Some Day This War Is Gonna End...

You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Col. Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now

It looks like Barak Obama has decided to take a page from the hugely successful foreign policy book of Lyndon Baines Johnson:

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.

.....

As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.

In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.

Now, anybody want to guess who's going to be supplying about 15,000 of those 20,000 troops? Any guess as to who's going to be supplying all of the combat troops?

Any bets on how much play this gets at Talking Points Memo, DailyKOS, or firedoglake?

And remember, just this week Andrew Sullivan called Afghanistan a "terribly failed, brutally expensive" war. Any bets on just how much outrage he fearlessly trots out?

Comments

[jane2]

Well it *is* failed and expensive...but one would think that the pro-Iraq folks would be quite happy with Obama moving into Afghanistan to join the countries that have been slogging it out there for eight years. Instead, it's like Election Tourette's....nothing matters except in the context of "the other side" and it goes on and on at home.

[Simon]

But I thought now that President McDreamy was in charge the rest of the world would be queueing up to help you guys out. Surely the Swedes will be helping now that America is no longer racist ?

Could I have been wrong on that ?

[badanov]

Kinda begs the question : where are we gonna get the troops?

US land forces are stretched as they are, and it would take years before an actual increase of active duty soldiers would be ready for deployment in support.

Now, the UN wants targets troops for Darfur and Congo, and they will be asking the US to provide them.

Where are we gonna get the troops without increasing the number of active duty combat units?

[Simon]

Badanov - why not get out of these wars, and stop being the world's policeman. These policies have provided your citizens (as opposed to your politicians) with worse then no return for the billions of dollars you have spent.

Of course your politicians (of both left and right) have enjoyed the pleasure of strutting the world stage as top dog, and that seems to have been the whole point of it.

[just passin by]

we have had to be top dog since it appears that the euros spend most of their time trying to figger out whether they should bow down to Nazis, the Russians, or lately Iran.

and Jane sweety, just WHOSE combat troops do you think have been in Afghanistan for 8 years?

[Simon]

No question you're top dog jpb - but what exactly have you got for it ?

And the euros (if that includes the Russsians) fought the Germans (in both wars) a hell of a lot harder than the Americans did.

[jane2]

justpassin, buttercup, "NATO has about 64,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, half of them Americans, where they are struggling to contain an escalating Taliban insurgency. Commanders have said they are expecting higher casualties."

[Simon]

Jane - there are about 25,000 American troops in Afghanistan outside NATO/ISAF.

Also the Americans are in the worst areas and do the most fighting. They are doing the heavy lifting here.

[Grim]

I'll tell you who will supply the troops: the same people who always supply them. Forty percent of the volunteer military comes from the South; most of the rest from the Mountain West. In the Pacific West, California alone will be underrepresented; but all of the Northeast will be.

These numbers don't change much from year to year:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/09/roundtable-recr.html

[Grim]

By the way:

When I was teaching at the COIN Academy in Iraq, the joke was:

"You know what ISAF stands for? 'I Saw Americans Fight.'"

[badanov]

Badanov - why not get out of these wars, and stop being the world's policeman.

Sure. Just as soon as Muslims stop trying to be the world's armed muggers and Euros stop telling everyone to give up their wallets and their protection.

You know, a lot more would get done with respect to the War on Terror if Europeons stopped "strutting the world's stage" claiming their moral superiority all because they won't help or help defend their presumed allies.

[Simon]

Grim - from reading the New York Times I had understood that 95% of American troops came from the ghetto and the barrio.

Is it possible that I have been misinformed ?

[badanov]

Grim - from reading the New York Times I had understood that 95% of American troops came from the ghetto and the barrio.

Is it possible that I have been misinformed ?

If you are reading the NY Times you are by defintion misinformed.

[Pappy]

"And the euros (if that includes the Russsians) fought the Germans (in both wars) a hell of a lot harder than the Americans did."

Whereupon the Euros (not including the Russians) got the Marshall Plan, rebuilt their economies and infrastructure, and spent the next sixty-plus years on the U.S. defense teat.

You're welcome.

[JeffS]

...but one would think that the pro-Iraq folks would be quite happy with Obama moving into Afghanistan to join the countries that have been slogging it out there for eight years.

