CE Week #8: NATO Ministers Endorse Wider Afghan Effort” Oct. 24th
By THOM SHANKER and MARK LANDLER
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — Defense ministers from NATO on Friday endorsed the ambitious counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, giving new impetus to his recommendation to pour more troops into the eight-year-old war.
General McChrystal, the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, made an unannounced appearance here on Friday to brief the defense ministers on his strategic review of a war in which the American-led campaign has lost momentum to a tenacious Taliban insurgency.
“What we did today was to discuss General McChrystal’s overall assessment, his overall approach, and I have noted a broad support from all ministers of this overall counterinsurgency approach,” said NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
The acceptance by NATO defense ministers of General McChrystal’s approach did not include a decision on new troops, and it was not clear that their judgment would translate into increased willingness by their governments, many of which have been seeking to reduce their military presence in Afghanistan, to contribute further forces to the war.
But it was another in a series of judgments that success there could not be achieved by a narrower effort that did not increase troop levels in Afghanistan substantially and focused more on capturing and killing terrorists linked to Al Qaeda — a counterterrorism strategy identified with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The NATO briefing, though held privately, thrusts General McChrystal back into the debate over what President Obama should do about Afghanistan — a role that has raised tensions between the general and the White House in the past, and even drawn a rebuke from his boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
NATO’s support got no official reaction from the White House. But an administration official noted that an endorsement by defense ministers was not the same as an endorsement by the alliance’s political leadership. Other officials were emphatic that Mr. Obama would not be stampeded in his deliberations and suggested that the NATO statement should not be taken as evidence that the White House had made a decision about how to proceed.
“In no way, shape or form are the president’s options constrained,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, speaking to reporters at the State Department.
General McChrystal’s review calls for adopting a full-scale counterinsurgency strategy that would protect population centers and accelerate training of Afghan Army and police units — both of which would require significant numbers of fresh troops. NATO diplomats noted that it was difficult to see how an acceptance of this broad strategy could be viewed as anything but an endorsement of the need to increase both military and civilian contributions.
Mr. Gates, who has kept his views about additional troops close to his vest and has discouraged his commanders from lobbying too publicly for their positions, declined to be drawn out on this assessment.
“For this meeting, I am here mainly in listening mode,” Mr. Gates said in Bratislava after the NATO briefing, although he noted that “many allies spoke positively about General McChrystal’s assessment.”
Mr. Gates said the administration’s decision on Afghanistan was still two or three weeks away, and he cautioned that it was “vastly premature” to draw conclusions now about whether the president would deploy more troops. He said that allied defense ministers had not voiced concerns about the administration’s decision-making process.
Although NATO will not meet until next month to decide whether to commit more resources to Afghanistan, Mr. Gates did reveal that he had received indications that some allies were prepared to increase their contributions of civilian experts or troops, or both.
Britain and other NATO members have had their own fractious political debates over troop levels. A retired top general in Britain recently said that the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown had rebuffed his requests for more troops, a charge Mr. Brown denied.
Separate from his strategic review, General McChrystal has submitted a request for forces, which is now working its way through both the American and NATO chains of command.
The options submitted by General McChrystal range to a maximum of 85,000 more troops, although his leading option calls for increasing forces by about 40,000, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
The pressure for more troops was a theme throughout the day at the NATO meeting, as other senior international representatives told defense ministers of the need to increase their commitments in order to succeed in Afghanistan.
The United Nations special representative for Afghanistan, Kai Eide, who also flew to the Slovakian capital to meet the ministers, stressed that “additional international troops are required.” He also told the allies, “This cannot be a U.S.-only enterprise.”
Mr. Eide acknowledged that it might be difficult to rally public support for force contributions while allegations of election fraud continued to taint the government of President Hamid Karzai.
Senior American military officers have already endorsed General McChrystal’s overall strategy, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in the Middle East.
Senior NATO officials made clear that additional commitments should go beyond combat forces to include trainers for the Afghan Army and police force, as well as civilians to help rebuild the economy and restore confidence in the government.
“What we need is a much broader strategy, which stabilizes the whole of Afghan society, and this is the essence in the recommendations presented by General McChrystal,” said Mr. Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general. “This won’t happen just because of a good plan. It will also need resources — people and money.”
General McChrystal was not scheduled to make any public comments here. The general’s reticence was not unexpected, as some administration officials have criticized his recent statements as an attempt to press the White House to act.
The general and his aides have denied they were playing politics. General McChrystal said in a recent interview that success required a unified, government-wide strategy.
NATO officials assessing the potential for allied troop contributions said that delicate negotiations were under way, and that NATO capitals were watching the Obama administration for signals even while they sent signals of their own.
Thom Shanker reported from Bratislava, and Mark Landler from Washington.
What I Learned:
Before reading this article, I did not know that much about the conflicts going on in Afghanistan, so pretty much everything I read was new to me. It was interesting learning about the goals General Stanley A. McChrystal has for America in Afghanistan. It was interesting to learn that many countries supported he plan, even those who have been seeking to reduce their number of troops in the Middle East. It was interesting to hear that other nations, like Britain, are debating on whether or not to send more troops into the Middle East. I did not know that McChrystal’s plan called for protection of populated centers and accelerated training of the Afghan Army and police units. It surprised me the Defense Secretary Gates did not have more of an opinion on the NATO briefing, and did not even hint on what the White House thought about the involvement of more troops.
