Sunday, September 27, 2009
British General Supports Request For 40,000 New Troops In Afghanistan
From Times Online:
Britain’s top general in Afghanistan backed calls for more troops, insisting it would be impossible to deny al-Qaeda their terrorist safe havens by “simply patrolling from the skies”. In an exclusive interview with The Times, Lieutenant-General Jim Dutton, said yesterday that he supported a formal request made by his boss, General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander, for up to 40,000 new troops.
On Friday General McChrystal submitted a formal request to Nato and the Pentagon for a surge in troop numbers to help to tame a growing insurgency.
General Dutton, the deputy commander of Nato’s International Security Assistance Force, insisted that “long-term stability” in Afghanistan was the only way to stop international terrorists using the country as a launch pad for attacks in Europe and the US.
Read more ....
My Comment: The key paragraph in this article is the following ....
General Dutton told The Times that victory was a matter of “straightforward force ratios”. “If you want to achieve long-term stability, and therefore a lack of terrorism potential in an area, you need to be doing more than simply patrolling the skies,” he said.
I cannot disagree with the General on this point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for this website, it's a fantastic resource.
With regard to troop levels in Afghanistan, previously you've pointed out the potential negative effects of having too large a presence due to local resentment. This latest post seems to contradict that sentiment. Do you think there is a way to "win" in Afghanistan--to forge lasting local alliances in a region that has no concept of statehood?
Thank you "Anonymous" for your comment.
Yes .... I do believe that we can win in Afghanistan. But to win will entail a massive influx of military personnel, hundreds of thousands of troops, a coordinated campaign with the Pakistani Government to shut down or destroy the safe havens in Pakistan, and an expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in aid for building up the Afghan Army and for bringing assistance projects to every town and community.
Hmmmmm .... I guess you can see the problem.
Because Afghanistan holds no strategic importance to us, justifying such a campaign is not going to get far. Unlike Iraq with its oil deposits, Afghanistan sole concern to us in the West is the presence of Al Qaeda or like minded extremist groups. The politicians know this .... so they are going to look at winning in Afghanistan on the cheap .... which is not going to happen.
So in answer to your questions .... can we win in Afghanistan .... yes. Do we want to when we think of the cost .... the answer is no.
Post a Comment