By Cernig
No, that's not a typo. Four hundred thousand troops.
ISLAMABAD, Jun 1 (APP): In an interview to Spiegel, a German magazine, the outgoing ISAF Commander Mc Neill confessed having inadequate trained force to effectively counter terrorism in Afghanistan. NATO has only 47,000 soldiers instead of a required strength of 400,000 with a shortfall of 260,000 men. NATO is practically running on reserve, as very few units can be used in combat situation.
While neighboring countries want peace in the region, manning a volatile country with only 47,000 NATO troops and practically no well trained Afghan Army, the mission to bring peace to the region seems an uphill task.
Now admittedly this is an Associated Press of Pakistan report, and they're reliable in defending Pakistan against any perceived foreign slur, but still. Gen Dan McNeill is one of the straight-shooters of the US military, he says what he means and says it when it needs said. Four hundred thousand troops. Even if McNeill didn't intend to count out the Afghan military, they only have some 76,500 troops currently, with their strength intended to max out at 86,000...leaving a 267,000 discrepancy. And CIA director Hayden says that AQ and the Taliban are on the retreat...
Four. Hundred. Thousand. Troops.
(Let's see McSame spin this one.)
Update: In comments, Steve J from Radamisto directs me to the original Spiegel article and this quote from it:
ISAF Commander McNeill has said himself that according to the current counterterrorism doctrine, it would take 400,000 troops to pacify Afghanistan in the long term. But the reality is that he has only 47,000 soldiers under his command, together with another 18,000 troops fighting at their sides as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and possibly another 75,000 reasonably well-trained soldiers in the Afghan army by the end of the year. All told, there is still a shortfall of 260,000 men.
Cernig,
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to page 3 of the Der Spiegel article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304-3,00.html
AND HERE'S THE RELEVANT QUOTE FROM THAT PAGE:
ISAF Commander McNeill has said himself that according to the current counterterrorism doctrine, it would take 400,000 troops to pacify Afghanistan in the long term. But the reality is that he has only 47,000 soldiers under his command, together with another 18,000 troops fighting at their sides as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and possibly another 75,000 reasonably well-trained soldiers in the Afghan army by the end of the year. All told, there is still a shortfall of 260,000 men.
That's logistically impossible, not just because the troops aren't available but because of the costs involved. It costs the U. S. three times to maintain a soldier in Afghanistan that it costs it to maintain a soldier in Iraq. Consequently, the U. S.'s maintaining a force of 400,000 in Afghanistan would cost us nearly ten times what we're spending in Iraq right now.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the political will to do that.
This in a nutshell is why I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. There is no achieveable objective there other than the denial of territory, which in my view is achieveable by other means.