Small Wars Journal

Blog Posts

SWJ Blog is a multi-author blog publishing news and commentary on the various goings on across the broad community of practice.  We gladly accept guest posts from serious voices in the community.

by SWJ Editors | Tue, 11/17/2009 - 7:17am | 0 comments
Army Tells its Soldiers to 'Bribe' the Taleban - Michael Evans, The Times.

British forces should buy off potential Taleban recruits with "bags of gold", according to a new army field manual published yesterday. Army commanders should also talk to insurgent leaders with "blood on their hands" in order to hasten the end of the conflict in Afghanistan. The edicts, which are contained in rewritten counter-insurgency guidelines, will be taught to all new army officers.

They mark a strategic rethink after three years in which British and NATO forces have failed to defeat the Taleban. The manual is also a recognition that the Army's previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date. The new instructions came on the day that Gordon Brown went farther than before in setting out Britain's exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stated explicitly last night that he wanted troops to begin handing over districts to Afghan authorities during next year - a general election year in Britain...

More at The Times.

by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 8:15pm | 9 comments
1st Battalion, 5th Marines PowerPoint AAR - COIN in Helmand: After the Clear, Thoughts and Tips on Non Kinetic Actions - most certainly worth a thousand words.
by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 6:13am | 0 comments
A Blue Line in Afghanistan - Michael O'Hanlon, Washington Post opinion.

As President Obama wrestles with whether to send more troops to Afghanistan despite widespread corruption in the government of Hamid Karzai, little attention is being paid to a promising dimension of our efforts to foster reform - a much better approach to building the Afghan police force. This anticorruption agenda does not reduce the need to battle kleptocratic trends in Kabul, but it is a big reason for hopefulness. Although the Afghan police force has shown pockets of promise, and many officers risk their lives daily in defense of their nation, the force has long been a major disappointment. Corruption and drug abuse are rampant. Many citizens prefer to encounter roadblocks and checkpoints run by the Taliban rather than the police because of the latter's penchant for extortion. (On a recent visit to Kandahar and Helmand provinces, I heard about an informal survey of truck drivers in the south that suggested they must pay an average of five or six bribes to the police per journey. More encouragingly, the same poll reported few, if any, extortion demands at army-maintained checkpoints.) Training has been shoddy: In years past, only 20 to 25 percent of police officers received any training before starting the job. Those who join the force frequently quit, sometimes to join the resistance, which often pays better.

But much of this is changing. While there is still a long way to go, new efforts at police reform point to a more encouraging paradigm for improving the competence and integrity of key Afghan institutions. A bill before parliament is likely to soon increase police pay and benefits for the survivors of officers killed in the line of duty. This is expected to help reduce the tendency of police to demand bribes from fellow citizens...

More at The Washington Post.

by SWJ Editors | Sun, 11/15/2009 - 10:02am | 11 comments
Enough Afghan Debate - David S. Broder, Washington Post opinion.

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose - and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point. It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision - whether or not it is right.

The cost of indecision is growing every day. Americans, our allies who have contributed their own troops to the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Afghans and their government are waiting impatiently, while the challenge is getting worse. When Obama became commander in chief, his course of action seemed clear. He was bent on early withdrawal from Iraq and an increase in resources and emphasis on winning in Afghanistan - the struggle he repeatedly called "a war of necessity." ...

More at The Washington Post.

by SWJ Editors | Sat, 11/14/2009 - 1:49pm | 0 comments
The Gnome Society has been added to the SWJ blogroll. Described by the host as "... my own little think tank of Marines dedicated to candid and critical thought regarding the future of our beloved institution. Though our current projects are not posted publicly this blog occasionally hosts interesting articles for discussion."
by SWJ Editors | Sat, 11/14/2009 - 12:42pm | 1 comment
The View From Man Bear Pig - Bing West, Westwrite.

... It was my third visit since April to rifle companies in northern and southern Afghanistan. In all, those visits included 40 to 50 shuras (meetings with village elders) and patrols. Some of those patrols stayed on the move for several days, and there were numerous small-arms engagements. In the field, I talked with about 500 American, British, and Afghan troops of all ranks.

