Can We Surge in Afghanistan?

The dialog between McCain and Obama in the presidential debate was mind blowing. Both are in full agreement on the need to increase our troop presence in Afghanistan. However, neither of them offer any firm plan to cut troop levels in Iraq -- something necessary to surge in Afghanistan. Regardless of policy positions being crafted by their staff and advisers, this issue is defining itself with the increasing strain on our military that continues to suffer the pain of continued deployments. McCain and Obama must understand that if they want a military escalation in Afghanistan it is absolutely necessary that we dramatically increase the size of our military, and decrease our world wide operational commitments before our military is forced into years of regeneration. This isn't post-Vietnam when we had the luxury of the Army and Marines out of action. Our adversaries in the world won't wait a couple years for our military to regroup and go on offense again.

Obama's performance in the debate was good. He definitely could have been more informatively stern when going after McCain. The "maverick" can tout his "surge" in Iraq all he wants, but at the end of the day it's nothing short of a temporary derailment of an inevitable train wreck. The end result will be the same unless we make an eternal commitment for boots on the ground in Iraq, but it's just not reality -- financially or militarily. On that point alone, Obama had a strong advantage over McCain that he didn't adequately utilize.

Obama has my vote but I get perturbed when he joins McCain in talking about our troops as if they are superhuman, as if they can do anything. Here is a news flash gentleman: they're human beings who have physical and psychological limitations -- not robots. Take a look at the current retention and recruitment rates. There are many NCOs with 15 or more years of military service that are not waiting to hit their 20 year mark for retirement. These are troops who decided a long time ago that a military career was their destiny. Now, they're moving into the civilian world as quickly as possible where employment opportunities are very meager. Due to the severe shortage of Captains in the Army, there are actual cases where Lieutenants have assumed company commands. Captains who do stay in are taking on the responsibilities of battalion operations officers -- a Major's billet. Colonels are turning down battalion and brigade commands leaving them to be filled by third stringers. Are we going to go back to Audie Murphy and the days of battlefield commissions? Seven out of ten people who show up at recruiting stations to enlist are unfit for military service -- mentally or physically. This leaves us with three out of ten being able to enlist. When it is all said and done the military gets one out of ten successfully with relaxed standards. We're just running them through basic training cycles for cannon fodder purposes.

We've activated over a 1/3 of our IRR component as if it is a full operational active duty force. They're not stateside, they're overseas. How much of the backdoor draft is contributing to the war effort? Just some FYI stuff if you're thinking about enlisting. Because nowadays if you sign that dotted line it could mean a lifelong commitment. The people who send you off to die look at it one way -- Volenti non fit injuria.

Alcohol abuse, and domestic violence are prevalent in military households due to PTSD and psychological trauma from repeated deployments. Thousands of troops are diagnosed with this mental epidemic and still retained because of troop shortages. They are heavily medicated with anti-depressant/anxiety pills then shipped back to the war zone. If and when they come home, will they ever mentally recover? Not likely. This is going flood VA hospitals with veterans in desperate need of mental and physical care for decades.

Surging in Afghanistan sounds great in theory, but I wonder if it ever occurred to the presidential candidates that we missed our opportunity 7 years ago? Let's face it; George W. Bush completely blew it. His military strategy in Afghanistan (or lack there of) gave Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda ample time to relocate their operations in a place where our allies, the Pakistanis, shoot at our helicopters flying reconnaissance missions looking for those who attacked us on 9/11. In addition, the population center is not aggregated in Afghanistan as it is in Iraq and the terrain is completely different. The surge strategy implemented clear and hold tactics to pacify large urban areas such as neighborhoods in Baghdad. Are we now going to clear and hold caves? Most of our military divisions are mechanized. How are tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles going to move up mountains in the remote areas of Afghanistan? Do we leave our armor at home and move out on foot? If all your military training was conducted in armored mechanized vehicles how do you make an instant adjustment to mountain warfare? Or do we rely solely on light infantry units?

Most alarming is that Democrats and Republicans seem to be headed in the exact same direction when it comes to upping the ante in Afghanistan. However, they're ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room -- the lack of manpower.

