Nato chief promises Afghanistan will get 'substantially more forces'

[clear eye]

Source: The Guardian

Julian Borger, Diplomatic editor guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 November 2009 19.59 GMT

Speaking in Edinburgh at a Nato parliamentary assembly meeting, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said: "In a few weeks, I expect we will decide, in Nato, on the approach, and troop levels needed, to take our mission forward."

Barack Obama is expected to make a long-awaited declaration on US troop levels and strategy in the next few days. But Rasmussen pre-empted the president by predicting the alliance as a whole would pursue a broad counter-insurgency approach, requiring many more soldiers, rather than the narrower focus on counter-terrorism – such as targeting suspected jihadist leaders – advocated by the US vice-president, Joe Biden.

"I'm confident it will be a counter-insurgency approach, with substantially more forces," Rasmussen said...

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/afghanistan-barack-obama

[SandWalker1984]

1. Cost to keep One Soldier in Afghanistan for a year = ONE MILLION DOLLAR$

We cannot have single payer healthcare because it costs too much.

Our roads, bridges and schools are falling into disrepair.

Poverty, homelessness is on the rise.

Some in Congress want to cut Social Security and Medicare program benefits, claiming we cannot afford them.

The US deficit is hitting all time highs.

Yet we can spend ONE MILLION DOLLARS per soldier per year to put troops in Afghanistan.


Please read the following:

Cost of Keeping One U.S. Soldier in Afghanistan Per Year: One Million Dollars

November 15th, 2009
http://cryptogon.com/?p=12126

The U.S. doesn’t have to “win” the war for a handful of diabolical corporations to make a killing. The trick is to keep the war going for as long as possible.

And, day after day, the shakedown continues.

Bogus contracts, drugs and energy. That’s all, folks.

Plus a little change we can believe in.

Via: New York Times:

While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.

Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.

Senior members of the House Appropriations Committee have already expressed reservations about the potential long-term costs of expanding the war in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama could find it difficult to win approval for the additional spending in Congress, where he would have to depend on Republicans to counter defections from liberal Democrats.

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the details of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president’s insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy.

“The president focused a lot on ensuring that we were asking the difficult questions about getting to an end game here,” the official said. “He knows we cannot sustain this indefinitely.”

Sending fewer troops would lower the costs but would also place limitations on the buildup strategy. Sending 30,000 more troops, for example, would cost $25 billion to $30 billion a year while limiting how widely American forces could range. Deploying 20,000 troops would cost about $21 billion annually but would expand mainly the training of Afghans, the officials said.

The estimated $1 million a year it costs per soldier is higher than the $390,000 congressional researchers estimated in 2006.

Military analysts said the increase reflects a surge in costs for mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment that would apply to troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But some costs are unique to Afghanistan, where it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to the troops through mountainous terrain.

Some administration estimates suggest it could also cost up to $50 billion over five years to more than double the size of the Afghan army and police force, to a total of 400,000. That includes recruiting, training and equipment.

[Sinti]

2. I've got to say, if President Obama chooses to do a COIN operation

in Afghanistan, I will not be able to support him in any way ever again. I don't think there's an sufficient explanation for such an atrocity.

Rasmussen from NATO must have read The Accidental Guerrilla and thinks that's what we plan to do.

[clear eye]

3. I hope he will listen to Britain's Foreign Secretary, Miliband

See the news article I posted in LBN recounting his recent recommendations here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4149915&mesg_id=4149915

Of course, his credibility might be undermined by the ridiculous stories of SOS Clinton's alleged "crush" on him.

[Sinti]

4. Thanks for pointing that story out to me

It was good to have a bit more insight into the British thinking on this situation. We do seem to move together.

Miliband's ideas about a "National Reintegration Organisation" and bringing some of the so-called "Taliban" fighters back to their villages makes sense to me. They fight for money, or they fight because we blew up their stuff and they want us out. Most are not really fighting because they are extremists.

If some army came here and blew up my neighborhood, I would expect many here would pick up whatever they could find and fight back. I cannot comprehend why people don't understand this simple fact.

The more insurgents you kill, the more insurgents you will have. I don't believe that will change. If you encourage them to go back to their villages and rebuild you can have peace - if you stop killing people. You could perhaps give them assistance in that. The current regime is up to its eyeballs though, so it's a treacherous path no matter what.

Optimally, I think regional players should be involved in the rebuilding process. It's better for a nation to have good relations with its neighbors. ISI has also had its fair share of corruption, so even that idea is a sticky one.

This part bothers me deeply:

"In the UK we support the prosecution of a serious counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan. We do not see that as an alternative to counterterrorism but as the best means to achieve it," Miliband said.

Counter-insurgency, or COIN operations are very labor intensive. It's house-to-house through every 'troubled' city, town, and pile of rubble in the nation, rounding up people who may be insurgents. There are a whole lot of guns in that region, mostly old Soviet automatic models. What might look like an insurgent to an American soldier, might simply be a father, or a brother who fears them.

COIN is unacceptable to my mind. It gives me visions of crowds of civilians being rounded up with concertina wire. I have heard some real horror stories from men who had no reason to lie. This is the stuff of real war crimes.

I'm happy that President Obama is taking time to consider all possible options. I realize very well that this is not a situation that has any kind of simple solution and we know very little of the totality of it, I'm sure. I expect he's going to try to figure out what will cause the least death, and I hope that's why he's taking time to get good information and think it through.

[clear eye]

6. Unfortunately the article doesn't clarify what Miliband meant

by "counter-insurgency". He may have been thinking of something other than standard COIN. The rest of the article didn't sound like he wanted to move in that intensively.

I completely agree w/ you about the results of killing insurgents, not to mention "collateral" civilians.

I'll keep watching the Guardian for any further news. They are a better source on what's happening and what the options are in Afghanistan than any U.S. paper I know of. SOS Clinton speaks w/ Miliband regularly, so he may be influential here, too.

[Sinti]

7. Counter-insurgency may mean something different

operationally to the British than it does to us. I hope so. Otherwise, it sounds like he wants to split the difference, or send the insurgents home to be rounded up. The latter would likely appeal to some people, at least in theory, but is no more realistic that the neocon's imagined Fascist Islamic Caliphate.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Heaven knows, I wanted to be wrong, but I was not.

And so it begins. :cry: :nuke: