Marine Offensive Will Test New Strategy in Afghanistan
U.S. troops mobilized in Helmand province to fight the Taliban again
Some 4,000 marines flooded the fiercely contested drug-growing epicenter of Afghanistan last week in what amounts to the force's largest operation inside the country to date.
In the early morning hours, the marines, backed by helicopters and accompanied by armored convoys, made their way into Helmand province.
NATO troops have wrestled with the Taliban for control of the region for years—fighting tough battles, losing fellow soldiers, then watching towns fall back under Taliban control once they leave. British soldiers there wistfully call it "mowing the lawn." Until now, U.S. military officials say, NATO forces simply lacked the troop strength to rout the Taliban there for any extended time. In a number of towns that dot the high-desert plains of what was once a place of exile, there has never been any NATO presence at all.
In the weeks to come, Operation Khanjar, or Strike of the Sword, will test the Pentagon's new counterinsurgency strategy. As troops push forward in midday temperatures that their commanders describe as "hot as fire," however, senior officials are well aware that past operations may provide cautionary tales. Indeed, the U.S. military has tried to gain control of key towns in Helmand province before—and quite recently at that.
In May 2008, a Marine battalion was sent into the violent town of Garmsir, a key transit point for weapons, drug smugglers, and Islamist fighters coming over the border with Pakistan, some 75 miles south. Upon their arrival, marines were greeted with fierce opposition, including hourlong firefights and what they described as sophisticated maneuvering among well-trained Taliban troops.
After clearing out Garmsir, U.S. troops built relationships with local Afghans and reopened markets. But in October, the marines left; the Pentagon simply didn't have the force levels to allow them to stay. They were replaced by a relatively small British force and an undermanned Afghan National Army kanda k, a battalion that often includes far fewer troops than the roughly 600 soldiers it is meant to have. "The long-term strategy for holding the area was problematic because the hold force wasn't really well thought out," says Seth Jones, a Rand Corp. analyst and author of In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan. The key question for the marines now, Jones says, is "What is their presence going to look like a year from now and two years from now? How long are they going to be able to stay? This is something I don't think anyone has their finger on."
Now the marines are back, and the commander spearheading the current operation, Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, told reporters this week that he was short of forces. What makes this offensive "so very different," he explained, is that "where we go, we stay; and where we stay, we hold; and where we hold, we build; and where we build, we work with an eye towards transition." To do that, he said, he needs more troops. "I mean, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The fact of the matter is I—we—don't have enough Afghan forces, and I'd like more." Right now, he has 4,000 marines in Helmand with about 650 Afghan forces, he said.
A brigade of some 4,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C., will be arriving next month to take on the tough work of training more Afghan security forces. Many of them will go to the south. Nicholson said he would also love to see more U.S. government representatives from other agencies. Indeed, senior defense officials often point out that the widely heralded "civilian surge" announced by President Obama earlier this year amounts to only 300 people. Having more civilians in the south "will empower us. It will make us more capable as they arrive. Department of Agriculture [representatives]," Nicholson said somewhat longingly. "I mean, how important is that? You know, we're looking for those guys."
It is unclear, U.S. military officials say, what marines will encounter in the weeks ahead as they move into towns and set up outposts in an effort to improve security and convince the people that they are there to stay for a while. They are bracing for more asymmetric attacks. In the meantime, Nicholson says, the focus of the operation "from the very beginning has been the people, not the enemy." Indeed, Marine public affairs officers made a point of noting in multiple press releases in the wake of the offensive that "no bombs have been dropped from aircraft" during the operation—a nod to the strict orders they are under to avoid civilian casualties. Marine commanders asked the governor of the province for a list of elders "that young lieutenants and captains could contact as soon as they got in," explained Nicholson. For the marines, such people-centric operations "may sound very strange, and I got some raised eyebrows even with talking to marines, but our focus is to get to the people," he said, adding: "On the way, we'll take care of the Taliban." Century-old British forts bear witness to what a difficult prospect that may be.
