| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan/South Asia |
| US discussing pulling down forces in Afghanistan |
| 2005-09-14 |
| Senior Pentagon and military officials are discussing a proposal to cut American troop levels in Afghanistan next spring, perhaps by as much as 20 percent, the largest withdrawal since the Taliban were ousted in late 2001. The troops would be replaced by NATO soldiers, who now oversee security and reconstruction missions in northern and western Afghanistan and are to take over an American command in the south next spring. American troops have been taxed by lengthy deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pentagon officials have sought to replace them with indigenous or allied troops. But Germany, supported by Britain, France and other European allies, said Tuesday at a meeting of defense ministers in Berlin that it strongly opposed any American-backed restructuring of the NATO command structure that could lead to having alliance troops become involved in counterinsurgency. Because those operations represent a large part of American troop activity in the south, it is not clear whether the reductions can go forward. In the past few months, violence has surged in the south, with Taliban forces conducting a campaign of assassinations and intimidation ahead of elections on Sunday. Military officials emphasize that any reductions in the nearly American 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hinge on resolution of the details with NATO, successful parliamentary and provincial elections and stable security. "It makes sense that as NATO forces go in, and they're more in numbers, that we could drop some of the U.S. requirements somewhat," Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head the United States Central Command, said in an interview here on Tuesday. General Abizaid declined to give an exact number of potential troop cuts. But another senior officer, who spoke anonymously because the decision is not final, said the Pentagon could reduce force levels by as much as 20 percent, or about 4,000 troops. American officials were quick to note that the United States would still have the largest number of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, and would remain committed to ensuring political, economic and security gains in the country. At the meeting in Berlin, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he would urge the alliance to expand its role in Afghanistan beyond its security and peacekeeping duties. Although Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized that American troops would continue to handle the counterinsurgency mission "for a time," he said NATO should consider deploying troops to the eastern border region, which the United States oversees and where much of the fighting is occurring. He added that "over time, it would be nice if NATO developed counterterrorism capabilities, which don't exist at the present time." But the German defense minister, Peter Struck, said merging NATO's peacekeeping mission with the American combat operation under a single commander would fundamentally change NATO's role in Afghanistan and "would make the situation for our soldiers doubly dangerous and worsen the current climate in Afghanistan." Officials in Britain and France also voiced opposition to the idea. Some American officials played down the dispute, saying that while they were seeking to combine the operations of American and NATO forces, they were not committed to any particular approach, and that a consensus would be worked out. To overcome European opposition, the Pentagon is proposing, among other ideas, a joint NATO command structure in which countries willing to contribute troops to counterinsurgency would be under one officer, while allies that want to continue to conduct peacekeeping and other noncombat roles would fall under another. The two contingents would fall under one overall commander. Both France and Germany have small special forces involved in combat alongside American troops, but most of the European contribution is to the 11,000 officers in the International Security Assistance Force, which conducts peacekeeping and security duties in Kabul and in the north and west. Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have already agreed to take over the NATO command in the south, where American troops have clashed with Taliban, in particular north of Kandahar. But it is unclear if the force in the south will be intended for counterinsurgency. Throughout Afghanistan on Tuesday, the American military continued gearing up for an anticipated spike in insurgent attacks just before the voting. Virtually all American troops will stand by, out of sight, to safeguard some 6,200 polling stations, which will be ringed with Afghan soldiers and police officers. Attacks against American forces are down slightly from a year ago, commanders said, but this year's violence has been deadlier, with assassinations and roadside bombings killing 2 candidates for Parliament and at least 16 others. Maj. Gen. Jason K. Kamiya, the American commander of daily tactical operations in Afghanistan, gave details on a new plan to outfit Afghan soldiers to fight through the winter, when both insurgent and allied troops usually curtail operations because heavy snows make travel through mountainous regions extremely difficult. General Kamiya said in an interview that he wanted to keep the pressure on Taliban fighters as they leave their summer fighting positions for sanctuary in Pakistan or deep in the Afghan interior. He said he was also planning to spend $68 million in reconstruction projects by next spring in an effort to show the Afghan people that combat operations were pushing ahead along with improvements to their villages and towns. In a similar effort to impress villagers in the Taliban heartland, Army engineers and the Agency for International Development recently completed a $35 million, 74-mile road connecting Kandahar to Tarin Kwot, cutting a bone-jarring 11-hour drive to 3 hours. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #10 Stability is the key there as it is anywhere. Good people in the cities we have worked with. There is a very good attitude because what does not work has been proven wrong and what we have worked with them to build HAS. Culture shock for those living in the remote regions though. Tricky and expensive work for sure and barometer changes easily. It is similar to so many remote regions. Culture and "Living Standards" should remind Everyone that we are going up or we are going down. And in Life, going down is not a good idea or option. Everyone should be doing better, not worse. There is still no reason that a lawful force could not help. |