A couple of points, Jane.

First, not all pro-Iraq folks are pro-Afghanistan. Different wars, different situations, different objectives. From a strategic perspective, the 'Stan has always been the tougher nut. ALWAYS. Ask Alexander The Great. The old leftie complaint about Iraq diverting resources from the 'Stan had an element of truth in it. So, realistically, there are reasons to be concerned about the build-up.

Second, the US has been the primary force in the 'Stan from Day One. That NATO mission doesn't include direct combat; check out NATO's role. It's all about supporting the Afghanistan government, and reconstruction. They run the International Security Assistance Force, with emphasis on "Assistance".

The only forces directly engaging the Taliban are US, British, and Canadian. Contract CENTCOM's Afghanistan mission statement with the ISAF:

"United States Forces Afghanistan's mission, in coordination with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, is to conduct operations to defeat terrorist networks and insurgents by developing effective governance and building the Afghan National Security Force. Effective security throughout the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan facilitates continued regional stability and increases economic development for the people of Afghanistan."

There's a big difference in the missions. It's one thing to sit in bases and train people; it's another to conduct combat operations against an willing and able foe like the Taliban. Most of the struggling "to contain an escalating Taliban insurgency" is by non-NATO forces.

And please, trust me on this: it's possible to have American forces under NATO command, American forces under CENTCOM (i.e., American) command, with different missions and objectives. The only cross leveling would be logistical, medical, and intelligence support, NOT tactical. Don't mix them up.

Any guess as to who's going to be supplying all of the combat troops?

Well, Dennis, after Obama's last failed European mission to beg for more troops, I'd say it's time for DoD to bend over. The Euroweenies are unlikely in the extreme to say "Yes" now, with things really heating up in the 'Stan, and Russia rattling its saber once more.

[Simon]

Badanov - you will never 'win' in Afghanistan or Iraq. As far as Iran goes - what can you do ? No good saying Obama is too weak to do anything - I accept that, but Bush had no better solution. And the Europeans will never help you in any substantial way against the Muslims (other than the UK and that will decline as their demographics change), other than to lecture you on occasion.

Best shot - get the hell out of the middle east and concentrate your energies on - finding alternatives to oil and stopping the import of people into your country who hate your guts.

The whole of Afghanistan is not worth the death of one American (or Australian) soldier.

[Simon]

Pappy - You gave the Europeans a huge free ride, and the people to blame are not the Europeans, but your own politicians, who took the opportunity of spraying your tax dollars around so that they could strut the world stage as benefactors.

[Mona]

Bill Moyers has not been quiet about his fears that Obama is headed straight for quagmire hell in Afghanistan.

[badanov]

Best shot - get the hell out of the middle east and concentrate your energies on - finding alternatives to oil and stopping the import of people into your country who hate your guts.

Alternatives have been tried for 40 plus years with government subsidies and they have never made it on their own. There is no alternative to oil in a modern society.

The whole of Afghanistan is not worth the death of one American (or Australian) soldier.

I won't let so much as one death mean nothing. I want those deaths to mean something other than a target for personal moral preening Euros are so fond of.

[Jane2 McMahon]

Simon, source for the claim that Americans are doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, please. And please, an historical source...not something from the last six months or so...it's been going on for 8 years.

JeffS, excellent point re Afghanistan and support...I'm touchy because I was objectively pro-terrorist for not supporting Iraq while my country's troops were dying in Afghanistan, the invasion of which I did support. But you're absolutely correct. And thanks for the clarification re NATO and CENTCOM.

As for troops in combat, I tend to think in terms of individual countries, but lumped them under NATO because we Canadians are inclusive. Our troops are in combat and have been for 8 years (ergo the pointed request for a source to Simon).

[Jane2 McMahon]

And Mona, it is indeed a quagmire...while Iraq has garnered the lion's share of the media attention over the past 8 years, Afghanistan has quietly slid into more and more of the same.

[Simon]

Jane - come up with your own sources - you embarrassed yourself so egregiously with your second comment that I really think you had better educate yourself a bit more on this issue before you take the opportunity of spouting off again.

My tip - don't use the word 'buttercup' unless you are 100 % sure you are right in what you are saying.

