McChrystal Not Sure if More U.S. Forces Needed in Afghanistan

In confirmation hearings, McChrystal said progress is necessary in the next 18 to 24 months.

June 2, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Violence in Afghanistan is up about 25 percent this year over last year, according to Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, who commands U.S. forces in the restive eastern region of the country. As he spoke to Pentagon reporters Tuesday, Schloesser, who is preparing to head back to the States after 15 months on the ground in Afghanistan, noted that even this could be seen as an improvement. "Let's kind of go back, if you don't mind, to the first press conference that we did," he said. "I think some of you recall that I was very honest, and I said that in the few months that we'd seen an increase in violence of 40 percent."

That first news conference was one year ago. Today, Pentagon officials bluntly warn that there are more casualties to come.

In confirmation hearings this week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has been tapped to take over command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan from Gen. David McKiernan, said that he expected U.S. casualties to rise as troops push into southern Afghanistan and face "significant resistance" from insurgents.

It is a region where there have up to now been few U.S. forces. Marines cleared out some key villages in the violent southern Helmand province last May, but top Pentagon officials say that U.S. troops will likely have to clear some of those areas again. This is because there have not been enough troops on the ground to hold territory in the past.

That's changing, Pentagon officials say. By summer's end, there will be an additional 21,000 U.S. troops on the ground.

Equally important, they add, is the goal of preparing the Afghan national army to keep some swaths of territory insurgent-free themselves.

At the moment, there simply aren't enough Afghan soldiers to do this, senior Pentagon officials concede. McChrystal agreed during his testimony this week. "Odds are high that we're going to need additional security forces," he said, calling for a "significantly higher" number of Afghans to be trained and added to the Afghan military's roles.

Currently, the goal is to produce 134,000 Afghan soldiers throughout the country. Privately, senior U.S. military officials say that they are going to need to double that goal, to somewhere between 250,000 to 300,000 Afghan soldiers, to help secure the country. There are currently 86,000 Afghan national Army troops, and attrition remains a concern in the face of a violent insurgency.

McChrystal said that he is "just not sure at this point" whether the U.S. military will need an additional 10,000 U.S. soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan, a request repeatedly made by McKiernan. McChrystal added, "We need to start making progress in the next 18 to 24 months."

Tags:
Stanley McChrystal,
David McKiernan,
military,
national security terrorism and the military,
Afghanistan,
War in Afghanistan (2001-)

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Despite having been involved in a two front war for nearly 7 years the situation in Afghan and Iraq comes down to this: How much are we willing to risk? While the question seems easy, naturally the answer isnt. Just like Vietnam and other static wars of past it comes down to how much we are willing to risk for the long run. The war in Iraq is winding down despite the attempts by some die hards. Iv seen it myself having been there several times in the course of those last 7 years.

Why is that though? Several factors contribute to this: The factions arrayed against US forces are factionalized and hate each other more then US. The country was being flooded by foreign nationals who in the beginning supported local insurgent goals but soon began to place their own goals instead of locals. This created even more splintering. After 7 years many of the local diehards are dead or have left the country.

The US isnt the best when it comes to public relations with foreign nations but certainly isnt the worst either not by a long shot. With more troops aware of their surroundings and the local culture the effectiveness of US has become ten fold.

Will the same hold in Afghan? The answer is yes for the most part but modified: Afghan insurgent war strategy centers around drug trade crucially. Eliminating the opium drug trade will not be easy especially since Afghan provides 80% of world's opium. Theres money to be had and the region over the last 10 years have attracted every die hard to finance their own versions of how world should be to the cartels looking for an easy profit before the opium pipeline gets shut and moves somewhere else. The Talibans strategy centers heavily on foreign support and foreign leaders who predominatly want to keep the drug trade going with the media gauze of trying to teach the evil westerners a lesson. The foreigners dont care and since they provide the bulk of supplies, support, and command echelon they will do everything to keep their private cashes flowing.

The old concept that this is a war of Islam against the world is dead. Money changes everything. The bulk of the leaders in Taliban and Iraqi insurgencies are foreigners who will say whatever they need to so long as their moneys keep flowing. Everything and everyone else including their so called 'causes' is just a smoke screen for their own personal gains.

The battle is for money not a muslim state or trying to create a fairytale Islamic Empire. Funny how capitalism still triumphed over idealist muslims and christians alike.

1Lt SomebodyinAfghan of NV 5:29PM January 19, 2010

What McChrystal is facing is the well nigh impossible task of finding a way of "winning" this war. The winning or loosing is an illusion not a fact. It all boils down to how you define the criterias for winning. No talibans left: sounds a bit like a genocide depending on how you define taliban. Afghanistan a democracy that can secure its own territory: one of the recently suggested laws in Afghanistan was to deny women the right to attend school or persue a profession. Is this the kind of democracy we had in mind? A stable Afghanistan: This country has not been stable for decades. Invasions and interior armed struggle has long been the norm. Do we really belive that we can just "fix it" with a military op turning to "comprehensive approach" for the solution? Look at the state of former Jugoslavia. We still have military precense there after more than 10 years as do the Europeans.

Bite the apple, call it a victory and take our soldiers home now!

Ernest Yeager

Captain (N) Rd.

Ernest Yeager of DC 2:46AM September 02, 2009

are the two places America can never walk away from and still have any sense of world security.

Muser of NM 10:38AM June 03, 2009

advertisement

Latest Video