What About Troops in Afghanistan?

Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place?
To keep the Taliban from taking over the country and providing a sanctuary for the terrorist Al Qaeda organization. To contain the threat of Islamic Fascim.

Why not just keep Al Qaeda out of the U.S.?
Since the beginning of the 20th century, our strategy for defense of the nation has always been focused on a “forward presence” - defending “over there” instead of “here”. It has worked.

How long do we have to be “over there”?
As long as it takes. Our troops were in Germany and Japan for over four decades to ensure the stability of those regions to serve our national interests. It’s not quite the same as an area where there is an insurgency, but the strategy of “forward defense” holds true.

How do we “win” in Afghanistan?
“Win” has a different definition against insurgents than against conventional forces. “Win” means establishing a stable state where the insurgents have no home, no credibility. That is a long military and political process. We win as long as we contain the threat. There is no nicely definable, quick victory. Get used to it.

How can we “win” when the bad guys have a sanctuary in Pakistan?
Under those circumstance, the best we can do is “hold our own” until the sanctuary in Pakistan can be denied. Such denial is a drawn out process backed by the strong political resolve and military strength.

Our strategy must include a way to bring Pakistan to our side, conduct operations with us to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and bring the Northwest Territories truly under the control of the Pakistani Government. As long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a sanctuary in Pakistan, the best we can do is “contain” – but we must do that or be defeated and invite more homeland terrorism.

What is the best strategy in Afghanistan?
The goal is to protect the people against the insurgents so that they feel secure, will not hide and protect the insurgents, and will support a nation building process toward a stable government that gains its “reason for being” from the people (not from a cult or religion, not a feudal theocracy).
How many troops are really required?
It’s not just a general’s “instinct”. There is historical data that shows what is needed to quell an insurgency. The number of troops required is based on the population of the nation (the people you seek to protect), not the number of insurgents (see “Force Requirements in Stability Operations by James T. Quinlivan, Army War College).

There are 28,000,000 people in Afghanistan (roughly). According to historical data, up to 20 troops per 1000 people (population) are necessary to quell an insurgency over an extended period. Using 5 troops per 100 people results in a troop requirement of 140,000.

There are 100,000 soldiers in the Afghan Army who are largely ineffective at this time without the presence of U.S. and Coalition Troops. There are 77,000 in the Afghan police force; also largely ineffective. It will take time to train them. For the time being, let’s count them as 10% effective.

There are 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan at this time. There are 39,000 Coalition troops, however many of then are not allowed to participate in offensive operations (which means operations necessary to protect the people by rooting out the insurgents). So let’s count 25% as being useful.

Crunch those numbers and you get about 93,000 troops against the requirement for 140,000 (about 67% of what is required).

Add 46,000 U.S. troops and you meet the requirement. That’s where the military troop numbers come from (approximately). So, the request for 40,000 more troops is realistic – “in the ball park”.

To do less is to invite a long, long war with no real prospect of a “win”, mounting U.S. casualties and reinforced confidence given to a resolute enemy.

What about the Vice President’s reported strategy to “keep troop levels where they are and use more Predator Drone strikes”?

This is a non-solution offered with purely political motives. It has no foundation in history or fact. It seeks only to offer a façade of action.

Let’s face it – we’re going to be in this type of war around the world for a long time – even while other potential enemies with real military and economic power are building to challenge us. It’s tough to be number one – it’s also better than any other number, contrary to Obama’s apologies.

We need strong leadership to persevere… not the “waffles” we’re hearing. Speak out. Let the free and the brave be heard!!

*********

A Dangerous World for Americans

Iran sees a picture that will allow it to dominate the Middle East and become a world power. Hezbollah is trying to take over Lebanon and make it a Shiite Theocracy allied with Iran. Lebanon would be used as a staging ground to build a modern armed force capable of invading and destroying Israel. It would be a force designed entirely to defeat Israel. It would combine features of conventional forces as well as guerrilla forces. It would use conventional, guerrilla and terror tactics.

Iran has absolutely no intention of complying with the U.N. resolution to cease its nuclear activities. There will be more equivocation and delay. Iran will certainly seek to build a nuclear weapon. For all we know, it may have one now or very soon. It will use the nuclear weapon to deter the U.S. and Israel from interfering with the Shiite build-up in Lebanon. It will use the nuclear weapon against Israel only if the forces from Lebanon fail (a nuclear weapon in Israel will kill a lot of Arabs as well as Israelis). Meanwhile, Israel will continue to be harassed by Hamas from the south.

We are seeing increasing competition between Sunni organizations (such as Al Qaeda) and Shiite Iran to score in the “Hate Israel and the U.S.” game. The difference is that Al Qaeda uses primarily terrorist tactics which, while unpleasant, can probably not threaten the existence of Israel or the power of the U.S. Iran with a strong force in Lebanon AND a nuclear weapon is a serious threat to Israel... and to the U.S.

What about the competition between Sunnis and Shiites? Is there a way to use this to our advantage. Possibly. But the “Hate Israel” motivation currently keeps the two together. Over time, the more moderate Sunni nations may come to view Shiite Iran as a larger threat to them and begin to come closer to the U.S. and moderate their view on Israel. These is, however, little sign of that today.

Pakistan stands at the edge of chaos. It has been unable to deal with the militant tribes in its northwest territories (where Usama bin Laden is hiding) or with the resurgent Taliban who uses Pakistan as a sanctuary.

Keep in mind that all of this, along with Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. is a part of the War on Terror… better called the Islamic Facist War.

So, what’s going to happen? Look for:

1. Iran and Syria to continue re-arming Hezbollah.
2. Hezbollah to gain political power in Lebanon
4. Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons as fast as it can.
5. U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran (after August 31) to be non-existent or weak and ineffective (Iran can absorb any weak sanctions until and after it has the nuclear weapon).
6. A situation in which Israel must react to Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria and Iran soon or face the threat of a weakened state and eventual extinction.
7. A situation in which the U.S. must make some critical decisions to:
a. Preserve our ally, Israel.
b. Prevent Iran from dominating the Middle East.
c. Prevent the spread of Shiite Theocracies (instead of democracy and freedom).
d. Take action to route the Taliban and bin Laden out of Pakistan.

Europe will continue to be weak. They are becoming Muslim nations demographically.

Russia will will smile as they watch U.S. power diminish. The Russians are searching for ways to resume their role as a dominant world power.

China will continue to “be nice” but smile as they watch U.S. power diminish. They will continue their arms build-up and be prepared to challenge the U.S. in more and more arenas over the next ten years.

This is no place for inexperienced national leaders. We have never needed strong and enlightened leadership as much as we do now. We cannot afford the politics of weakness espoused by the far left and many Democrats. Nor can we afford the highly militant approach often seen on the far right. We need unity of purpose and quiet strength to confront this dangerous world!