[richard mcenroe]

badanov -- We need a draft to provide an economic stimulus by pumping GI salaries and death benefits back into the economy!

[JeffS]

No good saying Obama is too weak to do anything - I accept that, but Bush had no better solution.

I disagree with that, Simon, but only partly. Bush had no better solution at the start, but finally let the generals change their strategy. Or, I should say, changed top commanders so the strategy could be changed; a lot of dinosaurs were in the way. And, yes, I do include Rumsfeld in that assessment.

Unfortunately, that strategy is not relevant now, given how the US forces are pulling out of the cities at the request of the Iraqis. And that's where Obama is too weak to do anything. More accurately, it's not just that he's too weak, he has no real foreign policy, and pretty much follows Bush, except where he can impress his tyrannical friends. His priority is domestic, and most foreign problems are obstacles to that.

His weakness, such as it is, is not to recognize how much foreign policy influences domestic policy. Little things like trade, the economy, and credibility come to mind.

Jane: Canadian troops have indeed been in combat in the 'Stan for 8 years. I wish there were more of them. Unfortunately, that's the problem, and supports JPB's and Simon's point: there's about 3,000 Canadian troops at any one time in the 'Stan. No more. Contrast that with the American commitment.

Canada has been a staunch ally, but your military has been downsized to the point of near ineffectiveness. A pity, given how the Canadians had Juno Beach all to themselves for D-Day in 1944. The troops are superb, but few in number.

European forces (except for the Brits) are not really combat forces. From what I've read and heard, the Bundeswehr is laughable. And so on. Pretty good at logistics and (within limits) administration, but not much else.

So I don't view the ISAF (and hence NATO) as making the major effort. They are helping, no argument. But to win a war, you have to take the fight to the enemy. That ain't NATO's style; some countries (e.g., Canada) don't accept that. Again, there's emphasis on "Assistance" in "International Security Assistance Force".

So American, British, and Canada, are doing the heavy lifting in the 'Stan. In that order.

[Pappy]

"You gave the Europeans a huge free ride, and the people to blame are not the Europeans, but your own politicians, who took the opportunity of spraying your tax dollars around so that they could strut the world stage as benefactors"

Actually, it was to keep the Europeans from either falling into communism or allowing the rise of another fascist leader. But that requires one to view things though a historical perspective then, doesn't it?

But by all means, keep playing with your meme. Most mental health professionals say onanism can actually be beneficial.

[jane2]

Simon, were you formerly in a Yahoo chatroom? You called me sweetie, writing me off as an airhead from the beginning. "Buttercup" was a rejoinder....I think it's a term of endearment. So far you've provided zero evidence and yet spout that I should. Too bad you didn't start with that....but I'm used to internet chatrooms, so have at it. But no comments about my sister and my brother's dog!

JeffS, you say things in a way that isn't offensive...good on you. If we're ever to actually have a discussion about these things, and heaven knows we're likely to disagree at some point along the way, it's good to be factual without chest-butting. Again, I'm touchy because I see the body bags here. And by saying that, I am not taking anything away from Americans who see the same thing.

[Simon]

I didn't call you sweetie jane.

[Simon]

Pappy

If you did it for your own good then why did you say "Whereupon the Euros (not including the Russians) got the Marshall Plan, rebuilt their economies and infrastructure, and spent the next sixty-plus years on the U.S. defense teat.

You're welcome."

Make up you're mind, and stop being a tool.

The Europeans would have made it just fine without the Marshall plan.

[Simon]

Jeff - I was mainly talking about Iran. You sound like a sensible guy - what do you think America should do about Iran, because so far I haven't really heard a good solution ?

[jane2]

Simon, are you the veteran of a Yahoo chatroom? You wrote me off from comment one with "sweetie", made wild claims, can't back them up, and try to turn them back on me...and resent "buttercup", which was merely a response to "sweetie"! Next you'll be claiming things about my sister and your dog....

JeffS as a member of a military family, I completely hear what you're saying.

[JeffS]

Iran is the major problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as most of the Middle East. I'm not sure that there's a good solution, because the Iranian government (i.e., the mullahs) is nucking futs. Or at least such egomaniacs that you can't tell the difference.