What I Thought:
I guess I don’t really have an opinion on the war in Afghanistan because I don’t know that much about it to begin with. I do not really think we should be involved in this war any more. It honestly confuses me. I know we went into Afghanistan to try and stop Al Qaeda, but that is about it.
What I Would Like to Know;
What is General McChrystal’s war resume?
Extension/Connection:
I think the best thing to you can compare this to is an actual political campaign. McChrystal is trying to revitalize America’s interest in the war, just like a candidate would try to generate interest in his political beliefs.
A) What I learned…
I learned that defense ministers from NATO are thinking about sending more troops to Afghanistan. This article said that we will not be able to have any success in Afghanistan if we don’t increase troop levels substantially. I also learned that the troops need to focus on capturing and killing terrorist linked to Al Qaeda. General McChrystal’s analysis calls for adopting a full-scale counterinsurgency strategy that would accelerate training of Afghan Army and police units. In order to this, it would require a lot of new, fresh troops. Robert M. Gates said that it will still be about two or three weeks before we know the administration’s decision on Afghanistan.
B) What I think…
I think that if we want to have any success in Afghanistan then it is necessary to increase the amount of troops that are there. I believe that if we were to just give up the war there then they are going to come and attack us. If we don’t add any troops, then things might remain how they are now and nothing new is going to happen. I think that administration is being smart about this situation. They are not making a decision right away; they are evaluating all of the different possibilities that they could do. I don’t think that they have an easy decision because a lot of people probably think that the war should be over and people to want to add more troops into Afghanistan.
C) What I want to know…
How many troops are already in Afghanistan? About how many soldiers have died in Afghanistan? How many troops are in Afghanistan compared to in Iraq?
D) Extension…
I found out that right now, there are 38,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including three combat brigades and noncombat troops. In Iraq, there are about 146,000 U.S. troops. The number of troops in Iraq is more than three times the amount of troops in Afghanistan!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-troops18-2009feb18,0,1590275.story
A. I am surprised to learn that other nations are willing to help in the war in Afghanistan after all the problems with the Bush administration. It was interesting to learn that so many influential people support deploying more troops to Afghanistan. I was also surprised that Kai Eide, who is the UN representative for Afghanistan, supports more foreign involvement in his country, which I thought all Afghanis would want less of.
B. I do not agree with the General’s tactics for the war in Afghanistan. Piling more soldiers into Afghanistan will just end in more deaths. Whether those deaths are U.S. soldiers accidentally killing civilians, which would lead to more insurgents, or whether those U.S. soldiers are dying from those insurgents, people will die. We have found over the past eight years that rooting out terrorism can be near impossible, and pushing more forces into Afghanistan will just make it harder as more and more Afghanis turn into insurgents.
C. What is Obama’s stance on Afghanistan? Does he want to send in more troops or would he try a more reform-oriented tactic?
D. According to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9BL1KNG0, Obama plans to send in more troops to Afghanistan, but much fewer than General McChrystal wanted. However, we will not have a solid answer for another couple of weeks.
A. I learned that NATO defense ministers are agreeing with General McChrystal in the need for more troops in Afghanistan.
B. I do not believe that we should be ultimately trying to make this war bigger than it already is. I know that recently many bombings have taken place to warn the people of Afghanistan not to vote in the up coming election. I also know that a strong military presence can help in this kind of situation, but there are better ways. President Teddy Roosevelt’s motto was to talk softly and carry a big stick, or something of that nature, but wouldn’t it send a better message if we talked loudly and carried olive branches. We can’t expect to stop the violence and corruptness in the Middle East by fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They become more urged to be violent the more we attack them. Their motto is “kill the infidels” and if we want to fight them, they sure as hell are ready to fight us. I know I sound like the hippy saying, “war’s not the way, man; you have to love everything, man,” but seriously, we have been fighting this war for 8 years. It’s turning into a modern day Vietnam, and we have to rethink our tactics. More troops might help now, but will it help in the long run?
C. Since President Obama is the head of the military, does he hold all the power in decisions of more troops, or does he have to consult others first? I know that to declare war, the President has to ask Congress, but I’m not sure if he has to ask Congress for more troops.
D. In regards to the Afghanistan government and elections, the basis behind them is faith that they will work. In the United States, the government and elections hold legitimacy because most people believe they are fair. For the Afghanistan government and elections to work, the people have to have faith that they will work.
A. In this article, I learned that General McChrystal is the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, and the issues discussed were concerning the lost momentum of the American-led campaign against the Taliban insurgency. I learned that the NATO discussion didn’t lead to any kind of decision regarding whether or not to send more troops into the field. I learned that the counterinsurgency plan General McChrystal discussed called for accelerating Afghan Army and police training and protecting population centers, which would lead to a maximum of 85,000 more troops deployed.
B. A wider effort in Afghanistan is, indeed, needed. As said in the article, it will require more people and more money, the protection of civilians and a renewed trust in government. The allies among NATO, as much if not more than they have in the past, will have to step up and allow the U.S. to take a small step back from being a singular significant force in this war effort. Obama has been sure to give his thanks for the help he has received from NATO (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/200944135024116268.html). However, my issue is with the soldiers. Being one of the many Americans with family members enlisted in the services, specifically, the Marines and the Navy, I have the sentimental feelings that call for the safety of loved ones. If there was to be an increase in soldier deployment, I would hope they wouldn’t be sent in just to replace the ones that have been lost.
C. Where would additional soldiers be specifically placed? What exactly do the White House and the NATO allies have to decide on before this wider effort can be put into effect?
NO CREDIT: MISSING EXTENSION/CONNECTION