Sunday
Dec212008
Non-Story of the Day: 30,000 More US Troops in Afghanistan
Sunday, December 21, 2008 at 10:32
Most newspapers run the statement of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the US will be deploying another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan over the next year. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a separate statement, confirmed that 3000 were already on their way.
It's a non-story because, as we reported last week, the Pentagon have been steadily leaking this information. More significant is Mullen's red-meat warning, "When we get additional troops here, I think the violence level is going to go up. The fight will be tougher."
In other words, get ready for the long haul, folks. And forget any namby-pamby talk about a political approach or, heaven help us, a negotiated way out of this mess. This is a head-on military confrontation.
That in turn points to a US strategy being led, not by the politicians --- even an Obama --- but by the generals taking advantage of the "transition" period. David Petraeus has pretty much gotten his wish, without having to go through the difficulty of running for elected office, to be top dog in Washington.
The point is made this morning, inadvertently, by a puff-piece editorial --- "a stable, safe and free Iraq is emerging" --- by stay-the-course hawk Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham. Noting that Barack Obama has bolstered Gates with the appointment of a military man, James Jones, as National Security Advisor, the trio go further with their call for a "a responsible redeployment from Iraq, based on the new and improved realities on the ground". How best to do that?
Of course, it's by "seek[ing] the counsel of Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of coalition forces in Iraq". (No one seems to mention anymore, despite Thomas Ricks' excellent account in his book Fiasco, that Odierno's heavy-handed methods in 2003/4 in Iraq gave a big boost to the insurgency.)
But, if you want the really significant dimension of the story, note Mullen's statement that most of the US troops will be deployed to Helmand province, where Britain currently has the military lead. Then match that up to a report in The Times that "Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and senior commanders are concerned that the British government lacks the 'political will' for the fight".
In other words, "London, put up or stand aside". But, either because of political concerns or (more likely) the strains on Britain's armed forces, the Brown Government isn't willing or able to step up the military game in Afghanistan, at least in the short turn. And that in turn means the US is taking over in another section of the country.
Get ready. It's going to be a very tough fight, indeed.
It's a non-story because, as we reported last week, the Pentagon have been steadily leaking this information. More significant is Mullen's red-meat warning, "When we get additional troops here, I think the violence level is going to go up. The fight will be tougher."
In other words, get ready for the long haul, folks. And forget any namby-pamby talk about a political approach or, heaven help us, a negotiated way out of this mess. This is a head-on military confrontation.
That in turn points to a US strategy being led, not by the politicians --- even an Obama --- but by the generals taking advantage of the "transition" period. David Petraeus has pretty much gotten his wish, without having to go through the difficulty of running for elected office, to be top dog in Washington.
The point is made this morning, inadvertently, by a puff-piece editorial --- "a stable, safe and free Iraq is emerging" --- by stay-the-course hawk Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham. Noting that Barack Obama has bolstered Gates with the appointment of a military man, James Jones, as National Security Advisor, the trio go further with their call for a "a responsible redeployment from Iraq, based on the new and improved realities on the ground". How best to do that?
Of course, it's by "seek[ing] the counsel of Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of coalition forces in Iraq". (No one seems to mention anymore, despite Thomas Ricks' excellent account in his book Fiasco, that Odierno's heavy-handed methods in 2003/4 in Iraq gave a big boost to the insurgency.)
But, if you want the really significant dimension of the story, note Mullen's statement that most of the US troops will be deployed to Helmand province, where Britain currently has the military lead. Then match that up to a report in The Times that "Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and senior commanders are concerned that the British government lacks the 'political will' for the fight".
In other words, "London, put up or stand aside". But, either because of political concerns or (more likely) the strains on Britain's armed forces, the Brown Government isn't willing or able to step up the military game in Afghanistan, at least in the short turn. And that in turn means the US is taking over in another section of the country.
Get ready. It's going to be a very tough fight, indeed.