| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| U.S. Afghan Plan Would Add 'Trigger-Pullers' | |
| 2009-09-02 | |
| U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support staff and under-utilized soldiers and replacing them with infantry units, Defense officials said. The plan represents a key step in a drive to beef up U.S.-led forces as the Obama administration presses to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress amid crumbling public support for the war effort. Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to non-combat duty, such as guards or look-outs, or those on clerical and support squads. "It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers," said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced.
The plan reflects the view that after eight years of war, much of the military bureaucracy that has built up no longer serves a useful purpose. Services performed by soldiers that are no longer considered crucial could be outsourced to contractors or eliminated, officials said. However, the change is likely to increase the number of private contractors in the war zone, a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan. The move comes as McChrystal this week submitted a broad assessment of the Afghan war effort, calling the situation there "serious." Details of the assessment remain secret, but officials said it did not contain a request for more troops. Such a request could be submitted in coming weeks. The planned changes in the U.S. troop mix are part of what military officials call a "force optimization" review, a critical mid-step between the assessment and a request for additional troops, designed to ensure the existing force is operating as efficiently as possible. Defense officials said they did not know how many positions and jobs might be eliminated until the review was completed. But two officials estimated the total could be between 6,000 and 14,000 troops. The review will scour the U.S. roster for situations where several people perform the same job or for service members who considered less then fully utilized for example, working just a six-hour shift. "[S]ome people are doing jobs that are just not essential to the fight," said a Defense official. Army Col. Wayne M. Shanks, a spokesman for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan said that some people may no longer be needed and can be "streamlined." "We have asked all commands to take a hard look to reduce redundancy, eliminate any excess and generally look for efficiencies in all our structures," Shanks said. Shanks declined to outline any specific groups of soldiers or Marines that were no longer needed, but said the command would not "compromise the welfare of the troops." Raising the overall number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has been contentious. President Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to bring the U.S. force to about 68,000. There also are about 38,000 non-U.S. NATO troops in the country. Top Obama administration officials have sent mixed signals about whether they would approve more troops. But advisors to the military command believe McChrystal needs a larger force to carry out his counter-insurgency strategy -- potentially as many as 20,000 additional soldiers. Culling unneeded units would allow McChrystal to increase U.S. combat power without running afoul of political sensitivities at home. The Defense official said the effort was not designed by McChrystal primarily to reduce the size of any potential troop increases, but to ensure that everyone being sent was in a "mission critical" job. "If he is asking for more, he certainly wants to insure we are maximizing the use of everyone that is here now," said the official. Most of the dozens of combat outposts and outlying bases in Afghanistan have soldiers or Marines assigned to gates or guard towers. But the Pentagon official said those troops could be moved put and placed into more valuable duty. "They just stare out from the tower. So let's bring in contractors," the Pentagon official said. "Now you can have a thousand more troops in the field," the official said. Any needed job left vacant could be filled by hiring local Afghans or using military contractors, officials said. Critics have charged that the military has relied too heavily on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing over too many critical responsibilities to outsiders. A Congressional Research Service report completed last month found there were more contractors than military personnel serving in Afghanistan. The report was based on figures gathered in March, before additional troops ordered by Obama began arriving. Although a majority of outside hires are local Afghans, the CRS reported that the percentage of contractors in Afghanistan was the highest recorded by the Defense Department in U.S. history. Army officials said the way to solve the problem of underutilized soldiers is to reassign them to relevant jobs. In Iraq for example, many cooks have been retrained to serve as security guards for commanders. "You can always find a job for someone who is under employed," said the Army officer. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 Every time i try to answer a poll, they always refuse to allow me to finish without giving my E-Mail address They're NOT getting it, so my answers get shitcanned Multiply this by 300 million americans and they're only truly polling the careless. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-09-02 19:30 |
| #8 #1: Airpower, I believe, was not deemed unusable, just had more restrictions on who, when, where. #2: Previous ROE . . . was fairly broad. Essentially, any civilian with a weapon could be engaged. As I recall, no Afghan is allowed a weapon for self-defense. It is my opinion that the unarmed populace cannot defend itself from the thugs, both those in cahoots with the Taliban and those who are affiliated with the warlords (or both). People who cannot defend themselves don't get to vote, nor do they live long enough to make good allies against the thugs* *The tailor who worked at the FOB I was at referred to the local 'Taliban' as thugs, because they did not believe in the religion, they just wanted power over other people. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2009-09-02 16:06 |
| #7 BTW, apparently we are still using airpower http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/08/us_afghan_forces_str_1.php |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-02 15:45 |
| #6 Does this really help if they're crippled by Zero's insane ROE? Not if you believe the old ROE was working. AFAICT, Petraeus, Gates, and McCrystal do not believe it was. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-02 15:16 |
| #5 "I have seen the theme that Americans are against the Afghan war " In polls the majority say they support the afghan war. The majority also says they oppose any increase in the number of troops. But everyone Ive read on either side of the debate says we need to EITHER increase troop strength OR redefine, withdraw, change mission, etc. Conclusion - lots of people who answer polls have not been really following the debate. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-02 15:15 |
| #4 I have seen the theme that Americans are against the Afghan war mentioned with greater frequency in the news of late. Is this true, or is this something the press is using to play with their readers' thinking? I don't think Americans think much either way. Perhaps that is being confused with this "negative" perception the press is touting? |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-09-02 12:36 |
| #3 If you add trigger pullers, you'd better add support people too (communications, truck drivers, cooks, medics, helicopters, etc.) Our guys are the most effective trigger pullers in the world, but they, with rare exceptions, don't work alone. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-09-02 09:02 |
| #2 Does this really help Depends for whom the help is intended. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-09-02 05:00 |
| #1 Does this really help if they're crippled by Zero's insane ROE? |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2009-09-02 01:04 |