Kightlinger's squad was typical. They were manning one of two dozen outposts nestled among 75,000 residents in a remote district called Nawa. In June, many observers had doubted the wisdom of inserting a Marine brigade into Helmand, which is the center of the world's heroin supply. All summer, the district market had stood empty; by October thousands of farmers were gathering to trade produce.

But five months has not erased years of distrust and turbulence. After the district governor met with the elders in a key village, the Taliban called their own meeting, which was attended by several of the same elders. The population, though thankful for the security, was hedging its bets. They know the Marines will not stay forever. Billions of dollars already have been spent in development projects to make Americans feel good about our generosity, but nation-building is an endless task. The tribes expect everything but give nothing in return.

It is not obvious that winning the hearts and minds of village elders, or linking villages to Kabul, wins the war. Our soldiers note that the Afghans are happy to accept what we give them but do not reciprocate by turning against the Taliban. The elders don't raise militias or secure recruits for the army, and they don't fight; there has been no replay of that scene from The Magnificent Seven in which the terrorized villagers finally rise up against their oppressors. Instead, fearful locals plead with migratory Taliban gangs to move on. A rural population, no matter how content with its government, cannot stand up to such a tough enemy...

Much more at Westwrite.

by SWJ Editors | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 8:29pm | 7 comments
Mr. President, Take Your Time on Afghanistan - Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy Newspapers.

President Barack Obama has yet to decide where we're going and what we're doing in Afghanistan, but if the flood of leaks this week is any indicator, he at least has decided what he isn't going to do. He isn't going to be rushed into making such an important decision.

He seemingly is un—to buy a pig in a poke from any of the players - not from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan, who wants another 40,000 to 80,000 American troops; not from his own national security wizards who've proffered four different pigs in four different pokes; not from Vice President Joe Biden, who wants to leave the fight to Special Forces and unmanned Predators. The word is that none of the options contains what the president wants to see - an estimate of how many more years beyond the eight already invested would be needed and an exit strategy...

More at McClatchy Newspapers.

by Robert Haddick | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 6:28pm | 0 comments
Here is the latest edition of my column at Foreign Policy:

Topics include:

1. The Saudi-Iranian proxy war escalates: good news for the U.S.,

2. Sri Lanka's civil war is not really over.

The Saudi-Iranian proxy war escalates: good news for the U.S.

A sectarian rebellion in northern Yemen has now become an open contest between Saudi Arabia and Iran for influence over Yemen and the Gulf of Aden region. This week the Saudis brought their air and naval power to bear against Yemen's Houthi rebels -- Shiite insurgents very likely supported by Iran -- after a Houthi incursion into Saudi territory. Iran responded by warning Saudi Arabia to stay out of the conflict. What remains to be seen is whether this conflict will create and harden a Sunni-Arab alliance that might someday effectively contain Iran.

According to the New York Times, the Houthis captured a strategic mountain near the Yemen-Saudi Arabia border and clashed with a Saudi border patrol on Nov. 3. The Saudi response was a sustained air and artillery campaign against Houthi positions inside Yemen. On Nov 10 Saudi naval forces began a blockade of Yemen's coast in order to cut the Houthis off from resupply. The Saudi and Yemeni governments believe that Iran is supplying the rebels with weapons, though Tehran denies it.

Why has Saudi Arabia felt the need to overtly intervene in what was previously an internal Yemeni dispute?

Click through to read more ...

by Niel Smith | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 5:16pm | 5 comments

ABC News has procured Taliban video of the 2008 attack on COP Wanat.

For background, see here, here, and here.

by SWJ Editors | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:57am | 5 comments
Losing Kilcullen - Greg Grant, DoD Buzz

Forget the Vietnam analogies. Influential Australian counterinsurgency adviser, David Kilcullen, says the Obama administration risks a Suez style disaster if it fails to deploy the troop numbers requested by Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The deep divisions within the administration that have burst into the open in recent weeks along with the long delay in answering McChrystal's plea for more troops has created deep concerns among NATO allies and has presented an exploitable opportunity for the Taliban, Kilcullen tells Britain's Guardian newspaper.