I don't have the answers either. What I'm sure of is the current strategy (that McCain will surely continue) guarantees failure on both fronts. For years now many have predicted the Iraq conflict would break the military. We're past that point and the majority Americans turned against the war. And the minority of Americans left who advocate for war and a so-called victory are usually not those doing the fighting. So the next time you hear a politician say "never underestimate the will of the American people," just remember that will is very easy to have when you're not mandated to put any action behind it. So for the time being, lets simmer down the heated chants for another military escalation.

Comments

[TRIATHLON]

THE REVERSE NUTCRACKER STRATEGY

The (NATO/ISAF) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, International Security Assistance Force involvement in Afghanistan, and (US/MIC) United States Military Industrial Complex are in the nutcracker, in and Fighting Islamic Country Afghanistan, the northern supply routes closed off by Soviet Russia, due to the war with the Former Soviet Republic of Georgia war, on the west Iran another Islamic country within (24) twenty-four months of having (WMD’s) Weapons of Mass Destruction the Bomb, and means to deliver it, on the west and south another Islamic country Pakistan with (WMD’s) and southern supply routes in their control. Solutions reverse the nutcracker and put Iran in the middle.

Destabilize Pakistan Invade and occupy it with the help of India, give India Kashmir in return and have India occupy Pakistan, turn the combined forces of (NATO/ISAF/USMIC) upon Afghanistan, and put Iran in the nutcracker between two sets of (NATO/ISAF/USMIC) forces one in Afghanistan the other in Iran.

[itmaybetoolate]

"Our adversaries in the world won't wait a couple years for our military to regroup and go on offense again. "

John, an excellent piece!! I think the above line is the most important point you made (out of many very important points). What do we do if and when there is a significant and credible threat against us?

I also have to say that I think your point about the prevalence of mental disorders, while very important, will not resonant with the public. Americans, by and large, still think of mental disorders like PTSD as a personal failing rather than a very real disorder equivalent to a diagnosable and treatable medical disorder. I think a majority of the public believes that "Those soldiers should just get over it."

Of course, will anything resonate with the public about this debacle? I just don't know. Why haven't we risen up as a nation and demanded an end to this? I fear we have become a nation of cowards.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

itmaybetoolate,

Good to hear from you again. Your question about a significant threat against us:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_stretched_080114w/

V/R
John

[oldfart1]

One of the Bush arguments is that we have to maintain an army in the Near East, otherwise the Taliban wll return to Iraq and capture it and its oil.

Nonsense! The Taliban was never in Iraq, and if we left, the Maliki gov't might collapse, but it would just be replaced with a new Iraqi gov't. Any attempt by foreigners to take over Iraq would meet the same kind of reception we met.

Look at it from an Iraqi point of view. If we leave, what will scare them most? The possibility that the Russians might replace us. So we have a paradox: so long as we are in Iraq, "protecting" them, they will hate us. As soon as we leave, they will want us to be available to save them from the Russians, and they will love us. That's the way Near Eastern politics is.

So why are we there? Why does a chicken cross the road? How does a General get promoted? Remember the WWI song, "There'll be no promotions/This side of the Oceans..."

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

oldfart1,

We have to get Bin Laden -- we have to. The point I'm trying to make is that putting another 50,000 troops in Afghanistan, a place where Bin Laden is no longer residing (as far as we know), at a cost of a billion a week is senseless, plus we don't have the troops. You're spot on; if we leave Iraq Maliki's gov will collapse, and the new gov would resist any foreign occupying army. Maliki most likely would have to seek sanctuary in Europe or the US.

Good analysis. Thanks for reading and commenting.

V/R
John

[oldfart1]

After all the details, the paramount factors are history, culture, economics, and demographics. History tells us that people have been scratching out a living in Afghanistan since at least 3000 BC. When the British established control of India, they attempted to establish puppet gov'ts in Afgh., but none of these lasted, and they finally gave up in 1920. The Russians thought they had a "friendly" gov't, but they found they had to support it with a war. The Soviets grossly underestimated the huge cost of the Afghan venture—described, in time, as the Soviet Union's Vietnam--to their state. They gave up after 10 years of bloody fighting, leaving behind the Taliban (which we had financed!). Today the only sizable cash crop to support their rapidly growing population is heroin.

The harder we push on the Taliban in Afghan., the more they recede into, and destqbilizwe, Pakistan, which has severe population problems of its own.

