bobdina
09-29-2009, 11:19 AM
Services prepare for Afghanistan plus-up
Details of request for more trainers, combat troops unknown
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 28, 2009 20:46:11 EDT
They’re the questions of the moment within the ranks: How many more troops are headed to Afghanistan? And who, exactly, will go?
Absent details of the request for additional forces that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was to send to the Pentagon late last week, no one yet knows.
In the wake of McChrystal’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, which was prepared for top administration officials but leaked to the media Sept. 21, much discussion has focused on what assets will be needed to “reverse the insurgency’s momentum” and to significantly enhance efforts to expand and train additional Afghan army and police forces.
In his assessment, McChrystal called the Afghanistan situation “serious” and said the severity of the insurgent threat “now surpasses the capabilities of the current strategy.”
He said his International Security Assistance Forces-Afghanistan must get back to basics, achieve “better unity of effort,” and adopt a “properly resourced” strategy that boosts partnership with Afghan security forces, emphasizes governance, gets resources to areas where the population is threatened and “gains the initiative from the insurgency.”
But experts say the training aspect is only one piece of the near-term picture. Retired Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security, member of the Defense Policy Board and an expert on counterinsurgency, said Sept. 23 that building Afghan forces alone wouldn’t be enough.
“Increasing the size of the Afghan forces is long overdue but insufficient in itself to reverse the growing strength of the Taliban,” Nagl said at a Washington, D.C., counterinsurgency symposium. “A bridge of additional international forces will be necessary in the interim to set the condition in which those Afghan forces can succeed.”
President Barack Obama is reviewing McChrystal’s blunt assessment and considering the possibility of additional resources on top of the 21,000 troops he approved in March, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sept. 23.
If Obama agrees with McChrystal and accelerates development of the Afghan army and police, and increases their numbers, thousands of additional trainers likely will be required. If he agrees with McChrystal that “security in Afghanistan is an imperative,” he’ll send more combat troops along with those trainers.
About 6,500 U.S. trainers, some of them support personnel, are assigned to the U.S. training command in Afghanistan, along with another 1,245 NATO trainers, all working with the Afghan National Army, said Col. Wayne Shanks, spokesman for ISAF-A. The totals do not include other trainers not assigned to that command, he said.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his reconfirmation hearing Sept. 15 that 2,000 to 4,000 additional trainers would be required to build the Afghan army to 250,000 troops, a target that committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and other officials have suggested is appropriate. Mullen also said that he will support a recommendation for more maneuver troops.
How many combat troops?
One baseline was issued by McChrystal’s predecessor, Army Gen. David McKiernan, who said at least 10,000 more troops are needed.
Some of the current discussion in the Pentagon has touched on the possibility of sending an entire division, according to a military source who asked not to be named. Given that the Army is now organized into brigade combat teams, a Marine division, typically numbering 16,000 to 20,000 Marines, would seem to be the more likely choice. About 18,000 Marines are leaving Iraq’s Anbar province and being replaced by an Army brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway said in August he thinks more Marines need to be in Afghanistan but made it clear he does not want the total number to exceed 18,000.
More than 10,000 Marines and sailors with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade are operating in 11 districts in Helmand, Farah and Nimruz provinces. A Marine special operations company also is in the country.
“As of now, there are no additional Marines being slated for Afghanistan in reference to this latest mention of additional forces,” said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine Corps spokesman.
But the Corps is preparing training and predeployment schedules on the assumption that Marine forces in Afghanistan could grow to include two regimental combat teams as soon as February. The 2nd MEB includes only Regimental Combat Team 3, made up of four infantry battalions and a light armored reconnaissance battalion.
The conservative American Enterprise Institute published a report by Frederick and Kimberly Kagan on Sept. 21 that argues for deploying an additional 40,000 to 45,000 troops in 2010 on top of the 68,000 total that will be in country by the end of this year.
But given senior Army officials’ push to increase dwell time back home for oft-deployed troops, any significant increase in Army strength in Afghanistan would need to wait until U.S. combat forces begin leaving Iraq between February and the end of August. The number of brigade combat teams in Iraq is expected to shrink by almost half by next summer.
A sustainable increase in Army forces in Afghanistan hinges on that drawdown, a senior Army planner told Military Times.
The active Army now has 11 brigade combat teams in Iraq and five in Afghanistan, and soldiers are getting, on average, a little more than 12 months at home between deployments — but “not much more,” said the planner, who asked not to be identified.
The real question, Obama said Sept. 20 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” is how to “make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe.”
“That’s the primary threat that we went there to deal with,” Obama said. “If ... supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we’ll move forward.”
