More Troops to Afghanistan
My inbox is ablaze with different people forwarding me information about the President deciding to dispatch a Marine Expeditionary Brigade and an Army Stryler Brigade to Afghanistan. Given that we’re not going to withdraw from Afghanistan—and shouldn’t—I think this is probably a good idea. Or, rather, what I’ll say is this. According to the U.N., there were 2,100 civilians killed in war-related ways in Afghanistan in 2008. About 55 percent of those casualties are attributable to the Taliban-led insurgency, which shows that they’re bad guys. But as Spencer Ackerman points out 45 percent isn’t a low number of civilians being killed by our ordnance. And 65 percent of those casualties are being caused by airstrikes. To remain effective in Afghanistan, we desperately need to reduce the civilian death toll. That means less airstrikes. Which probably means more boots on the ground. And hopefully more boots on the ground can also reduce civilian exposure to death-by-Taliban. That’d be how you get the job done.
And hopefully that’s what’s in store for these additional troops. But success of this venture is contingent not so much on the additional troops as on the adoption of a different strategy—one more focused on population security and less reliant on air power. It would be nice to learn some more details so as to really evaluate what’s happening.
34 Responses to “More Troops to Afghanistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“Stryler” = Stryker.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I am at a loss to understand why we are in Afghanistan – Bin Ladin is in Pakistan, if he’s alive.
I see no good coming from being there.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I don’t really see how or why this increase would significantly reduce the use of airpower. Or at least, why you would simply assume so.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Matt, you really, really need to start defending your position of Afghanistan. What, exactly, is the goal there, and how, exactly, is the United States military supposed to accomplish that goal? Is the mission to set up a liberal democracy in Afghanistan? Is the mission to set up a pliable and stable puppet government in Afghanistan? Is the mission to simply kill every Taliban member everywhere? How do you plan to do that? What has any of this got to do with fighting terrorism? And do you happen to notice that a lot of these questions seem awfully similar to ones you were asking about Iraq back in 2006?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
If you’re wounded and dying on Afghanistan’s plains…
But Kipling aside, I don’t see why this surge would reduce air strikes – aren’t a significant percent of them called in by ground troops who have had contact with the enemy? And wouldn’t putting more troops on the ground in order to force more contact with the enemy tend to then increase the number of airstrikes? Certainly a lot of strikes are due to human intelligence or drone operators identifying a specific militant, and maybe those strikes can and should be reduced; but I don’t see the net use of American air power decreasing.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
This is an extraordinarily dumb idea. It will only lead to increased civilian deaths to be blamed on the U.S. and increased radicalism among the people while not creating better conditions on the ground. What is the plan? How does he define ‛victory?’ What is the exit strategy?
For a guy who claimed to be for intelligent wars, he has shows little understanding. This is not a winnable war. Since you have not joined the warmonger contingent, it’s time for ObanaFanBoyz to put some skin where the mouth is.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Much of the problem in Afghanistan is Russia. They not only are trying to undermine the war effort by getting former soviet countries to shut down bases, but they are also oppressing non Russian minorities within Russia. Watch this video and learn about what tatars in Russia face and their goal of gaining independance from russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMuQ9v1-EEs
February 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Some good questions asked in this thread so far. Care to answer them, Matt?
February 17th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I think the answer is that increased boots on the ground will lessen our dependency on airborne ordnance as a force multiplier. If you can send a platoon of Marines to get a Taliban convoy rather than a bunch of F-15s, you are more likely to hit what you want to hit.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“Stryler” = Stryker
Or “Stryler Brigade” = Sylar brigade. An army of one, if you will.
Much of the problem in Afghanistan is Russia.
Why shouldn’t they be opposed to an American attempt to set up a client state in their traditional backyard? (or client states, counting American attempts to influence the other ’stans) Seconding strasmangelo, what legitimate, acheivable goal is NATO trying to reach at this point?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“Surge” time again, but what the hell for?
Hunting Bin Ladin? For all we know he’s in a luxury hotel in Acapulco watching CNN and laughing his nuts off.
Nation building? How about we use our money to build our own country. For a change.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I hope Matt’s answer to why we should be there isn’t “because they are bad guys”. That wouldn’t be a very impressive strategic analysis. And, it isn’t as if insurgencies don’t usually kill lots of civilians. Its what one expects.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
What’s the other 9.75%?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
From an article by Aussie Major General Jim Molan in today’s Australian (“End the pussyfooting in Afghan war”):
Does Obama think that the mission in Afghanistan (however he defines it) is worth this level of commitment? If not, what’s the point of slogging through with an inadequate number of troops to be effective?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Matt: “Given that we’re not going to withdraw from Afghanistan—and shouldn’t—I think this is probably a good idea.”
