You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
US commander: Troops 'stalemated' in Afghanistan
2009-02-19
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan offered a grim view Wednesday of military efforts in southern Afghanistan, warning that 17,000 new troops will take on emboldened Taliban insurgents who have "stalemated" U.S. and allied forces.

Army Gen. David McKiernan also predicted that the bolstered numbers of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan - about 55,000 in all - will remain near those levels for up to five years.

Still, McKiernan said, that is only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested to secure the war-torn nation.

McKiernan told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday that the extra Army and Marine forces will be in place by the summer, primed for counterinsurgency operations against the Taliban but also ready to conduct training with Afghan police forces.

McKiernan said what the surge "allows us to do is change the dynamics of the security situation, predominantly in southern Afghanistan, where we are, at best, stalemated.

"I'm not here to tell you that there's not an increased level of violence, because there is," he said.

The 17,000 additional troops, which President Barack Obama approved Tuesday to begin deploying this spring, will join an estimated 38,000 already in Afghanistan.

Another 10,000 U.S. soldiers could be headed to Afghanistan in the future as the Obama administration decides how to balance its troop levels with those from other nations and the Afghan army. The White House has said it will not make further decisions about its next moves in Afghanistan until it has completed a strategic review of the war, in tandem with the Afghan government.

Whatever the outcome of the review, McKiernan said, "we know we need additional means in Afghanistan, whether they are security or governance-related or socioeconomic-related."

The estimated level of 55,000 troops needs "to be sustained for some period of time," he said, adding that could be as long as three to five years.

Some of the 17,000 U.S. troops soon headed overseas will be training Afghanistan police while battling insurgents as the nation's August elections approach. They include an Army combat brigade from Washington state and a Marine expeditionary brigade made up of troops from Camp Lejune in North Carolina and Camp Pendleton in southern California.

McKiernan said they would be sufficient for what he believes needs to be done through summer, when the fighting tends to be heaviest.

With the added ground troops, McKiernan said it's possible the military will scale back airstrikes that have been blamed for civilian casualties and angered the Afghan population.

The Taliban insurgents, some of whom have worked in concert with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, have increasingly focused on what McKiernan described as small-scale attacks on government targets, police and official convoys. Last week militants launched a bold strike on government buildings in downtown Kabul.

McKiernan said the number of insurgents has not grown, but they are "very resilient" and "they have continuously adapted their tactics."

"We're not going to run out of people that either international forces or Afghan forces have to kill or capture," McKiernan said.

Ultimately, the conflict will be solved not by military force - but through the political will of the Afghan people, the general said.

"The insurgency is not going to win in Afghanistan," McKiernan insisted. "The vast majority of the people that live in Afghanistan reject the Taliban or other militant insurgent groups. They have nothing to offer them. They do not bring any hope for a better future."

Robert H. Scales, a retired Army two-star general who visited southern Afghanistan last October as a military adviser, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that he agrees there is essentially a stalemate in that area, which is a traditional stronghold for the Taliban movement. But he said that does not mean U.S. and allies forces are losing.

"It's reached the point where neither side has gained an advantage," Scales said, adding that he believes the south - particularly in the opium-producing Helmand Province - is the area with the greatest potential for U.S. gains against the Taliban, especially with more U.S. forces due to deploy there.

The rising violence in Afghanistan is conducted by militants who operate out of sanctuaries in Pakistan tribal regions along the border of the two nations. McKiernan called the stability of both countries "a regional challenge" and credited Pakistan with trying harder to secure the border.

"It's not enough; we need to do more," McKiernan said. "But it is a start."

He called it "in our vital national security interest to succeed" in Afghanistan.

"It's a country that is absolutely worth our commitment," McKiernan said. "And it's a region that is absolutely worth the commitment of the international community to ensure that it's stable at the end of this."
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#12  A little historical perspective:

In the battle of the Korsun Pocket, Soviet commanders thought they had a coupla weak divisions surrounded, not parts of six divisions as the battle turned out.

Intel assessments can be wrong, and unless the news reports on our side are wrong, the Taliban are a shell from its former self from just two years ago.
Posted by: badanov   2009-02-19 22:41  

#11  If US forces are stalemated, then enemy forces are as well.

Seems I read a year or two ago I the Taliban took one helluva trimming losing the manpower equivalent of two brigades in just a few months; losses in much larger armies would be seen as crippling.

Why do our forces have kill ratios in the factors and yet we are at a stalemate?

Can someone please s'plain that to me?
Posted by: badanov   2009-02-19 22:37  

#10  WAFF.com > KURDISH LEADER WARNS OF POTENTIAL KURD-ARAB WAR; + PAKISTAN'S MAIN ISLAMIC PARTY [JI Party]SIGNS NEW PEACE DEAL WITH COMMUNIST CHINA [respect of "mutual interests"/non-interference].
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-02-19 20:05  

#9  Probably would still be a territory

Pro, that might be have been a better idea anyway.
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-02-19 19:12  

#8  because we aren't ready to Arclight the NWFP, Wazoos, and FATA



/drink up
Posted by: Frank G   2009-02-19 18:28  

#7  Stalemated? Why stalemated?
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-02-19 18:25  

#6  We need to bomb the Osama bin Laden Trail to buy time so we can prepare the helicopter pad on the Kabul Embassy roof.

Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-02-19 12:48  

#5  Certainly not by the 0 administration.

Is that a zero or the letter o? I can't tell.
Posted by: gorb   2009-02-19 11:23  

#4  The New Mexico Territory was at the end of 19th Century logistical line. Constant warfare with the indigenous tribes. Nothing really important [other than some mineral deposits] to justify the expense on a cost benefit analysis. Went on for decades. Probably would still be a territory if the hand wringers had their way then. People seem to forget that things aren't peachy on the other side either and they have their problems and issues as well.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-02-19 09:33  

#3  Of course it can be won. The question is, will it be won? Certainly not by the 0 administration. The additional troops are nothing more than window dressing. There is no policy in place to win. As long as Pakistan continues to provide sanctuary there will be no resolution.
Posted by: Gravimp Bluetooth9422   2009-02-19 07:48  

#2  "It's a country that is absolutely worth our commitment," McKiernan said. "And it's a region that is absolutely worth the commitment of the international community to ensure that it's stable at the end of this."

India and Russia have strategic interests because its in their neighborhood; Europe because that is where most of the drugs end up.

The USA and Australia for that matter have no strategic interests there, never mind that the war is unwinnable in an reasonable timeframe as McKiernan clearly states.

Not only can't it be won, precarious logistics means we could well end up with the 21st century equivalent of Britain's 19th century retreat from Kabul with equally disasterous results.

As I have said many times, the key in Iraq was not to lose. To give Iraq time to build up its own capabilities and institutions and they can finish the job for themselves.

That aint ever going to happen in Afghanistan.

This is truly a war without end, but to the liberals it's the 'good war' with a bright shiny United Nations seal of approval.
Posted by: phil_b   2009-02-19 03:30  

#1  President has made a good call by reason. See what planning comes, or C-17 home before we are a third world nation missing Staff Sergeants and Sergeant Majors at home that may fend off all the zombies we have here over taking..... Sir, Charlie is in the wire... we are overrun....


Sir, he has over run the chow hall...
Oh GOD! ... He has sacked the linen closet.....

feel pretty man.
Posted by: newc   2009-02-19 02:56  

00:00