Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Mind the Border

Talk of translating our Iraq success to Afghanistan misses the differences between the two countries. I don't think we need to put 150,000 (or 100,000. Or 50,000) troops into Afghanistan to try and match the troop density in general that we had in Iraq. And this issue is aside from the wisdom of putting so many of our troops at the end of a shaky supply line.

We need to deal with the Afghan tribes to subcontract much of the security task in a feudal version of federalism, and we need to control the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan until the Pakistan sanctuary for the Taliban and al Qaeda can be destroyed.

An American colonel leading a brigade in Afghanistan speaks of what additional forces will allow him to do:


For us here, I definitely anticipate being able to do much more along the border. Most of where we have problems now is further inland in the Konar Province and in Nuristan Province. What we haven't done -- what we have a challenge with is working to interdict along the border. And that's put a stretch on us as we work with the Pakistan military as well, but we're doing a lot more there now. But I anticipate when we have some additional forces from the 10th Mountain that we're going to do a much better job, both with our partners across the border and also interdicting and lessening, ultimately, the conflict that we have further inland in our AO.

As I've thought, more troops will help seal the border a bit more and reduce the enemy ability to resupply the Taliban in Afghanistan and send cannon fodder and bombers into Afghanistan from the Pakistan training and recruiting areas.

Disabling the threat from the border is the key, I think, and not classic pacification tactics that spread American forces throughout Afghanistan.