| Posted by: closedanger 2005-09-14 21:47 |
| #9 Zhang Fei>> little in the way of natural resources. rich in minerials, hydro/power potential, good geo location for pipe lines. etc. check it out. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-09-14 16:07 |
| #8 Anonymoose, the Afghans have a new military academy explicitly modeled on West Point, with lots of quiet US help in getting it up and running. West Point was a key factor in the creation of a *national* identity for US leaders - as opposed to state, religious and ethnic identities. The Afghan academy will play the same role. It opened last March. See Winds of Change exclusive photos and comments here. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-09-14 15:59 |
| #7 MM: 10 to 1 after the US leaves the entire country goes to hell again. Afghanistan was a functioning country before the Soviets came along. Now that we've stabilized things and imposed a king-like figure in Karzai, things will go back to what they were before the Soviets and the Taliban, as long as we hand more money over to the Afghan government than the Pakistanis hand over to Taliban remnants. We can pull out our troops, but we can't stop sending the Afghan government money to keep it standing. In the countryside, ordinary Afghans know that the Taliban is not the way to a better life. And more than anything else, they want to be let alone - they rose against Soviet rule because the Soviets wanted to make every Afghan a good communist. Having said that, if we want Afghanistan to become a slice of America in Central Asia, we will have to stick around. If we're there in force, the Afghan government won't have to make compromises with rival factions - it will have the implicit threat of American power to enforce its edicts, while having to cater somewhat to our preferences. A strong US military presence there means there is no danger of governmental collapse, but it also means that the local government is beholden to us. A non-existent US military presence there means that we are always biting our nails about the possibility of a collapse, which means that we will be much more beholden to the Afghan government. We're either spending money on a military presence and some aid dollars or spending the same amount of money on aid dollars alone. Personally, I trust the Pentagon more than the Afghan government, which is why we'll probably have a brigade-sized force there for decades to come. Afghanistan is a landlocked country with little in the way of natural resources. It can use the help - and we'd rather not have Pakistan using it as a terrorist proxy state again. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-14 14:05 |
| #6 10 to 1 after the US leaves the entire country goes to hell again. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-09-14 13:25 |
| #5 In Iraq the issue is rebuilding a society. In Afghanistan it has to be built for the first time. Kabul has ever been the place where those who wish to govern Afghanistan live, but control only a small area of the surrounding countryside. The rest has always belonged to the various tribes controlled by their various chieftains. The change that we're going for is a national identity that will allow for a functioning nation throughout the territory. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-09-14 11:55 |
| #4 There are about 25,000 in the Afghan military plus others in training. The goal is 70,000 by 2009. The biggest of the problem encountered so far in forming a western style army is desertion, an Afghan tradition, where fighting is more of a casual pastime than a deadly profession. I think there is little need for foreign forces in Kabul, except to show the flag in a non-threatening sector. It was quiet before their arrival and has stayed so. The Northern Alliance army, and now the Afghan army are better able to maintain control. It would be better for the Afghan to assume responsbility for Kabul and the NATO forces to go where needed or get out. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-09-14 11:35 |
| #3 Unlike Iraq, in Afghanistan you rarely hear of our efforts to develop their army. They also keep a much lower profile in combined operations. This raises concerns about how effective they are and will remain as a national standing army capable of securing their country. I am wondering if there is a different developmental philosophy than in Iraq. In Iraq, the conventional US army was and is very direct in helping them create a conventional Iraq army. But in Afghanistan, I wonder if our SOCOM people are building Afghani forces on a conventional army model or a SOCOM model. While I can agree that there will for a long time remain a need for SOCOM-like operations in Afghanistan, in the long run they will definitely need a conventional standing army if they are to remain viable as a state. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-14 10:50 |
| #2 Wasn't NATO involved because we invoked the mutual-defense aspects of the treaty following 9/11? Now they're refusing to take part? Isn't that a repudiation of NATO? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-14 08:18 |
| #1 "Gosh. We didn't come here to fight 'n stuff. We just wanted to, y'know, try out our camping gear and ride around in dune buggies and take some snaps to send home to mum. Silly 'Merikans." |
| Posted by: .Fightin B Hard 2005-09-14 02:08 |