Tuesday
Oct132009
Afghanistan: The Real Importance of Today's "Non-Story" of 13,000 Support Troops
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:21
Afghanistan: Did Clinton Just Say to the BBC, “Talk to the Taliban”?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
It's a pity that Ann Scott Tyson and The Washington Post have wasted so much effort in bigging-up this morning's declaration, "Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan", as Page 1 headline drama.
Why? Because the news is more than six months old.
Here's the supposed scoop: "President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials."
Unannounced move? Enduring America noted in March, and on repeated occasions afterward, that Obama had given the military a total of 30,000+ troops when the support forces were added to combat units. Indeed, we pointed to Obama's initial teaser for the press --- 4000 "trainers" --- as a marker for this public-relations/military strategy. The only person in Washington who has apparently missed this, as the months of the US escalation have unfolded only to reach another critical stage in the autumn, is Anne Scott Tyson.
The significance of Tyson's article is not in a sudden, naive recognition of the overall increase in the US commitment. Instead it is in this message tucked away in the fourth paragraph:
In other words, White House officials are using Tyson, whether she is a willing accomplice or an unwitting channel, to put out another dampener on the McChrystal recommendation for 40,000 more soldiers.
I have thought for weeks that a lot of the White House "dispute" with its top commander in Afghanistan is for show until a compromise is reached. That may still be the case: as in March, Obama will give the military less than 40,000 combat troops but a total of 40,000 when combat and support troops are added together.
However, the longer this drags on, the greater the possibility that this is not compromise but real conflict over the way forward for a US strategy which seems lost over its next steps beyond the mantras of "Al Qa'eda" and "security".
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
It's a pity that Ann Scott Tyson and The Washington Post have wasted so much effort in bigging-up this morning's declaration, "Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan", as Page 1 headline drama.Why? Because the news is more than six months old.
Here's the supposed scoop: "President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials."
Unannounced move? Enduring America noted in March, and on repeated occasions afterward, that Obama had given the military a total of 30,000+ troops when the support forces were added to combat units. Indeed, we pointed to Obama's initial teaser for the press --- 4000 "trainers" --- as a marker for this public-relations/military strategy. The only person in Washington who has apparently missed this, as the months of the US escalation have unfolded only to reach another critical stage in the autumn, is Anne Scott Tyson.
The significance of Tyson's article is not in a sudden, naive recognition of the overall increase in the US commitment. Instead it is in this message tucked away in the fourth paragraph:
A significant number of support troops, in addition to combat forces, would be needed to meet commanders' demands. It also underscores the growing strain on U.S. ground troops, raising practical questions about how the Army and Marine Corps would meet a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
In other words, White House officials are using Tyson, whether she is a willing accomplice or an unwitting channel, to put out another dampener on the McChrystal recommendation for 40,000 more soldiers.
I have thought for weeks that a lot of the White House "dispute" with its top commander in Afghanistan is for show until a compromise is reached. That may still be the case: as in March, Obama will give the military less than 40,000 combat troops but a total of 40,000 when combat and support troops are added together.
However, the longer this drags on, the greater the possibility that this is not compromise but real conflict over the way forward for a US strategy which seems lost over its next steps beyond the mantras of "Al Qa'eda" and "security".