And by "good solution", I mean, a peaceful one. Because if there's one thing that the Iranian government doesn't want, it's peace. That's a totalitarian state, snuggling up to Chavez and other third world tyrants, and perfectly happy to cause war else where.

Both Europe and the United States, for one reason or another (some good, mostly not), have refused to address the problem that's Iran. And will continue to do so, especially with Obama's non-foreign policy, and his lack of a spine.

The solution? Either the West grows a spine and faces Iran down, or we will see a major war in the Middle East. How that might happen, I have no clue.

There are historical precedents for this. And I loathe Neville Chamberlain.

[Simon]

jane - you're a f... idiot.

1. I never called you sweetie, just passin by did.

2. In correcting just passin by's implied claim that the Americans were the main force in Afghanistan you said that half of the 64,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan were American. I pointed out that that figure omitted the American troops not in NATO/ISAF. So you had undercounted the American troops there by about half.

That's the problem with just googling stuff jane without knowing anything about it.

3. You then started throwing around a lot of demands that I come up with facts to support the idea that the Yanks do the heavy lifting. Now you say that I am making a lot of 'wild claims'. jane it's pretty obvious to anyone who's read even one article about Afghanistan that the Yanks are doing the tough work. I could go into a lot of analysis about where the American troops are and what sort of fighting they are doing - but why would I waste my time pissing information down your inadequate memory hole ? Just google "Afghanistan coalition casualties" then report back OK ?

4. Never been to a Yahoo chatroom, no ideas about your sister and her dog - though you do appear to be hinting to me that something untoward is going on with those two.

[JeffS]

The Europeans would have made it just fine without the Marshall plan.

Sorry, Simon, but that's wishful thinking. World War II devastated Europe. The economy was geared towards total war early on, and every nation there paid the price in one way or other.

England at least got a head start, after the threat of German invasion went away. But occupied countries were stripped of resources and people to support the German war machine. It wasn't total ruination, of course, but their economies mostly didn't exist in 1945. Germany had none, especially after the Soviets split the country up. The Marshall Plan kick started their economies, and helped them to rebuild on their own.

The Soviets didn't worry about their economy, they just told their people to work harder. Not to mention the fact that most of the Soviet Union was untouched by war, and they had oodles of resources; they just lacked the industries to exploit them until later in the war. Plus they had Eastern Europe to draw on.

[just passin by]

Jane,

I was the one who belittled you; I did it because you implied that American troops were slacking in Afghanistan. I thought you were an American...liberal. They tend to make ignorant statements like that.

I appreciate the effort that Canadian troops are making in these wars.

I won't apologize, because others here made my point about combat troop levels.

BUT I will be nicer the next time I contradict you ;>

[JeffS]

And before Dennis steps in, this is getting off topic. I just wanted to answer Simon's question, point out that there are no simple solutions to this matter, and it's best not to oversimplify the problems.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what Obama is doing. He's ignoring the fact that the Euroweenies are NOT interested in escalation in Afghanistan, and that the NATO presence there is largely due to the moral high card being played by the Bush Administration back in 2003. They clearly signaled this with their lack of ANY support for more troops in Afghanistan during Obama's apology tour back in April.

Yet he's planning on exactly that still. Let me point out that the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan is General David McKiernan, an American. The NATO commander is General John Craddock, also an American. Obama's command authority over NATO forces is severely limited by treaty, but not so for those generals; Obama is the commander-in-chief of American forces. The United States is indeed carrying the heavy load in Afghanistan.

So, effectively, Obama is sending the generals to do what he failed to do in April. I doubt they'll get much further.

Which means Dennis is spot on. Those extra troops will mostly be American, not European.

[Simon]

Jeff - Agree with all of that. Dealing with Iraq without factoring in Iran is like dealing with Afghanistan without factoring in Pakistan. You're right about the govt there - they have no answers to any of the problems facing the country - the only winner they know is prodding the west and pushing nukes. But how does the west face down Iran ? - I don't have a clue either.

[Simon]

And sure I know the British and Canadians are playing their part. I never disputed that and didn't think it was part of the debate.

But the Yanks are doing the heavy lifting.

Jeff - I don't really agree on the Marshall plan - but pappy pulled this out of nowhere and as you say this whole thing is getting way off topic.