Withdrawing from Iraq, Reinforcing Afghanistan

The events of this week served to underline the fact that the war on terrorism was always really about Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that President George W. Bush's splendid little adventure in Iraq was always a sideshow, even though it siphoned off the biggest chunk of manpower and resources.

The president and his would-be Republican successor, Sen. John McCain, had barely completed even one Iraq victory lap singing hosannas to the surge when they were obliged to begin thinking and talking about how they're going to shore up a failing policy in Afghanistan. They'd do well, as would McCain's opposite number, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, to give some serious thought to what's happening, or not happening, as the case may be, in neighboring Pakistan.

Completing the trifecta of perfect storms, Obama dropped by Baghdad for a chat with Iraqi and American military and civilian leaders. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki promptly invited U.S. forces in his country to leave, sounding quite comfortable with Obama's plan to remove the last American combat troops within 16 months of his taking office on January 20, 2009.

American military leaders have made it quite clear that any build-up of American troops in Afghanistan will be dependent on the removal of an equivalent number of troops from Iraq on virtually a one-for-one basis.

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan are pushing hard for reinforcements to fight a resurgent Taliban guerrilla force in southern Afghanistan. American casualties in Afghanistan are climbing swiftly even as they've been dropping in Iraq.

The administration's hopes that our NATO allies would sharply increase the number of their troops in Afghanistan and devote more of them to fighting the bigger, bolder and more dangerous Taliban forces have gone a glimmering.

Instead, we're treated to the sight of American troops patrolling through endless fields of opium poppies that seemingly are the only cash crop in Afghanistan, and being careful not to step on the plants.

The poppy crop has given Afghanistan the dubious honor of having again become the world's biggest exporter of opium and its deadly derivative: heroin. We have neither the manpower nor the money to do much about that except to ignore it on pain of widening the rebellion and swelling the ranks of the Taliban if we resume opium eradication efforts.

Obama says he'd send two new combat brigades (approximately 3,000 troops in each brigade) to Afghanistan. McCain tried to trump that by suggesting that he'd send three brigades.

President Bush in recent months has dispatched a single Marine brigade to bring the total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to around 30,000. The president and his merry band were huddling to chew over the few and unpalatable (to them) options: Announce an Afghanistan surge of two to four more combat brigades accompanied by the withdrawal of a similar number of brigades from Iraq, perhaps by not replacing departing units as they leave.

But if you believe, as the administration and McCain seem to, that the surge "worked" and Iraqi forces are ready to take over, why stop there? (My colleague Nancy Youssef's recent experience embedded with an Iraqi unit raises some questions about the latter proposition.)

There's an invitation on the table to negotiate a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq. Why not seize it with whoops and cheers and put in place a timetable that would withdraw U.S. combat troops at the rate of one brigade per month until all that remains are small groups of U.S. advisers and trainers with the Iraqi Army and police, and a small ready reaction force to protect them and the huge new

American Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone? How many more American soldiers are needed to secure Afghanistan? How many additional billions of dollars are needed to repair and build
roads and infrastructure? How much to shore up the sagging fortunes of the Afghan central government, whose writ and reach barely extends beyond the city limits of Kabul?

The answer, in all cases, is a lot. A lot of American troops and a wad of American money and don't count on NATO to pick up any of the slack. Even that may not be enough, of course, so long as neighboring Pakistan remains a safe haven, training and recruiting ground for Islamic militants.

An outgoing American commander said it was his opinion that a total force of more than 400,000 troops Afghan Army, U.S. forces and NATO troops would be needed to secure Afghanistan. American and NATO forces total around 50,000. The Afghan Army and national police numbered fewer than 100,000 at the end of 2007.

The late and unlamented Soviet Union sent more than 200,000 soldiers into Afghanistan at the end of 1979. Although they treated all of the country as a free fire zone and forced millions of refugees across the border into Pakistan, in the end the Soviet Army was defeated and
retreated.

It's way past time to begin withdrawing from Iraq and begin reinforcing Afghanistan and find some other way of dealing with Pakistan besides throwing money into the air in Islamabad and hoping that a few million dollars land in the right places. You've done a heckuva job there, George. Pat yourself on the back, and give Dick a hug while you're at it.

Originally published on July 23rd in McClatchy Newspapers.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

"In the end the Soviet Army was defeated and retreated."
This is a typically American form of revisionist history.
Soviet army inflicted extremely heavy casualties onto the Mujahideen. At no point in time M-deen controlled any substantial part of the A-stani territory.
Unlike Americans in 'Nam who run out with Viet Cong on their heels.
M-deen were at most a strong guerrilla force, but incapable of fielding a force capable of challenging the Soviet Army. Despite hundreds of of millions $ pumped in by China, U.S.and India.

In fact after Soviets left, Soviet trained locals inflicted heavy defeat on Mujahadeen time after time.

Soviets left because the war was an economic drain, it was unpopular and had really no purpose, strategically or politically. It is hard to win a pointless war, because there's little will to win it-- a vicious circle.

Very much like current situation in Iraq.

[ThePeacemakers]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill fired off letters to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the head of the agency which oversees contractors for the Department of Defense regarding a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today uncovering serious allegations of impropriety by agency auditors. The GAO found in its study that supervisors at the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) used intimidation, harassment, and threats to get their employees to alter audits in favor of contractors.

[bronceye]

No post surge plans? I'm shocked, shocked to think that the neoconmen didn't plan ahead. Oh, the occupation will succeed bush's term and someone else has to fix it? The post surge plan? Leave it for the next pres. The surge was a resounding success. McMinibush will also leave the pullout to someone else. Maybe a surge every three months for 4 more years.

[jcorrington]

Joe, with all due respect, I think we would end up with the same nightmare as Iraq if we send more troops to Afgan. We should bring all troops home and concentrate our resources on internal security and infrastructure. We simply cannot afford sustained war anymore.

We missed our big chance to get those bad guys when we didnt go into Afgan in the first place. Those guys are so entrenched now, it would take a million troops to find them. No more wasted lives and money!!

[kristycu]

you know what you may be right, but i am for going to Afghanistan, but you may be right, we most likely missed our chance, but one thing we can do in afhanistan, is at the very least get them to where they can protect themselves etc. If you assume that when Iraqis say hay were fine we can defend ourselves please leave, i think we should do the same their even if we do not get bin laden at least help them build their army and get their government back, because like i said in another post if we had not diverted our attention, who know we may have caught bin laden and be able to leave that country, they were voting, going to school, just starting to build their life when we went to iraq, we didn't even let them get stable, if bush would have waited, i believe afghanistan would be in a much better place, unfortunately who ever is president - they are screwed. I say if you can't get bin laden within two years -

[kristycu]

continued... because i honestly think it is worth at least that long, we need to go and while we are trying to find bin laden, at the same time aggressively training the afghan military and building the government like crazy so that if we do not get those people, it will make it easier to leave and then we have to work with the rest of the world, to get better intelligence to try and prevent these things again. I also believe that if those people belive that we are not trying to be bullies- since they are saying it is our foreign policies they hate, some of this will go away, not completely but some of it so in the long run we will become safer

[egal]

You're wrong. Militarily and politically speaking, at the very least.

Simply put, we HAVE to send troops to Afghanistan or we'll lose far more soldiers and kill far more civilians. Of course, there is also the need to stabilize that nation and rid it of the terrorists we've let entrench themselves in and near Afghanistan. Our security requires a troop increase, not for a war, but for a targeting of terrorists that should have been fought with other power than combat but now can only be eliminated (and require it) militarily.