Fucking idiot post yet again on Afghanistan. Every fucking military and regional expert has weighed in and declared Afghanistan a fucking lost cause, and our resident Harvard philosophy grad thinks it a good idea to stay. This is utterly pathetic.
Anybody who thinks a handful of more troops is going to reduce airstrikes is a complete fucking moron. Look at Iraq – when the surge started, airstrikes WENT UP! Why? Because US generals – and politicians – don’t like US casualties which is what you get when US troops go in on the ground against the enemy. And US troops don’t like engaging the enemy on the ground when they CAN call in an airstrike, and fuck any “hajis” who happen to get in the way.
And there is no such thing as “sending a unit of Marines to get a Taliban convoy” because there are no “Taliban convoys.” The Taliban are not the German Army in WWII. They are insurgents. They blow up OUR convoys, not the reverse.
They are also insurgents who have an unlimited supply of nationalist Pashtuns to replace their dead whereas the US does not have an unlimited supply of morons to replace ours in some foreign country where the average US citizen doesn’t give a shit.
Anybody who thinks this is going to help in any way is an idiot.
Which includes Matt.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Over a thousand Muslim civilians killed by a vicious organization that institutes a brutal theocracy that forbids female education and music among other things. So, um where are the protests from the human rights activists worldwide who took to the streets last month to protest the deaths of over a thousand other Muslim civilians at the hands of the IDF? Where is the outrage of my fellow lefties? Where is the rage? Where are the ranting bloggers and posters? I guess a Muslim human life taken by Taliban bullets is really not worthy of anyone’s attention, but to die by an Israeli bullet merits worldwide rage. Is one human really worth more than another or is a strong dose of anti-American/Israeli/Semtic feeling needed to get folks excited about dead civilians?
February 18th, 2009 at 3:00 am
If the Taliban set up an embassy in London I assure you that I would protest outside it.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:42 am
And if the Taliban were receiving three billion a year in aid from the US as well as buying and selling US Senators. as well as conducting spying operations against the US IN the US, I think quite a few lefties would complain.
Take your faux outrage and shove it up your ass, Mr. Flinchy.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Good point, Matt.
Counterinsurgency via airstrike – what a horrible idea!
Except it wasn’t anyone’s idea. We just sort of ended up here, as the Afghan commanders were forced to make due, because “We do what we must in Iraq; we do what we can in Afghanistan.”
Richard Steven Hack thinks like a Republican. “How can you not realize I’m right, you fucking idiot?!?!!!!1!!eleven!!!” Indoor voice, child. No, not “every military expert” has said we should leave Afghanistan. Grow up, and try thinking with something other than your lizard brain.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Mr. Flinchy,
Though you wouldn’t know it from reading ill-tempered, profane blog comments, most Americans on the left side of the political spectrum support the Afghan War and Obama’s decision to bolster our forces there.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“About 55 percent of those casualties are attributable to the Taliban-led insurgency, which shows that they’re bad guys.”
So 55% of casualties = bad guys, but 45% of casualties = good guys? That 10% is the difference between good and bad? Please. If 55% of casualties equals bad guys, then 45% of casualties also equals bad guys. Following this train of logic, the obvious conclusion is that the US occupation of Afghanistan is no better than the Taliban resistance.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Just to point out ONE military expert who says this is GOING to be a loss, John Nagl has said that if the war isn’t turned around by this fall, the Taliban will have established such a foothold in the country that US military efforts will be futile.
And there are plenty of others as well as regional experts who agree or who consider the war already lost.
The basics of counterinsurgency have not changed. For a country the size of Afghanistan, you need nearly 500,000 troops – basically a platoon for every neighborhood – to insure security. AND those troops have to be familiar with the local culture, speak the language, and be able to detect the insurgents.
Nagl says we need a minimum of 180,000 troops in Afghanistan. Instead, Obama is sending a pin prick which will do nothing but provide more targets for the Taliban and higher US casualties and have SQUAT effect on the overall war.
The morons complaining about my comments here have NOBODY they can draw on who can explain HOW and WHY this so-called “surge” has any reasonable chance of succeeding. All they can is run their mouth without any REASONS.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“Nagl says we need a minimum of 180,000 troops in Afghanistan.”
Nagl agrees with the Aussie general I quoted above.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:57 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:55 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra