Opposition Grows to Sending More Troops to Afghanistan
Top military advisers have said more troops may be a critical element of a winning strategy
America's top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, told Congress this month that a winning strategy in Afghanistan "probably means more forces." This comes as little surprise in the halls of the Pentagon, where Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the head of U.S. war efforts on the ground, is expected to request more troops after conducting a widely heralded assessment of the way forward in Afghanistan.
The question has been whether the administration will back such an appeal. On Capitol Hill, Mullen's appraisal met with decidedly mixed reviews, signaling a showdown in which some of the most vocal opponents of a surge of forces are emerging from within President Obama's own party.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made it clear early in the hearing to re-confirm Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he wanted to see tens of thousands more Afghan troops trained and fighting before sending any more U.S. combat forces. A lack of Afghan forces "is absolutely our Achilles' heel," said Levin, who recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan. He noted that U.S. troops outnumber their Afghan counterparts 5 to 1.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the committee, begged to differ. "With all due respect," he said, "I've seen that movie before." Such an approach, he argued, "would repeat the nearly catastrophic lessons of Iraq." He added that "any delay" in increasing troop levels, "which we all know is vitally needed, puts troops' lives in danger."
Beginning his round of questions with a lawyerly rundown of Levin and McCain's positions, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, observed that the hearing seemed to mark the beginning "of a very serious national debate."
It is a debate that the White House had hoped to delay for a few weeks. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said that any request for new troops would include "many weeks of evaluation and assessment." Secretary Robert Gates has in the past expressed reluctance to increase troop levels, an action that he believes could increase the perception of the United States as an occupying force. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell last week downplayed the notion of any infighting between the Pentagon's civilian and uniformed leadership. But within the Pentagon there is some question about whether Obama will heed the "best military advice" of his commander on the ground—and of his top military adviser, Mullen. "It's sort of like, 'Okay, you put this guy in here, and this is what he wants' " says one senior Pentagon officer, referring to McChrystal's request for more troops. "Now do you agree?"
Gates signaled earlier this month that he would be more supportive of the possibility as long as U.S. troops did a better job of keeping Afghan civilian casualties to a minimum. But U.S. casualties have already surpassed last year's record high of 144 deaths, and a slew of polls indicate that the war in Afghanistan is losing U.S. domestic support. In a recent CNN poll, nearly three quarters of Democrats said they opposed the war, a point not lost on Democratic legislators.
For his part, Mullen emphasized, as he has often of late, that the Taliban insurgency continues to grow "in both size and complexity." He made a point of noting, too, that McChrystal was "alarmed" by the growing insurgency, which has "grabbed" momentum over the past three years. And Mullen said he knows that U.S. forces don't have long to take it back. "Time," he added, "is not on our side."
- See photos of the election in Afghanistan.
Reader Comments
s
s
I have some questions
I really don't see the point of staying in Afghanistan years after al-Qaeda has left for Pakistan, but if we're going to stay, I want a coherent explanation of our purpose in doing so. Two questions to start off:
(1) Why the ridiculously long time-line to get the Afghan army up to speed? They’re chasing down a bunch of guys with small arms and IEDs, not mounting an amphibious invasion of Europe.
(2) If US forces are in Afghanistan “to prevent re-establishment of al-Qaeda bases” (evidently there are none there now?), must there also be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other Muslim sovereignty vacuums? If this is our rationale, it sounds an awful lot like an endless game of Whack-a-Mole.
If the Taliban want Afghanistan back, let them have it; they’re no worse than the corrupt and incompetent Karzai regime. There has never been a functional central government in Afghanistan and there never will be.
Leave now, spend the money on nation building in the US, and if al-Qaeda re-emerges, use Special Ops forces to deal with them.
The Matter of More Troops in Afghanistan
Although I'm all for ending U.S. interventionalism, we're so far into it as a main feature of our foreign policy that there can be no abrupt end to it without ugly consequences. Get Afghanistan up and running as a self reliant country not in apparent need of foreign presence (us) and let the Afghanis take it from there. We're doing it in Iraq. We should do it in Afghanistan.
There are so many in Iran through the western end of the Middle East who do not want our presence in perpetuity that they will never rest until we're out. The question, of course, is CAN we leave given our ongoing commitment to Israel's security? Can Israel survive without U.S. presence? We'll never know until we do leave, for staying on will surely mean continued conflict with endless U.S. dollars poured into what has so far been a bottomless pit.
advertisement









