bobdina
11-30-2009, 12:47 PM
Afghanistan plan entails more than troops
By Jim Michaels - USA Today
Posted : Monday Nov 30, 2009 8:57:43 EST
The Afghanistan strategy President Barack Obama will detail Tuesday involves more than sending additional forces, experts and officials say, and will give the president a chance to address growing public skepticism.
Obama "is in a moment in which he really has to regain the approval of the American people, as well as people around the world, that we are on the right course," Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN Sunday.
The president's decision, which will be announced in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., comes after months of debate within the administration. That debate intensified as the Afghan insurgency continued to heat up throughout the year, the Afghan government was roiled by a disputed election and a troop request by the top U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was leaked to The Washington Post in September.
Although McChrystal's request for more troops dominated the debate over Afghanistan policy, both his plan and the one to be announced Tuesday involve more than extra forces.
The "obsessive focus on troop levels" in Afghanistan misses the point, said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the non-partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. Military commanders will choose which units to send to Afghanistan based on their skills, not on the number of troops, he said.
"There is no magic number there, and quality is more important than quantity," Cordesman said.
Strategies
Key parts of the plans developed by McChrystal and the administration include:
• Reducing civilian casualties.
Lessening a dependence on air power has helped reduce the number of civilians killed mistakenly by NATO or Afghan forces.
• Protecting the population.
Building police and militias can protect villages and towns from insurgents.
• Concentrating forces in key regions.
Afghanistan is larger than Iraq and has more people, but the U.S. has far fewer troops there than it had in Iraq during the peak war years.
• Increasing the pace of training Afghan police and soldiers.
Afghan soldiers and police are key to holding areas once they are cleared by NATO troops.
McChrystal's strategy has yielded results in reducing civilian fatalities. NATO statistics show that the number of civilians killed by NATO or U.S.-backed Afghan forces has dropped to 66 from June through October, a 65 percent decline from the same period last year.
Protecting population
Since taking command in June, McChrystal has issued battle directives designed to protect the population and reduce civilian casualties, which can turn the population against the U.S.-led coalition battling the Taliban, which ruled the country until it was ousted in the invasion in 2001.
"One of the main ways of recruiting for the Taliban is civilian casualties," said Farid Hamidi, a member of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission.
Hamidi said the reduction in casualties has helped win additional support for NATO and the U.S.-backed Afghan government.
November figures on civilian fatalities are on track to come in far lower than in the previous year. As of Nov. 18, NATO reported 16 civilians had been killed, compared with 45 in November 2008.
NATO's casualty numbers are significantly lower from those kept by the rights commission and the United Nations, but figures from those groups show insurgents cause more civilian deaths.
The human rights commission shows a decline in the number of civilian deaths caused by NATO forces. The commission reported about 600 civilian deaths caused by NATO and Afghan forces this year, compared with 177 reported by NATO. For all of 2008, the commission said, 829 civilians were killed by allied forces.
In the first half of this year, the United Nations reported about 310 civilian deaths by Afghan and NATO forces.
U.S. military officials point out that even a small number of civilian deaths can hand insurgents a valuable propaganda tool.
Coalition troops have been urged to exercise more caution before dropping bombs, said Army Lt. Col. Rob Neitzel, operations chief for Regional Command East.
"Time and time again, we're demonstrating restraint, and the enemy forces have not," he said. "The local populace does understand that."
'Bang for the buck'
Even if McChrystal gets the estimated 35,000 U.S. and 5,000 NATO service members reported by the New York Times and McClatchy newspapers, he will have fewer troops at his disposal than the U.S. military had in Iraq at the peak of the buildup there in 2007. Then, the U.S.-led coalition commanded about 160,000 U.S. service members.
There are about 68,000 U.S. service members and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. Some of the NATO forces are limited in where they can be deployed and what jobs they can perform.
McChrystal has looked for ways to get the most out of the NATO forces. "We have a finite number of resources, and so we need to make sure those resources are focused to those points on the battle space that give us the greatest bang for the buck," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Steven Kwast, who commands an air wing at Bagram Air Base.
Commanders in Afghanistan will probably boost the number of troops in key areas such as the south, where Marines have been clearing out insurgent strongholds in Helmand province, a poppy-growing region.
If the United States and NATO are to leave Afghanistan eventually, they will need an Afghan military capable of replacing them.
NATO plans to boost the number of police officers to 160,000 by 2013. There are about 93,000 police officers now, of varying quality. NATO plans to boost the size of the Afghan military to 240,000 servicemembers by 2013.
Any troop increase is likely to include a number of U.S. advisers in addition to combat forces.
"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," Sen. Carl Levin said on CBS' Face the Nation. Levin, D-Mich., chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said a commitment to training Afghan forces is critical to winning his support for any U.S. troop increase.