Kilcullen, who is an adviser to the State Department, says it would be irresponsible for the administration to opt for any kind of middle ground option that sends less than the 40,000 troops requested by McChrystal. "Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," he is quoted as saying...

More at DoD Buzz.

Barack Obama 'Risks Suez-like Disaster' in Afghanistan, Says Key Adviser - Ewen MacAskill, Guardian.

A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise. David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit. Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.

He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers. The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed. The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government...

More at The Guardian.

by Robert Haddick | Thu, 11/12/2009 - 5:51pm | 20 comments
While on his way today to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed to reporters (in the course of blasting anonymous leakers) a few snippets from the Obama administration's review of Afghan policy. According to the AFPS article, Gates said "Obama appears to be leaning toward [a policy option] that combines parts of various alternatives presented so far."

Gates went on to say:

The question, [Gates] said, comes down to "How do we signal resolve, and at the same time, signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended?"

If President Obama and his team are waiting until they come up with an answer to that dilemma, it is no longer a mystery why the review is taking so long. Sorry, you can't commit to both the long road and the exit ramp at the same time -- you have to pick one or the other.

The very fact that the administration is still trying to figure out an elegant solution to this insoluble dilemma sends a strong signal, a signal that explains and motivates the behavior of various actors in ways unpleasant to the administration. Examples include:

1. Pakistan hedging its bets by continuing to protect the Afghan Taliban,

2. Providing the Afghan Taliban with an excellent recruiting and motivational tool, and guidance on how to adjust the tempo of their operations,

3. President Hamid Karzai hedging his bets by cutting side deals with Afghanistan's power players,

4. Local Afghans accepting U.S. assistance but also hedging by not resisting the Taliban (as reported by Bing West in his trip report),

5. U.S. conventional combat units doing their own form of hedging by getting passive and increasingly just going through the motions (also reported by West),

6. Anonymous leakers inside the administration attempting to preemptively cripple policy options they don't like.

When Gates said, "signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended," I assume the Afghans he had in mind were Karzai, other top officials in the Afghan government, and officers in the army and police. He apparently wants to motivate those particular Afghans to make a better effort defending their country.

I doubt he was referring to the Taliban and the broad civilian population. They too are Afghans and have very likely received the message that "this is not open-ended."

by SWJ Editors | Thu, 11/12/2009 - 2:13am | 3 comments
US Envoy Resists Increase in Troops - Greg Jaffe, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post.

The US ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more US troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is —to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior US officials said. Karl W. Eikenberry's memos, sent as President Obama enters the final stages of his deliberations over a new Afghanistan strategy, illustrated both the difficulty of the decision and the deepening divisions within the administration's national security team. After a top-level meeting on the issue Wednesday afternoon - Obama's eighth since early last month - the White House issued a statement that appeared to reflect Eikenberry's concerns.

"The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended," the statement said. "After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time." On the eve of his nine-day trip to Asia, Obama was given a series of options laid out laid out by military planners with differing numbers of new US deployments, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 troops. None of the scenarios calls for scaling back the US presence in Afghanistan or delaying the dispatch of additional troops...

More at The Washington Post.

Doubts on Karzai Complicate Troop Plan - Peter Spiegel, Wall Street Journal.

President Barack Obama expressed fresh doubts about the credibility of Afghanistan's government in high-level discussions Wednesday over what troops to send there, after his ambassador to Kabul warned against any reinforcements until the Afghan regime cracks down on corruption. US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent two classified cables to Washington in recent days raising serious concerns about the military's recommendation to increase troop levels, according to three US officials. Mr. Eikenberry criticized Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent behavior as well as corruption in the top ranks of his administration, according to an official who saw the memos. Mr. Karzai has in recent interviews lashed out at the US and blamed corruption on international organizations working in his country.

In Wednesday's meeting, which Mr. Eikenberry attended via videoconference, Mr. Obama discussed options for adding troops for nearly 2½ hours. Two of the options were previously proposed by his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. A new "hybrid" option has recently gained momentum at the Pentagon, combining significant numbers of troops with trainers to improve Afghan forces' capability to secure the country themselves. A White House official said Mr. Obama made requests that could lead to significantly altering any or all of the choices, changing the number of troops involved and the length of their deployment. The official said Mr. Obama asked for specific timelines in each scenario for when US troops would turn over security to Afghan forces. In the past, senior military officials have resisted such timelines...