Details of request for more trainers, combat troops unknown
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 28, 2009 20:46:11 EDT
They’re the questions of the moment within the ranks: How many more troops are headed to Afghanistan? And who, exactly, will go?
Absent details of the request for additional forces that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was to send to the Pentagon late last week, no one yet knows.
In the wake of McChrystal’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, which was prepared for top administration officials but leaked to the media Sept. 21, much discussion has focused on what assets will be needed to “reverse the insurgency’s momentum” and to significantly enhance efforts to expand and train additional Afghan army and police forces.
In his assessment, McChrystal called the Afghanistan situation “serious” and said the severity of the insurgent threat “now surpasses the capabilities of the current strategy.”
He said his International Security Assistance Forces-Afghanistan must get back to basics, achieve “better unity of effort,” and adopt a “properly resourced” strategy that boosts partnership with Afghan security forces, emphasizes governance, gets resources to areas where the population is threatened and “gains the initiative from the insurgency.”
But experts say the training aspect is only one piece of the near-term picture. Retired Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security, member of the Defense Policy Board and an expert on counterinsurgency, said Sept. 23 that building Afghan forces alone wouldn’t be enough.
“Increasing the size of the Afghan forces is long overdue but insufficient in itself to reverse the growing strength of the Taliban,” Nagl said at a Washington, D.C., counterinsurgency symposium. “A bridge of additional international forces will be necessary in the interim to set the condition in which those Afghan forces can succeed.”
President Barack Obama is reviewing McChrystal’s blunt assessment and considering the possibility of additional resources on top of the 21,000 troops he approved in March, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sept. 23.
If Obama agrees with McChrystal and accelerates development of the Afghan army and police, and increases their numbers, thousands of additional trainers likely will be required. If he agrees with McChrystal that “security in Afghanistan is an imperative,” he’ll send more combat troops along with those trainers.
About 6,500 U.S. trainers, some of them support personnel, are assigned to the U.S. training command in Afghanistan, along with another 1,245 NATO trainers, all working with the Afghan National Army, said Col. Wayne Shanks, spokesman for ISAF-A. The totals do not include other trainers not assigned to that command, he said.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his reconfirmation hearing Sept. 15 that 2,000 to 4,000 additional trainers would be required to build the Afghan army to 250,000 troops, a target that committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and other officials have suggested is appropriate. Mullen also said that he will support a recommendation for more maneuver troops.
How many combat troops?
One baseline was issued by McChrystal’s predecessor, Army Gen. David McKiernan, who said at least 10,000 more troops are needed.
Some of the current discussion in the Pentagon has touched on the possibility of sending an entire division, according to a military source who asked not to be named. Given that the Army is now organized into brigade combat teams, a Marine division, typically numbering 16,000 to 20,000 Marines, would seem to be the more likely choice. About 18,000 Marines are leaving Iraq’s Anbar province and being replaced by an Army brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway said in August he thinks more Marines need to be in Afghanistan but made it clear he does not want the total number to exceed 18,000.
More than 10,000 Marines and sailors with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade are operating in 11 districts in Helmand, Farah and Nimruz provinces. A Marine special operations company also is in the country.
“As of now, there are no additional Marines being slated for Afghanistan in reference to this latest mention of additional forces,” said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine Corps spokesman.
But the Corps is preparing training and predeployment schedules on the assumption that Marine forces in Afghanistan could grow to include two regimental combat teams as soon as February. The 2nd MEB includes only Regimental Combat Team 3, made up of four infantry battalions and a light armored reconnaissance battalion.
The conservative American Enterprise Institute published a report by Frederick and Kimberly Kagan on Sept. 21 that argues for deploying an additional 40,000 to 45,000 troops in 2010 on top of the 68,000 total that will be in country by the end of this year.
But given senior Army officials’ push to increase dwell time back home for oft-deployed troops, any significant increase in Army strength in Afghanistan would need to wait until U.S. combat forces begin leaving Iraq between February and the end of August. The number of brigade combat teams in Iraq is expected to shrink by almost half by next summer.
A sustainable increase in Army forces in Afghanistan hinges on that drawdown, a senior Army planner told Military Times.
The active Army now has 11 brigade combat teams in Iraq and five in Afghanistan, and soldiers are getting, on average, a little more than 12 months at home between deployments — but “not much more,” said the planner, who asked not to be identified.
The real question, Obama said Sept. 20 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” is how to “make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe.”
“That’s the primary threat that we went there to deal with,” Obama said. “If ... supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we’ll move forward.”