More NATO Troops Needed in Afghanistan, Gates Says

American Forces Press Service ^ | Jim Garamone

[SandRat]

MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 9, 2008 – Numbers do matter, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said at a press roundtable here today.

The counterinsurgency lessons of Iraq and the experiences of the U.S. surge into that country last year, proved to the secretary that not only the quality, but the number of troops involved in operations are important.

With that in mind, he has been particularly active in asking NATO allies to dig deep for more troops for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Gates is attending the 44th Munich Conference on Security Policy. He said U.S. policy in Afghanistan boils down to, “anything more (that) anyone can do in Afghanistan.”

While the alliance has not suffered any military defeats in the country, there are not enough troops to allow the alliance to make progress in all parts of the country, Gates said. There are about 43,250 international troops in ISAF, according to the NATO Web site.

In the “clear, hold, build” counterinsurgency strategy, the forces are able to clear, but are too few to hold, Gates said, which makes it close to impossible to reach the build section of the strategy.

“So we need to have enough troops there, that once these areas are cleared we can hold them, so economic development and civil development can proceed,” the secretary said. “Ideally, those that hold the territory will be Afghan police and Afghan army,” but they are not ready yet.

As the troops and police train, a short-term solution is a larger NATO-led ISAF. “Any additional numbers from any country are most appreciated,” Gates said.

The secretary pointed out to the European reporters that the alliance had a very successful year in 2007 in terms of military operations. He said the press made a big thing, this time last year, about a Taliban spring offensive. “The offensive in the spring was NATO’s offensive,” he said. “There was no Taliban offensive.”

He said one of the reasons he is sending 3,200 more Marines in Regional Command—South is to hold the military advantage in that area. “One of the reasons in seeking more troops is not because I worried that we may have setbacks or that we’re not doing well, it’s because I believe we need more troops in order to accelerate our progress and lock in our gains, and to make them permanent,” he said.

Gates wants to remind Europeans what is at stake for them in Afghanistan. He said one reason why more Europeans are not supporting operations there is because many people cannot separate the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Europeans who are opposed to what the United States has been doing in Iraq, have projected that to the operation in Afghanistan. So there probably has been some spillover in that respect,” he said.

But he also believes there hasn’t been enough discussion in Europe over the danger al Qaeda and extremists groups in the area pose to Europeans.

“I think we need to remind Europeans of the attacks that have taken place here, but also the attacks that have been thwarted and what the targets were,” Gates said.

“There is a direct threat to Europe out of (Afghanistan),” he said. “I believe the governments of Europe understand this fully and so I hope to add my voice to the number of political leaders to be more explicit to the threat to Europe itself.”

Defense officials have estimated that NATO forces in Afghanistan are roughly 7,000 to 8,000 soldiers short. U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill, the ISAF commander, said he needs three maneuver battalions, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, and trainers – especially trainers for the Afghan police.

[SandRat]

FR WAR NEWS!
If you would like to be added to / removed from FRWN,
please FReepmail Sandrat.

WARNING: FRWN can be an EXTREMELY HIGH-VOLUME PING LIST!!

[fanfan]

[EGPWS]

With that in mind, he has been particularly active in asking NATO allies to dig deep for more troops for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

They need to be contained in Afghanistan or we will counter their attacks globally in the future at a greater cost.

The WOT is going well and we need to maintain the wellness.

[Clive]

The articles all seem to miss the point.

The need is not for troops in Afghanistan per se. The need is for troops in the southern provinces such as Kandahar and Helmand where the insurgents are active.

The north has ample troops but some nations have placed caveats on their deployments that keep their soldiers out of the south.

[Eagles6]

“The offensive in the spring was NATO’s offensive,” he said. “There was no Taliban offensive.”

Aren't the drivebyes saying that we're losing?

[SandRat]

The BlameStream Media always does.

[Eagles6]

If we completely cleanse the country of the barbarians and have peace for 12 months the headline will read

US Troops have not won a battle in a year.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

They might get shot at down there.

The Europeans have very little tolerance for casualties. Most of their voters want their soldiers out. Many of their governments are shaky coalitions. And many of them have significant Muslim populations. This is where the caveats come from. The Americans can't strategically communicate WHY anything in Afghanistan is worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier, and neither can the Germans.

I am coming to believe NATO doesn't need more conventional combat troops. NATO needs more Special Operations Forces, more Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams, more Military Police, Carabiniari, Guardia Civil, more instructors and trainers and observers to get the ANA and the ANP up to speed. We need to put Afghan feet into more boots on the ground.

[maine-iac7]

The articles all seem to miss the point.

The need is not for troops in Afghanistan per se. The need is for troops in the southern provinces such as Kandahar and Helmand where the insurgents are active.

The north has ample troops but some nations have placed caveats on their deployments that keep their soldiers out of the south.

Yes, the 'insurgents' are active in the Kandahar and Helmand - the watch word, though, is "ALSO" active. That's the area that is getting the press, it's an area where anyone can get into - so it can hardly be kept quiet.

But the fighting up in the Kunar and Nuristan is fierce - and they are taking more than their share of KIA/wounded.

I think if you were to delve a bit deeper, not depend on what you get from the media or even the military, you'd find the troops up in "Taliban Central" - i.e. the Kunar and Nuristan Provinces in north eastern Afghanistan, up against the Paki border next to the Taliban/al Q strongholds, might beg to differ.

They'd also be surprised to learn there was no "spring offensive" in 2007 - where, for example, the troops in the Korengal Valley of the Kunar were in 450 firefights in the first 4 1/2 months after deployment in June - and in triple that now - and they might be a bit concerned that the powers to be are saying there "won't be the expected spring offensive" THIS spring.

The troops up there have been strung out, thanks to NATO not fulfilling it's commitment - and are being largely ignored by the military and media - in part, I suspicion, as for the media, because the area they're fighting in - high in the infamous Hindu Kush range - is all but isolated from the rest of Afghanistan and is considered too dangerous for aid groups to venture into - and now, with winter in the mountains, the little fire bases of handfuls of troops are pretty much cut off until the snow melt -

Here's some heroes from the 173rd - so far on their deployment that started in June -

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/popup?id=3855518&contentIndex=1&page=1

The 173rd may be out "out of sight" but I will be damned if they stay out of mind.

[maine-iac7]

the barbarians

I have long used "barbarians" when referring to these vermin - "terrorist" is almost too honorable...

But in reading newspapers from the mid-east, I see they refer to them as "miscreants"?

I thought: "Is this mid-east PC?"

So I looked up the definition...

Miscreant:

1. depraved, villainous, or base.

2. Archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical.

–noun 3. a vicious or depraved person; villain.

4. Archaic. a heretic or infidel.

LOL - that'll do!

Even, look at #4. - "infidel" - they're referred to as 'infidels' - golly, they should commit mass suicide, taking out only themselves.