban insurgency has to be stemmed over the next 12 to 18 months
to avoid the risk of a humiliating US defeat.

General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, is continuing to use the American media to condition
public opinion to accept the dispatch of more troops and the
allocation of more money to bolster the occupation. The commander was
due to present a review of the war to the White House this week but it
has been delayed until after the August 20 Afghan presidential election.

In a weekend interview with the Wall Street Journal, extracts of which
were published on Monday under the dire headline “Taliban Now
Winning,” McChrystal declared the conflict was at a “critical and
decisive moment.” The Taliban, he said, was “a very aggressive enemy
right now” and the occupation forces had effectively 12 months to stop
their “momentum” and “initiative.”

While McChrystal did not spell out his plan, unnamed officials who
have taken part in the review provided details to the Wall Street
Journal of what is likely to be proposed. These include:

* Funding to nearly double the size of the Afghan government army from
135,000 to 240,000, and the police from 82,000 to 160,000.

* The long-term deployment of up to 10,000 additional US troops to
function as trainers and overseers for the expansion of the Afghan
security forces. Most analysts agree that the process would take at
least five years to complete.

* The short-term deployment of between two and eight additional combat

brigades—amounting to anywhere between 10,000 and 60,000 troops and
support and logistics personnel—to enable coordinated offensives
against Taliban strongholds. The Wall Street Journal highlighted
concerns in the military that insurgents had largely escaped during
the current US operation in Helmand Province due to the lack of troops.

Another leak this week to McClatchy Newspapers indicated that
McChrystal also intends to ask for a major increase in US government
employees in various advisory functions. The civilian contingent in
Afghanistan was predicted to grow from 560 in late 2008 to 1,000 by
the end of this year and up to 1,350 by mid-2010. Essentially, their
role will be to run entire departments of the puppet government in Kabul.

McChrystal’s views are believed to be strongly backed by the head of
Central Command, General David Petraeus, who was responsible for the
US surge in Iraq.

The thinking in US ruling circles was spelt out this week by Anthony
Cordesman, senior foreign policy analyst at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS). Cordesman was invited by McChrystal
to assist in the preparation of his review and had recently returned
from Afghanistan. On August 10, he published his conclusions in a
column in the British-based Times, headlined “More Troops, Fewer
Caveats—Let’s Get Serious.”

Cordesman condemned the Bush administration for failing to take the
Taliban insurgency seriously until 2007 and criticised NATO states for
failing to provide enough troops and for placing limits on their use.
Washington and NATO, he declared, had allowed “the enemy to take the
initiative for more than half-a-decade.”

He also labeled the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai as
“corrupt, grossly overcentralised, lacking in capacity and virtually
absent in large parts of Afghanistan.” He blasted international
reconstruction and aid in Afghanistan as “a dysfunctional, wasteful
mess that is crippled by bureaucratic divisions.”

The result, Cordesman declared, was that “the Taliban have gone from a
defeated group of exiles to a force that has threatened to defeat NATO
and the Afghan government.” The insurgency had increased the number of
districts under its control from 30 in 2003 to 160 by the end of 2008,
and its attacks on occupation forces had soared by 60 percent between
October 2008 and April 2009. Seventy-five US and NATO troops were
killed in July, the highest number of the entire war, and hundreds
more were wounded. So far in August, another 27 soldiers have lost
their lives.

Cordesman’s proposed remedy was the dispatch of “three to nine
additional combat brigades” on top of the 21,000 troops already
ordered by Obama this year, the doubling of the Afghan army and
police, a purge of corrupt elements from the Afghan government, an
overhaul of the “divided, grossly inefficient and corrupt
international aid effort” and greater action against the Pakistani
border tribes that are aiding the Afghan insurgency.

The US and NATO governments, he also insisted, “will need to be more
honest with their peoples” and make clear that the war in Afghanistan
would require “a long-term commitment.” There is common agreement
among pro-war analysts like Cordesman that while the next 12 months
will be crucial militarily in pushing back the Taliban, it will take
five to 10 years to completely stabilise Afghanistan as a pliant US
client state.

As well as thousands of casualties, the financial cost of the war will
be enormous. Since 2001, Afghanistan has already cost the US Treasury
some $223 billion. Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution told
the Washington Post this month that the cost of military operations
alone would more than likely balloon to $100 billion over the coming
year. Bing West, a former assistant defense secretary, conservatively
estimated that, in addition, “Afghan forces will need $4 billion a
year for another decade, with a like sum for development.”

Despite the crisis confronting the US budget, a further escalation of
the war is likely to pass through Congress with little difficulty. In
May, 17 Democratic and Republican senators on the Armed Services
Committee signed a joint letter to Obama calling for the doubling of
the Afghan Army—which would necessarily involve the dispatch of more
US trainers.

This week, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called on the Democratic
majority in both houses of Congress to join with the Republicans in
responding favourably to a request for more war funding. “Let’s not
‘Rumsfeld’ Afghanistan,” he declared, referring to Bush administration
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who notoriously insisted that the
Iraq occupation could be carried out with less than half the troops
recommended by senior generals.

Graham appealed to the Democrats: “Let’s not do this thing on the
cheap. Let’s have enough combat power and engagement across the board
to make sure we’re successful. Quite frankly, we’ve got a lot of
ground to make up.”

The most significant response to the steady leaking of McChrystal’s
plans has been that of the Obama administration. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones have
stated on a number of occasions that the president has “not ruled out”
sending more troops.

The very fact that Obama has made no attempt to silence speculation
over plans for additional troops is a strong indication that a
decision has already been made. Obama was propelled into office by
decisive sections of the US ruling elite precisely to focus on the war
in Afghanistan and shore up the geo-political interests of American
imperialism in the resource-rich Central Asian region—regardless of
how much it costs in blood and dollars.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/afgh-a13.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********