[jhNY]

As much as I would like to conclude otherwise, it seems as if we are, if the opinions and plans of the two presidential candidates are any indication, still too smitten with the notion of military solutions for problems like Afghanistan or Pakistan. By using our air power against those we believe are Taliban or Al Qaida, we have killed scores of innocents, which aside from being criminal, is also radicalizing the survivors agaist us.

However much we maintain our wish to liquidate or capture Bin Laden, crossing the border of a supposed ally and stirring up fire fights with their regular army is not getting us anywhere we want to be either. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and an extrememly unstable one. And it's not clear exactly who controls the arsenal, or who would, were the government to topple. Instead of cultivating the alliance, we are inspiring another generation of under-employed young men to throw themselves at the foreign devils who are ourselves.

We cannot invade Pakistan. We cannot occupy Afghanistan sufficiently so as to quell the myriad insurgencies that bubble up all around the country, especially so long as our troops are there, whose very presence is infuriating to the locals. Capturing Bin Laden and his associates should have been a matter for international law enforcement. Diplomacy is our only recourse in the region. Sometimes, when a fellow is good with a hammer, he smashes everything, and then everything is broken.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

jhNY,

We NEED to get Bin Laden. Also, I think your idea that " Capturing Bin Laden and his associates should have been a matter for international law enforcement. Diplomacy is our only recourse in the region" makes far more sense than sending in thousands of US troops to occupy Afghanistan for an indefinite period of time.

You raised a great point here: "Pakistan is a nuclear state, and an extrememly unstable one. And it's not clear exactly who controls the arsenal, or who would, were the government to topple."

Thanks for reading and replying.

V/R
John

[mergina]

The definition for the word surge created by these b.s. wars should be stricken from our vocabulary for all time.

[voidware]

Thanks John.

Respectfully, from Bill Clinton until today, could we please stop telling ourselves how we could have gotten Bin Laden when we had the chance?

There's been a 25 million dollar bounty on his head for almost a decade, not to mention the military efforts.

I think you could define Pakistan as a failed state, in part for the reasons you cited, but I think it is disrespectful to suggest "we took our eye off the ball" when we went to Iraq. As Obama suggested, we can do two things at once.

Russia can surely reiterate the Afghan / Pakistan terrain is difficult but justice, with any President and this military, can prevail in the fight against terrorism.

"will is very easy to have when you're not mandated to put any action behind it"
Brilliant. This is why Obama should shut up about how he was against going into Iraq.
He was not mandated to put action behind it, he wasn't a U.S. Senator.

[Madazell]

What purpose does it serve to capture or kill Osama at this juncture? Does this perceived policy of revenge serve the American citizen, the world community or only the declining alpha males that perpetuate their philosophy of machismo on the bottom 10% of our country who are consistently responsible for fighting our wars of principle. Bush railroaded our presence into Iraq to appease his war college father and line the pockets of Texas residents associated with the companies who profited from our bloated, no competitive bid contracts. Let the old men in this country currently hold the seats of power exercise their masculinity at the gym and allow the clear thinkers to manage our foreign policy.

[voidware]

"What purpose does it serve to capture or kill Osama at this juncture?"

Ask Obama. He wants more troops in Afghanistan. He wants to keep troops in Iraq. He wants to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Its unfortunate you don't know why.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Madazell,

I think capturing or killing Bin Laden does serve the American people. 9/11 isn't something you forget or let someone off the hook for. I don't think it could be done with 100,000 troops in Afghanistan that he could see coming from 100 miles away. Plus we don't have the money or troops to do it. Furthermore, if there was ever a time to do it , it was 7 years ago.

Other than that, I agree with everything you stated in your comment.

V/R
John

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

voidware,

To say we "took our eye off the ball" by invading Iraq is an understatement. We had no business going over there to invade and occupy that nation -- none. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had no connection to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and we invaded the evidence was completely unsubstantiated -- completely. I'm not trying to defend Obama or advocate for him or the Dems. I'm putting out thoughts about the reality of escalating in Afghanistan, a country completely different from Iraq, a similar surge would not likely work there. Plus, most intel reports indicate Bin Laden is no longer there.

Thanks for reading, replying, and sharing your thoughts.

V/R
John

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

voidware,

To say we "took our eye off the ball" by invading Iraq is an understatement. We had no business going over there to invade and occupy that nation -- none. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had no connection to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and when we invaded the evidence was completely unsubstantiated -- completely. I'm not trying to defend Obama or advocate for him or the Dems. I'm putting out thoughts about the reality of escalating in Afghanistan, a country completely different from Iraq, a similar surge would not likely work there. Plus, most intel reports indicate Bin Laden is no longer there.