More at The Wall Street Journal.

US Afghan Envoy Urges Caution on Troop Increase - Elisabeth Bumiller and Mark Landler, New York Times.

The United States ambassador to Afghanistan, who once served as the top American military commander there, has expressed in writing his reservations about deploying additional troops to the country, three senior American officials said Wednesday. The position of the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general, puts him in stark opposition to the current American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has asked for 40,000 more troops.

General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces. This low-end option was one of four alternatives under consideration by Mr. Obama and his war council at a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon. The other three options call for troop levels of around 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, the three officials said...

More at The New York Times.

by Robert Bateman | Wed, 11/11/2009 - 10:04am | 0 comments
I wrote this essay a little more than five years ago, back in April 2004. The story, however, is not dated. Like most soldiers, I've lost some of those I was connected to in these wars we have been fighting. Double digits now, and who knows how many WIA. This is what happens after a decade of combat. Some losses, however, strike closer to home. On this day, we shall remember. This is about one of those whom I will remember.

Continue on for A Soldier's Soldier...

by SWJ Editors | Wed, 11/11/2009 - 3:29am | 0 comments
Obama Receives New Afghan Option - Peter Spiegel and Yochi Dreazen, Wall Street Journal.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday will consider a new compromise plan for adding troops to Afghanistan that would deploy 30,000 to 35,000 new forces, including as many as 10,000 military trainers, over the next year or more. The new scenario combines reinforcements for fighting Taliban insurgents with trainers aimed at rapidly increasing the size and capabilities of Afghan troops to take on more operations themselves. It wouldn't aim to eliminate the Taliban, but weaken it until Afghan forces can secure major population centers themselves.

A senior military official said this hybrid option is now drawing the most attention at the Pentagon. It will be considered along with options already proposed by the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, when President Obama meets Wednesday with his war council at the White House. Officials said Mr. Obama is now expected to unveil his new Afghanistan strategy shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia on Nov. 19. The issue of troop levels has put Mr. Obama in a difficult position. Gen. McChrystal has argued that tens of thousands of additional troops are needed to successfully curb the Taliban's resurgence. But many Democratic lawmakers have signaled they don't support such a buildup, and the American public's support for the war has waned...

More at The Wall Street Journal.

by SWJ Editors | Wed, 11/11/2009 - 2:22am | 0 comments
Standing Tall in Harm's Way - David Ignatius, Washington Post opinion.

In the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, some commentaries have examined the damage to the US Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few have spoken about the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, as an extreme version of what can happen with an overstressed force. This picture of a traumatized military is misleading. Certainly, the Army and the other services are stressed by the demands of combat. But what's striking to me this Veterans Day is how healthy the military is, given all the weight it has been carrying for the country these past eight years. Facing a new and disorienting kind of warfare, the military has learned and adapted. Rather than complain about their problems, soldiers have figured out ways to solve them.

In truth, the US military may be the most resilient part of American society right now. The soldiers are clearly in better shape than the political class that sent them to war and the economic leadership that has mismanaged the economy. (I'd give the same high marks to young civilians who are serving and sacrificing in hard places -- the Peace Corps and medical volunteers I've met abroad and the teachers in tough inner-city schools.) Through all its difficulties, the military has kept its stride. That sense of balance comes partly from the fact that soldiers are anchored to the American bedrock. This includes the stereotypical small towns in the South and Midwest that have military service in their DNA. But it also counts plenty of hardworking, upwardly mobile Hispanic and African American families in urban America that produce some of the best soldiers I know...

More at The Washington Post.

by SWJ Editors | Tue, 11/10/2009 - 7:42pm | 0 comments
World War I -- known at the time as "The Great War" - officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles outside the town of Versailles, France. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of "the war to end all wars."

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations..."

Continue on for Veterans and Remembrance Days at Small Wars Journal...

by SWJ Editors | Tue, 11/10/2009 - 4:40pm | 0 comments

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks

H/T Captain Crispin Burke.

by Robert Haddick | Tue, 11/10/2009 - 1:05pm | 9 comments
Will vigilantes in Mexico succeed where the police and army have failed? Will it take a Mexican "Los Pepes" movement to effectively battle Mexico's drug cartels? Two recent stories from Mexico hint that Mexico's "Los Pepes" may have arrived.

