![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democracyarsenal.org%2Fdemocracyarsenalorg%2Fimages%2FNSN_logo.png
){kind=logo}
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democracyarsenal.org%2Fdemocracyarsenalorg%2Fimages%2FDAheader_5.png)
Petraeus and McKiernan say no surge in Afghanistan
Posted by Max Bergmann
This week General McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General David Petraeus made an obvious point: “Afghanistan is not Iraq.â€
Both insisted that the challenges in Afghanistan are very different than the ones in Iraq and therefore require a very different strategy and approach. McKiernan said “What I don’t think is needed – the word I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word surge†and General Petraeus explained that every situation is “unique.†This is in stark contrast to the approach advocated by Senator McCain, who has insisted on applying the same “surge†plan that was adopted in Iraq to Afghanistan.
At last Friday’s debate McCain said, “the same strategy that he [Obama] condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.†In July, McCain said “the surge in Iraq…shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.†It is not surprising that McCain would mistakenly conflate Iraq and Afghanistan, since he and his fellow conservatives have paid little attention to the war in Afghanistan. McCain didn’t offer his “surge†plan for Afghanistan until late this summer and at the Republican National Convention last month, no major speaker even mentioned the word Afghanistan. As the situation continues to deteriorate in Afghanistan, the United States needs to adopt the comprehensive plan that progressives have been advocating the past few years.
Umm, I think his name is actually McClellan. Sarah Palin says so, so it must be true.
Posted by: Ralph Jones | October 02, 2008 at 10:13 PM
She not only got his name wrong but she got what he said wrong, too. He and Petraeus said a surge wouldn't work in Afghanistan.
She also said we were below pre-surge troop levels in Iraq. That's wrong, we still have over 150,000 troops in Iraq which 20,000 more than before the surge. She mis-read her cue cards.
Posted by: Stram | October 02, 2008 at 11:25 PM
She must read the International Herald Tribune because yesterday the headline read "U.S. General Urges Troop Surge In Afghanistan"... She probably only had time to read the headlines with all her debate prep.
Posted by: Lisa Pedersen | October 03, 2008 at 12:07 AM
"She also said we were below pre-surge troop levels in Iraq. That's wrong, we still have over 150,000 troops in Iraq which 20,000 more than before the surge. She mis-read her cue cards"
Actually, you're wrong. But it's more complex than that.
In the autumn of 2006, before the so-called "Surge," Coalition troop levels were at their highest point in OIF until very recently. Counting foreign details, the figure peaked at around 180,000 personnel.
This was due to rotation policies and the need for more troops during the O5-06 election season.
It took time to rebuild these force levels, which were then concentrated as part of the so-called "Surge" in the Baghdad AO, then Diyala. By the time major "Surge" operations began in June of 2007, US levels had reached about 150,000 troops nationwide.
By May, during one of these typical rotational moments, we had reached 197,000 US troops (which does NOT include personnel in Kuwait or at sea), pretty much tying the highest number of Coalition troops (but now much more predominately US) in Iraq.
If you're interested, I'll tell you where those troops came from: About 9,000 more Army soldiers (and active duty, with fewer reservists and National Guardsmen) plus 16,000 extra USN personnel ON THE GROUND and not at sea.
USMC levels actually had dropped the equivalent of a RCT or two.
By June, we had rotated out 15,000 troops from the May peak. This is where professionals tend to get ornery because the debate then becomes one of semantics: Are we discussing "baseline" levels to take into account the effects of RIP/TOA, or are we discussing total numbers?
Typically, we try to remain intellectually honest by factoring in two notions: BCT numbers and their logistical support.
If we go by BCTs, then Palin was right. We are currently dipping BELOW the number of BCTs we had in, say, 2006 for the elections.
If we factor in the logistical support (especially the USN contribution), then we currently are just over the pre-Surge numbers, but that's really only because we had lost close to 25,000 troops between the Iraqi elections and the advent of Petraeus as CMNF-I.
To be completely accurate, one should discount the RIP/TOA fluctuations and just go with our baseline estimates of the BCT count and the baseline estimations.
Which are: Very shortly, we'll be at a baseline of about 140,000 troops. That is about 20,000 or so LESS American troops than we had during the 05-06 election period.
It's estimated that this baseline level will remain in OIF until 2011, per negotiations with the Da'wa-led government, and rotations to increasingly declining levels after that.
Posted by: Soldiernolongeriniraq | October 04, 2008 at 12:12 PM
to snliI: I'm having a bit of trouble making the numbers clear in my head - at first you include 'foreign details' in your figure of the peak of 180,000 Coalition troops present in the fall of 2006. Where we are now is not clear, beyond "We are currently dipping BELOW the number of BCTs we had in, say, 2006.." I'm not sure how the number of Brigade Combat Teams matches up here - are you going by active strength or TOE strength, and why not simply go by # of troops?
Then you say: "Very shortly, we'll be at a baseline of about 140,000 troops. That is about 20,000 or so LESS American troops than we had during the 05-06 election period." Even assuming that projected actions work out as planned, that's not what Mrs. Palin said.
It's useful to have context and background, but apples aren't oranges and it would help to clearly connect the dots for simple-minded folks like me.
Posted by: JohnR | October 06, 2008 at 11:47 AM