Your two op-eds today ([Victor Sebestyen] Transcripts of Defeat & [Nicholas Kristof] More Schools, Not Troops, New York Times, October 29, 2009: A23) provide forceful counter-aguments to that of Max Boot a few days ago (Max Boot, There's No Substitute for Troops on the Ground, New York Times, October 22, 2009).
It is clear that we do not have the stomach to put the necessary force on the ground. With 110,000 troops, the Russians were unsuccessful in "pacifying" Afghanistan. Counter insurgency experts estimate that 390,000 troops would be required (that's the Petraeus doctrine, not mine) to be successful.
Even that may be too optimistic. There are 780 cities, towns and villages in Afghanistan. Max Boot tells us that to hold the town of Nawa took 1000 marines carrying out a clear and hold policy. To succeed in them all would require 780,000 troops
Do we and NATO have enough troops? Are we prepared for the kind of casualties that would be incurred? I think not.
The time has come to try the Kristoff strategy: saturate the land with schools: Cost effective, less dangerous, and with a long term payoff. If we go the escalation route, we need to be sure that we can win, before we commit more troops and we will probably have to commit many more than are presently contemplated.
Sent to New York Times
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afghanistan. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
There's No Substitute for Troops on the Ground
Thee may be no substitute for troops on the ground (Max Boot, There's No Substitute for Troops on the Ground, New York Times, October 22, 2009), but do we and NATO have enough troops? He points to the town of Nawa where 1000 marines have carried out a clear and hold policy. About 400 Afghan troops assist them.
However there are 780 cities, towns and villages in Afghanistan. Do we have 780,000 troops to send east to hold and clear all those cities, towns and villages? I think not.
Could we be more optimistic and argue that when half the cities, towns, and villages were secure and flourishing, then a tipping point would be reached and that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would acknowledge defeat? That would take some 390,000 troops, a far cry from what is proposed; but those are the kinds of numbers that counter-insurgency experts think necessary.
We need to be sure that we can win, before we commit more troops.
Sent to the New York Times
However there are 780 cities, towns and villages in Afghanistan. Do we have 780,000 troops to send east to hold and clear all those cities, towns and villages? I think not.
Could we be more optimistic and argue that when half the cities, towns, and villages were secure and flourishing, then a tipping point would be reached and that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would acknowledge defeat? That would take some 390,000 troops, a far cry from what is proposed; but those are the kinds of numbers that counter-insurgency experts think necessary.
We need to be sure that we can win, before we commit more troops.
Sent to the New York Times
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Appeals Court Stops Release
It is clear that President Obama should grant refugee status to the 17 Uighurs still imprisoned at Guantanamo (Appeals Court Stops Release of 17 Detainees, New York Times, February 17, 2009: A18). We should not forget that there are also 5 Uighurs languishing in a refugee camp in Albania who were sent there under George W. Bush's watch. They too should be brought back and released in the United States.
Colin Powell famously said: “If it’s broken, you own it.” We have broken the lives of these Uighurs. We need to do all we can to fix them, not deport them to Albania, nor keep them locked up in Guantanamo.
Bring them to the United States now.
Colin Powell famously said: “If it’s broken, you own it.” We have broken the lives of these Uighurs. We need to do all we can to fix them, not deport them to Albania, nor keep them locked up in Guantanamo.
Bring them to the United States now.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Guantanamo Detainees
Representative Bill Delahunt is absolutely right; we should admit the innocents of Guantanamo into the United States (At Hub hearing, lawyers press case of Guantanamo detainees, Boston Globe, March 27, 2008: A13). At the very least, they should live in the same conditions as civilians on the base rather than being confined to isolated cells.
We should have been doing this for a long time. Does anyone remember the case of the five Chinese Uighurs. They were captured in Afghanistan in 2001. They had all been cleared of terrorist connections by a military tribunal but were kept, as innocent people, at Guantanamo because they could not be returned to their native China which they were fleeing. Instead they were sent to Albania where they live in misery in a refugee camp.
Why could the United States not have generously have resettled these people here in the United States? Instead they kept them at Guantanamo until February 2006 when the courts were about to hear their appeal to be released; they were then shipped to Albania where they are living in a Refugee Center in that impoverished country. One would think that after disrupting their lives, the United States would be eager to make amends by resettling these people in safety in the United States.
Why not? What has happened to American values?
Sent to Boston Globe
We should have been doing this for a long time. Does anyone remember the case of the five Chinese Uighurs. They were captured in Afghanistan in 2001. They had all been cleared of terrorist connections by a military tribunal but were kept, as innocent people, at Guantanamo because they could not be returned to their native China which they were fleeing. Instead they were sent to Albania where they live in misery in a refugee camp.
Why could the United States not have generously have resettled these people here in the United States? Instead they kept them at Guantanamo until February 2006 when the courts were about to hear their appeal to be released; they were then shipped to Albania where they are living in a Refugee Center in that impoverished country. One would think that after disrupting their lives, the United States would be eager to make amends by resettling these people in safety in the United States.
Why not? What has happened to American values?
Sent to Boston Globe
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Tillman Documentation
There are two things troubling about the aftermath following the death of Corporal Pat Tillman.
First is the fact that the Army lied about the way in which he died and created a heroic death out of what seems to be a friendly fire accident. It is worrying that field commanders and their superiors should engage in this type of deception.
Second, I say "seems to be" because there have been a number of different accounts of Tillman's death and it is unclear which version -- or some other version -- is correct. The President is refusing, using the claim of executive privilege, to release the documents that might shed light on the matter.
The President should release these documents immediately.
Sent to Boston Globe
First is the fact that the Army lied about the way in which he died and created a heroic death out of what seems to be a friendly fire accident. It is worrying that field commanders and their superiors should engage in this type of deception.
Second, I say "seems to be" because there have been a number of different accounts of Tillman's death and it is unclear which version -- or some other version -- is correct. The President is refusing, using the claim of executive privilege, to release the documents that might shed light on the matter.
The President should release these documents immediately.
Sent to Boston Globe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)