The "Los Pepes" I refer to was the shadowy vigilante group that in the early 1990s methodically reduced Colombian drug baron Pablo Escobar from a Latin American emperor to a cornered animal. As described in Mark Bowden's brilliant Killing Pablo, Los Pepes, obviously enjoying access to the full intelligence file on Escobar's vast organization, systematically murdered or chased into exile the concentric rings of Escobar's supporting infrastructure. When he was finally gunned down, the former drug emperor was on the run in a Medellin slum with one bodyguard and two pistols. It is not an exaggeration to say that the murderous Los Pepes saved Colombia, where the police, army, and courts -- all thoroughly suborned by Escobar -- could not.

Will a new generation of Los Pepes be Mexico's salvation? Some Mexicans, including one city mayor, seem to think so, as described in this recent Wall Street Journal article:

Click through to read more ...

by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/09/2009 - 9:48pm | 0 comments
Afghans React To Possible U.S. Troop Surge

By Sean Maroney, Voice of America

Kabul

09 November 2009

As U.S. President Barack Obama debates with his advisers on whether to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan, Afghans have their own opinions.

This year has been the deadliest for foreign troops in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban government eight years ago.

For several weeks in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama has been hearing counsel from his advisers about the best course to take with the war-torn country. But half-a-world away, ordinary Afghans have their own advice for the U.S. president.

"Sending the troops to Afghanistan will not solve the problem. If the United States or Afghanistan start talks with the Taliban, it will be better," said Akhter Tutakhil, a medical student from Khost, a city in eastern Afghanistan.

Zainudin Wehadet is unemployed, living in the Afghan capital of Kabul. He says history has shown that no force can occupy Afghanistan. He says that no matter how many troops are sent, it will not end the fighting. He believes his government should start talks with the Taliban.

Ahmed Wali Mohmand is a student from Paktika province, next to the border with Pakistan. He says foreign governments should use their resources for something other than troops. "They should help with all our people and make universities and schools and other things which our people and society need," he said.

Daud Sultanzoi is a member of Afghanistan's parliament. He says he believes more foreign troops are needed and that the U.S. and Afghan governments have not done a good job of communicating the real reason for troops being sent to Afghanistan. "How can you build schools if you don't have security? How can you build schools if you cannot go to the districts to build them? You cannot build schools in a barrack and then transport it somewhere. You have to go to each district and secure those districts," he said.

Shenkai Karkhail also is a member of the Afghan parliament. She says she does not understand why weeks of meetings are needed in order for the U.S. government to make a decision. "They should be very much clear what they should do. Definitely they should send more troops here because the national army of Afghanistan is not in a position to really defend [from] this insurgency in this country," she said.

The United States has nearly 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and there are about 40,000 from NATO and other allied countries.

The top NATO and American commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned the coalition could lose the conflict if additional military forces are not deployed.

by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/09/2009 - 8:09pm | 0 comments

A Birthday Message from the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps
by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:53pm | 1 comment
Over at Foreign Policy's AfPak Channel - AfPak Experts Advise Obama.

As the Obama administration ponders the way forward in Afghanistan, the AfPak Channel reached out to experts who have lived in Afghanistan or researched and reported from the region for extended periods of time to ask, in about what a senior National Security Council staffer might have time to say to him in one of the meetings that is now going on in the White House, what they would tell Obama as he considers his options. These are their answers.

More Talking, Not More Troops - Graeme Smith

Prioritize in Afghanistan - J Alexander Thier

Nearly Anywhere Terrorists Operate - Michael Innes

It's Not About the Number of Troops - Gretchen Peters

An Articulate Plan for Security - Asma Nemati

Time for the Heavy Lifting - Peter Bergen

by SWJ Editors | Sat, 11/07/2009 - 9:53pm | 2 comments
Obama Leaning Toward 34,000 More Troops for Afghanistan - Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers.