John Fritze in McLean, Va., and Matt Kelley in Washington also contributed to this report.
By Jim Michaels - USA Today
Posted : Monday Nov 30, 2009 8:57:43 EST
The Afghanistan strategy President Barack Obama will detail Tuesday involves more than sending additional forces, experts and officials say, and will give the president a chance to address growing public skepticism.
Obama "is in a moment in which he really has to regain the approval of the American people, as well as people around the world, that we are on the right course," Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN Sunday.
The president's decision, which will be announced in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., comes after months of debate within the administration. That debate intensified as the Afghan insurgency continued to heat up throughout the year, the Afghan government was roiled by a disputed election and a troop request by the top U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was leaked to The Washington Post in September.
Although McChrystal's request for more troops dominated the debate over Afghanistan policy, both his plan and the one to be announced Tuesday involve more than extra forces.
The "obsessive focus on troop levels" in Afghanistan misses the point, said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the non-partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. Military commanders will choose which units to send to Afghanistan based on their skills, not on the number of troops, he said.
"There is no magic number there, and quality is more important than quantity," Cordesman said.
Strategies
Key parts of the plans developed by McChrystal and the administration include:
• Reducing civilian casualties.
Lessening a dependence on air power has helped reduce the number of civilians killed mistakenly by NATO or Afghan forces.
• Protecting the population.
Building police and militias can protect villages and towns from insurgents.
• Concentrating forces in key regions.
Afghanistan is larger than Iraq and has more people, but the U.S. has far fewer troops there than it had in Iraq during the peak war years.
• Increasing the pace of training Afghan police and soldiers.
Afghan soldiers and police are key to holding areas once they are cleared by NATO troops.
McChrystal's strategy has yielded results in reducing civilian fatalities. NATO statistics show that the number of civilians killed by NATO or U.S.-backed Afghan forces has dropped to 66 from June through October, a 65 percent decline from the same period last year.
Protecting population
Since taking command in June, McChrystal has issued battle directives designed to protect the population and reduce civilian casualties, which can turn the population against the U.S.-led coalition battling the Taliban, which ruled the country until it was ousted in the invasion in 2001.
"One of the main ways of recruiting for the Taliban is civilian casualties," said Farid Hamidi, a member of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission.
Hamidi said the reduction in casualties has helped win additional support for NATO and the U.S.-backed Afghan government.
November figures on civilian fatalities are on track to come in far lower than in the previous year. As of Nov. 18, NATO reported 16 civilians had been killed, compared with 45 in November 2008.
NATO's casualty numbers are significantly lower from those kept by the rights commission and the United Nations, but figures from those groups show insurgents cause more civilian deaths.
The human rights commission shows a decline in the number of civilian deaths caused by NATO forces. The commission reported about 600 civilian deaths caused by NATO and Afghan forces this year, compared with 177 reported by NATO. For all of 2008, the commission said, 829 civilians were killed by allied forces.
In the first half of this year, the United Nations reported about 310 civilian deaths by Afghan and NATO forces.
U.S. military officials point out that even a small number of civilian deaths can hand insurgents a valuable propaganda tool.
Coalition troops have been urged to exercise more caution before dropping bombs, said Army Lt. Col. Rob Neitzel, operations chief for Regional Command East.
"Time and time again, we're demonstrating restraint, and the enemy forces have not," he said. "The local populace does understand that."
'Bang for the buck'
Even if McChrystal gets the estimated 35,000 U.S. and 5,000 NATO service members reported by the New York Times and McClatchy newspapers, he will have fewer troops at his disposal than the U.S. military had in Iraq at the peak of the buildup there in 2007. Then, the U.S.-led coalition commanded about 160,000 U.S. service members.
There are about 68,000 U.S. service members and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. Some of the NATO forces are limited in where they can be deployed and what jobs they can perform.
McChrystal has looked for ways to get the most out of the NATO forces. "We have a finite number of resources, and so we need to make sure those resources are focused to those points on the battle space that give us the greatest bang for the buck," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Steven Kwast, who commands an air wing at Bagram Air Base.
Commanders in Afghanistan will probably boost the number of troops in key areas such as the south, where Marines have been clearing out insurgent strongholds in Helmand province, a poppy-growing region.
If the United States and NATO are to leave Afghanistan eventually, they will need an Afghan military capable of replacing them.
NATO plans to boost the number of police officers to 160,000 by 2013. There are about 93,000 police officers now, of varying quality. NATO plans to boost the size of the Afghan military to 240,000 servicemembers by 2013.
Any troop increase is likely to include a number of U.S. advisers in addition to combat forces.
"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," Sen. Carl Levin said on CBS' Face the Nation. Levin, D-Mich., chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said a commitment to training Afghan forces is critical to winning his support for any U.S. troop increase.
John Fritze in McLean, Va., and Matt Kelley in Washington also contributed to this report.