The 60-day Afghanistan assessment and Obama
So this week at the Pentagon, my focus has been on Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s 60-day assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. While every point of this process so far has been public, the assessment itself is now considered a confidential military assessment. Thus, my colleagues and I are searching for those who have read it to give you some sense of what’s in it.
From what I can tell, the document will be underwhelming as I don’t think it reveals much more than what the general has already said publicly. The Afghan forces need more training; the mission needs more civilians; and the coalition needs to move its forces out of remote outposts and toward population centers. While the report does not state it explicitly, the general spells out a situation and a strategy that demands more troops.
Privately, advisors to McChrystal say the Pentagon asked for this assessment and the general agreed to do it, in part, to buy time. The assumption was the assessment would give the military time to tell the public the way ahead in Afghanistan, and it would give President Obama time to warm the American public to the idea of sending more troops.
As it turns out, the idea may have backfired. Between the flailing economy, the raging health care debate and an Afghanistan that increasingly appears to both unmanageable and more violent for U.S. troops, the president may find it far more difficult to ask for more troops than had he proposed the idea 60 days ago. Indeed, our own poll found that 56 percent of Americans oppose the idea. And yet, he can’t not send them either. Obama named McChrysal the commander earlier this summer because the military believes the former special forces commander is the best hope the United States has to salvage Afghanistan. So how can the President then not send the general what he believes he needs to win the war? Moreover, Obama called this the just, necessary war, the war the Untied States must win to protect its security.
So 60 days after this exercise started, the President may find that he doesn’t have the political capital to send more troops nor does he have the political standing to not send more.
I have not read in the news in weeks or maybe months - and I don't know if it's been reported somewhere - regarding Afghanistan, how many so-called 'insurgents' or 'rebels' US military are fighting there. Do any of you know? I think I read in wikipedia summary it could be also low as 800... Why do we need 60 - 70,000 military there to deal with 800 rebels? Why has the news media been avoiding reporting the number of 'insurgents'? Is this a 'Wag the Dog' occupation over there?
-David
Posted by: David Maxwell Fine | September 21, 2009 at 01:04 AM
Steven Aftergood, SECRECY NEWS, from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Volume 2009, Issue No. 71, September 1, 2009, DEFENSE CONTRACTING IN AFGHANISTAN AT RECORD HIGH,
Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/
"There are more Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan today than there are uniformed U.S. military personnel, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service. Not only that, the ratio of contractors to troops in Afghanistan is higher than in any prior military engagement in U.S. history.
"As of March 2009, there were 68,197 DOD contractors in Afghanistan, compared to 52,300 uniformed personnel. Contractors made up 57% of DOD’s workforce in Afghanistan. This apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by DOD in any conflict in the history of the United States," the CRS report (pdf) said. A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News.
At a time when the deployment of U.S. forces in Afghanistan may be increased (or reduced), the CRS report casts a detailed and fairly nuanced spotlight on the role of defense contractors there. The report notes, for example, that more than 75% of the DoD contractor personnel in Afghanistan are local nationals. Only about 15% are U.S. citizens.
Contractors provide essential logistical, translation and other services, while offering increased flexibility. But they also pose management challenges in monitoring performance and preventing fraud. In the worst cases, "abuses and crimes committed by armed private security contractors and interrogators against local nationals may have undermined U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan," the CRS report noted. See "Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis," August 13, 2009."
Posted by: Philip Henika | September 05, 2009 at 12:22 PM