Thanks for reading, replying, and sharing your thoughts.

V/R
John

[MagisterLudi]

Suggestions for the Surge.
Play hardball with E. European countries. Slogan: "No troops for A-stan, no help against Russia"
Poland 40,000 fighting troops+ support
Ukraine 40, 000 troops+ support.
3 Baltic countries: 5, 000 each
Georgia: 10,000-- mountain savvy soldiers! A bit weak in the knees. But it'll have to do.
Czech: 10,000
Hungary: 5,000
Finland-- 10,000 good troops!
Swedish-- 5,000.
Hire some private Soviet A-stan spetsnaz and GRU veterans.

Extensive mountain warfare training.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

MagisterLudi,

Words of wisdom. I don't see any other way to solve this problem without significant help from our allies. The Pakistani government seem to be in cahoots with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda -- my uneducated guess based on them firing on our aircraft.

I think we need very aggressive diplomacy here -- especially if we are going to get OBL once and for all -- we'll need a lot of cooperation from all the countries you listed.

Thank you.

V/R
John

[oldfart1]

What a wish list But why stop there? There are so many much better things to wish for.

[hphoenix]

I sincerely hope Obama changes his mind about putting more troops into Afghanistan if he is elected. No one has been able to subdue Afghanistan. I don't understand why modern armies are expected to be able to deal with guerillas. As far as I can see, they cannot win. An American militia wrested the country from Great Britain. The Viet Cong bested the American army in Vietnam. The Afghan 'army' chased the Russians out. Hamas wore down the Israeli army in Lebanon.

I agree it's a very serious problem and that something has to be done to contain/co­ntrol/conv­ert the jihadists, but I don't think the proposed solution is it. I like Cautious' solution: feed them; trade with them; make friends.

[MagisterLudi]

Cautious solution: provide security, eliminate Al Qaeda/ Taliban camps ( with the club members inside) then and ONLY then trading and educating would be possible. Think about it.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

hphoenix,

Good & fair points -- hard to argue with. I think you are, in different words, stating the obvious; those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Thanks for reading and replying.

V/R
John

[MagisterLudi]

"I don't have the answers either."
Eh, then why a long post.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

MagisterLudi,

Just putting some thoughts out there for the purpose of creating an informative discussion.

V/R
John

[wbramh]

I would argue that the US military tactic in Afghanistan is now, and has always been nothing more than a surge. As the 30,000 additional "Surge" troops in Baghdad helped to quell violence in that city, so has our coalescence of troops in Kabul maintained stability in that capital. The problem in Afghanistan is that we've never had the boots on the ground in the rest of Afghanistan and Karzai (thanks to this limited US presence) has never really been more than "The Mayor of Kabul."
I totally agree with your assessment of the futility of even threatening to send significant troop increases to Afghanistan. We would need real soldiers and not magical ones, and we'd need many hundreds of thousands of them - ain't gonna happen.
Unfortunately, I don't have the answer either, but I think it lies in using any real force we can muster in Afghanistan in a non-military fashion. As Nicholas Kristoff recently suggested, if we have any chance to win that war, we can do more good by building a new school rather than literally dropping the same amount of money in one destructive "Smart Bomb."

[MagisterLudi]

You cannot build a school for girls, if the next day Taliban will burn it down and behead the teachers. Think!
Just as in American inner schools little education happens without enhanced campus security.

[wbramh]

Securing a better and more peaceful way of life has tended to increase the desire of the people to cherish and protect those gains. We've seen this happen in parts of Africa and even in Afghanistan, albeit in a very limited scope. However, the soldiers who have been involved in humanitarian work will tell you that the success of this plan is only limited by the number of soldiers and money involved in the effort.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

wbramh,

I like your analysis. Thank you for sharing.

V/R
John

[TLV]

I really think that the wars the PNAC had planned were underfunded without the flow of heroin that the Taliban had nearly stopped. That's why we had 9/11 rather than Iraq in Bush's first year. Iraq had been in the planned for at least 10 years, but the money for it needed to be freed up first. There's also the issue of the pipelines running from the Caspian Sea to the ports of Pakistan and the Arabian Sea. Those are well under way, thanks to 9/11. Bush will be well-remembered for helping the oil companies get richer. That's his greatest legacy.

