Thursday, October 15, 2009

We Can't Surge Better Geography

I've written again and again that it is risky to put too many troops into Afghanistan. I'm willing to go along with the military's request for more troops, since they have to live with the logistics reality that I just comment on, but I'm still very uneasy.

The press is starting to catch up with this problem:

The first bottleneck between the Oval Office and Afghanistan is the country's lack of sea ports (the nearest harbor is some 400 miles away) and a dearth of airports.


Plus, once in country, the enemy is making it difficult to use land lines of supply to move supplies and troops:

"We're resupplying between 30% and 40% of our forward operating bases by air because we just can't get to them on the ground," says a senior Army logistician, speaking on condition of anonymity, referring to the roughly 180 U.S. outposts around the country. That's because the Taliban control much of the "ring road," a circular route that links Afghanistan's few major cities. "Trucking contractors trying to supply some of them aren't making it," he adds. "The Taliban are just wiping them out." Such constraints will limit the flow of troops to Afghanistan to about one brigade — some 4,000 troops — a month.


The ring road is key, I believe. It featured prominently in my guess back in January for how our surge would work (with the troops already committed).

We need to secure that ring road to supply our troops, allow us to move troops rapidly, and to help defeat the Taliban by increasing economic opportunities for Afghans. Roads are a counter-insurgent's best friend--but only if they are kept secure from insurgent attacks.

Afghanistan is a tough place to fight in--and that's before we get around to fighting.