Reader Comments
Still a wrong strategy
The turnout in the current election was very low with widespread accusations of fraud. Neither Karzai or Abdullah (Tajik origin) represent the majority population. Supporting the Tajik opponent Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is like going from frying pan to fire as neither represent the Afghan majority. We need to abandon the policy of allowing 20% Tajik Minority (Northern Alliance) with token Pashtun Karzai in Afghanistan to rule over the majority 70% Pashtun population. To achieve this goal we need the inclusion of Pashtuns in the Government, Politics, Army, Police, and Security Forces etc. There has been no census in Afghanistan for the past three decades. The policy of having this minority rule over the majority is providing Pashtun recruits to extremism and also destabilizing Pakistan that has a 20% Pashtun population of its own of which a large percentage serve in Pakistani Armed forces. Our goals should look at American long-term interest rather than Iranian, Indian or Northern Alliance long-term interest. We are not in the region to get rid of Iranian foes on their Eastern border or to prop up their allies The Northern Aliance rule on majority Pashtuns in Afghanistan or to suppress Kashmiri Freedom movement for India. The west has won the cold war against the Soviet Union on the backs of Afghan/Pakiastan(mainly Pashtun) people and we need support a true democracy which is to include the disenfranchised Pashtun population back into the fold. We need to have a American solution that looks after our national interests and stop listening to elements in our media that are acting as mouthpieces of Indian agenda that want to blame everything on Pakistan who is itself suffering both economically and militarily because of being our ally. Kashmir today remains the crux of the problem between India and Pakistan. We cannot convince Pakistanis to ignore their Eastern border when they have seen their larger Eastern neighbor gobble up smaller neighbors like Hyderabad, Goa, Junagarh and Kashmir and broken up Pakistan in 1971 into 2 parts thru military force. It was only after Pakistan got the nuclear deterrent that the two countries did not have war. There have been more than 100,000 civilian deaths in Indian Kashmir at the hands of Indian forces. Kashmiri Freedom movement is an indigenous freedom movement. We need Kashmir back on Richard Holdrooks agenda. One big confidence building measure between the 2 countries would be to recognize Pakistan as a nuclear power to win the hearts and minds of 99% of the population and also the military. This will remove any doubts in the minds of Pakistani people and the military that US is after the Pakistani nukes.
Avoid the above post like an IED:
"When the DEA locates a large marihuana field growing in some out of the way place in a state in the US, do they leave the marihuana growing to prevent economic 'damage' to the region and remain camped in place for the next ten years to A) apprehend the actual marihuana traffickers and B) 'persuade' the locals to otherwise grow legitimate crops???"
Let's compare apples to apples here and be pragmatic, ummmK?
OK. Will the British troops continue to moan, complain and whine as the going gets tougher. Can we depend on them to hold their own? I don't think the entire US did this much whining when US troops liberated UK from Nazi's 60+ years ago.
The utter absurdity of Obama's Afghanistan...
When the DEA locates a large marihuana field growing in some out of the way place in a state in the US, do they leave the marihuana growing to prevent economic 'damage' to the region and remain camped in place for the next ten years to A) apprehend the actual marihuana traffickers and B) 'persuade' the locals to otherwise grow legitimate crops???
Are you kidding? NO! The rule of law takes control. The crop is totally destroyed. Anyone caught growing it or trafficking it is arrested. Assets of traffickers are also seized.
Yet our 'new strategy' in Afghanistan is to leave the poppies alone, go after the Taleban, and persuade/bribe farmers in Afghanistan to grow legitimate crops.
To begin with, we shouldn't be there. But thanks to President Obama, we ARE there, so secondly, any 'strategy' that excludes TOTAL, COMPLETE, and UNEQUIVOCAL elimination of the poppies in Afghanistan -- by choice OR possibility -- is doomed to a long, protracted, expensive failure. If the poppies continue to grow, SOMEONE WILL PROFIT FROM OPIUM/HEROIN TRAFFICKING!!!
How much more obvious can it be?
Alright then, from another angle: On one hand there is a 'war' on drugs. On the other, we are at absolute ground zero of the opium/heroin trade and not doing what any person advocating a 'war' on drugs would be doing. So the rule of US law is subverted -- in order to bring about the rule of law via the Karzai 'government.'
An Afghan farmer sees a large group of US Marines invade who want to be his new best friend. And he sees the poppies left alone. What is he -- or us -- left to conclude other than the US wants to secure total control of the poppies for the 'official' Karzai government?
And it's not just the US version of the rule of law that is subverted. A 'quaint' image of the Afghan farmer raising poppies has been painted in the West wherein the poor but noble Afghan farmer is caught between extreme poverty and the Taleban. Yet in Muslim countries -- with an actual government -- drug trafficking is punishable by death. What country in the world -- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or other -- would object to major interdiction of the opium/heroin trade?
Only one. The US.
Get over your celebrity love affair with President Obama and you'll sooner see his ruinous Afghanistan policy disconnect between image and reality. Get rid of Al Qaeda? Get rid of the poppies for ALL -- or stay out of Afghanistan.
advertisement