[gottatellya]

You're absolutely right! That said, we owe it to ourselves to the the course changed hard. We should be thinking about that knowing John McCain was a champion of the deregulation for many years that created this oil scam, as he campaigns to be president. Consider it while understanding that 45 to 60 percent of what you pay at the pump goes to 'paying off the house' on the back end for the energy companies' speculative profiteering, initiated by Bush , Gramm, and all the other crooks. McCain and Bush both have balls of steel trying to pretend they're here trying to solve this crisis 'caused by others', and posing for their photo ops in their self constructed super hero costumes.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

TLV,

I certainly agree with this part of your post:

"Bush will be well-remembered for helping the oil companies get richer. That's his greatest legacy."

V/R
John

[esquire07]

The lives of American troops are very cheap - Americans are much more concerned about what is on TV this fall than the troops or their families. If the case were otherwise the troops would be home and Bush would be Impeached.

The so called "War" will go on and on and on and the troops will die and be maimed without end.

All that matters is that the Arms dealers and Oilmen profit.

The War is a sick joke... and the troops are the ones paying with their lives. Uh Rah !!!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

esquire07,

Please don't stop -- keep telling it like it is.

V/R
John

[RepugsOut08]

I agree that Afghanistan could be another military boondoggle. Bush let the "evil doers" get away, and now they're in a godforsaken terrain that the Russians were bled dry trying to conquer.
I'd love to see Bin Laden brought to justice, but how many more US soldiers are we willing to kill or main to get him? How much more infrastructure money and healthcare dollars are we willing to divert to what may be a lost cause?
Fighting terrorism should be left up to the CIA and the FBI. These are not armies we're fighting, they're criminals. Bush squandered our position in the world, trashed our economy, and, worst of all, led our troops into a quagmire of death. All to get one man. If you don't believe the Iraq war was worth the price, I don't think you're gonna like the Afghanistan bill either.
I really can't imagine Obama wanting his legacy to be Iraq 2. I'm assuming this is all tough talk to keep McCain from painting him as too weak on terrorism. Obama will listen to his advisors, unlike Bush and McCain, and I can't imagine any competent person wanting to go into those mountains to fight a guerilla warfare type conflict.
We may just have to accept that Bin Ladin got away with it, and that is Bush's fault.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

RepugsOut08,

I am in full agreement and am impressed with how you layed it out. I do hope that we will somehow get Bin Laden and bring him to justice. However, you may be right about this point:

"We may just have to accept that Bin Ladin got away with it, and that is Bush's fault."

Thank you for reading and commenting.

V/R
John

[Hal Donahue - Huffpost Blogger]

Two things John and THANK YOU very much for speaking up. The simple fact is that we need troops in Afghanistan BUT we do not need the current troops. Their "contact" time exceeds the WWII guys. While you talk of NCOs leaving (which I know to be very true), I see the LTC and flag guys leaving. Long ago on a planet far away (1970's US) a fairly small cadre of officers tries to ensure something so stupid as deploying troops without a defined goal would never happen again, sadly we failed. I stood in the "tank" as the JCS tried to ensure that the country could not go to war without affecting the nation. That is the Only reason why the guard and reserve were heavy CS/CSS to make certain that a "crazy" president did not try to use the military for private wars without it affecting every town in the US.

What can I say? I guess all I can say is sorry we failed you and we tried the best we could

[MagisterLudi]

Soldier is trained to k i l l ( as a first priority) and to d i e ( as the last priority). Sorry no other way has been invented yet. US Army is a professional army. It is not a citizen or conscript army. The narrative is always one of " the job." It is ridiculousness to apologize to soldiers for their hardships. There's nothing more worse ( or normal) than a whining soldier. The military's raison d’être is to enforce the will of the nation and/or its leaders ( good or bad). And certainly, the occupation of A-stan is one of national and international consent. Regardless, I have never studied a war that wasn't a total FUBAR from beginning to the end: from Julius Caesar Gaul campaigns to WW2 and beyond.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Hal,

Right back at you my friend .. THANK YOU. Especially for all the help and support you've extended to Iraq and Afghanistan vets that I personally witnessed on your behalf. You're a good man and good to hear from you.

V/R
John