President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to send more than 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan next year, but he may not announce it until after he consults with key allies and completes a trip to Asia later this month, administration and military officials have told McClatchy. As it now stands, the administration's plan calls for sending three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY and a Marine brigade, for a total of as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops. Another 7,000 troops would man and support a new division headquarters for the international force's Regional Command (RC) South in Kandahar, the Taliban birthplace where the US is due to take command in 2010. Some 4,000 additional US trainers are likely to be sent as well, the officials said.

The first additional combat brigade probably would arrive in Afghanistan next March, the officials said, with the other three following at roughly three-month intervals, meaning that all the additional US troops probably wouldn't be deployed until the end of next year. Army brigades number 3,500 to 5,000 soldiers; a Marine brigade has about 8,000 troops. The plan would fall well short of the 80,000 troops that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan, suggested as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan...

More at McClatchy.

by SWJ Editors | Sat, 11/07/2009 - 10:57am | 3 comments
The Taliban's Political Program - Dan Green, Armed Forces Journal.

At their core, insurgencies are about political power struggles, usually between a central government and those who reject its authority, where the objective of the conflict is the population itself and the political right to lead it.

Thus, the center of gravity in this type of warfare is not the enemy's forces per se, but the population. The centrality of politics to this type of warfare means that counterinsurgent forces must craft a political strategy that is sensitive to the needs of the population, seeks to secure its loyalty to the government, mobilizes the community to identify, expel or fight the insurgent, and extends the authority and reach of the central government. To achieve these goals, a government must have a political strategy that separates the insurgents from popular support so they can be killed or imprisoned. If a political plan is implemented poorly, or not at all, insurgent forces will capitalize on the grievances and frustrated hopes of the community to entice it away from the government. The community may then assist the insurgent with a safe haven to rest, re-arm, re-equip, recuperate and redeploy to fight another day.

In the long run, because this conflict is not about how many casualties counterinsurgent forces impose on the insurgents but about the will to stay in the fight, foreign counterinsurgents tend to grow weary of the amount of blood and treasure they must expend. The insurgent could lose every military engagement, but still win the war if the government does not win the population over to its program, policies and plans...

More at Armed Forces Journal.

by SWJ Editors | Sat, 11/07/2009 - 10:48am | 14 comments
The War of New Words - William F. Owen, Armed Forces Journal.

War isn't just transforming - it's ushering in a whole new language to describe conflict, and this language is used in a way that pays little attention to logic or military history. Thus the forces we used to call guerrillas are now "hybrid threats." Insurgencies are now "complex" and require "complex and adaptive" solutions. Jungles and cities are now "complex terrain." Put simply, the discussion about future conflict is being conducted using buzzwords and bumper stickers.

The evidence that the threats of the 21st century are going to be that much different from the threats of the 20th is lacking. Likewise, there is no evidence that a "new way of war" is evolving or that we somehow had a previously flawed understanding. In fact, the use of the new words strongly indicates that those using them do not wish to be encumbered by a generally useful and coherent set of terms that military history had previously used. As war and warfare are not changing in ways that demand new words, it is odd that people keep inventing them.

Hybrid threats have always existed, but previously we called them "irregulars" or "guerrillas"; both words, in this context, are more than 180 years old. The definition of hybrid threats as "a combination of traditional warfare mixed with terrorism and insurgency" accurately describes irregulars and guerrillas, both of which can be part of either an insurgency or a wider conflict. Yes, guerrillas have changed over time. So have regular forces. Armies of 1825 looked very different from those of 1925 or 1975, yet all were regular forces. Do we need a new word for regular or "conventional" forces? "Hermaphrodite" perhaps?

The most common attempt to redefine the activities of irregular forces and guerrillas has been the using the word "asymmetric," predicated on trying to describe a dissimilar employment of ways and means that was apparently new. Yet history does not support this thesis, nor does it usefully inform thinking about the future...

More at Armed Forces Journal.

by Dave Dilegge | Fri, 11/06/2009 - 11:41pm | 1 comment
The Good - Jules Crittenden at Forward Movement

The Bad - Michael Moss at The New York Times

The Ugly - Andrew Bast at Newsweek

And the Hero - Rich Shapiro at The New York Daily News