Gen. McKiernan rightly emphasizes that the added U.S. troop totals should not be seen as a surge because they will be needed at these new, higher levels for years to come. One of their missions will be to better prepare Afghan security forces, which remain far too limited in number and in capability, and which must grow even beyond the recently increased target of about 200,000 personnel. It could also take five years to see Pakistan clamp down more effectively on its border regions assuming it is serious about trying to do so. Working with President Hamid Karzai (who must run for re-election this year), other Afghan leaders and key allies, President Obama will likely need all of his first term to really turn things around.
Turn things around? Oh sure, you've heard our military casualties are mounting in Afghanistan. And if you just look at the dead, that might seem proof positive that we must be losing. We went from 12 dead in 2001, to 49 in 2002, to 48 in 2003, to 52 in 2004, to 99 in 2005, to 98 in 2006, to 120 in 2007, and then 155 last year.
But remember that our troop strength went up since 1,300 troops overthrew the Taliban with our Afghan allies. Ignoring the 3-month 2001, we had 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan in 2002, going to 11,000 in 2003, 17,900 in 2004, 25,000 in 2005 and 2006, 25,500 in 2007, and 34,000 in 2008.
Casualty rates per 100,000 troops deployed start at 490 in 2002 and go to 436 in 2003, 291 in 2004, 396 in 2005, 392 in 2006, 471 in 2007, and 456 in 2008. The rates in 2007 and 2008 are likely higher because we are operating in greater strength on the Pakistan border close to Taliban sanctuaries. Even so, the rates don't reach the 2002 rate and are close to the 2003 rate. So the constant repetition in the press that our rising casualites are a sign of our defeat caused by our "distraction" in Iraq is ridiculous.
So we can expect 200 to 300 dead in 2009 and forward in Afghanistan, asuming 60,000+ troops in Afghanistan and depending on the course of the fighting. Will this be considered a sure sign we are losing?
Look, I won't argue that the casualty statistics mean we are winning. These statistics are measures of troop commitment and combat intensity. They do not address victory or defeat. I just don't want the statistics to be a justification for the argument that we are losing the war in Afghanistan.
And this escalation (surge) will face the problem that I've been harping on that our real Afghanistan problem lies in Pakistan, as our national security advisor has stated:
"You can't really solve Afghanistan without solving Pakistan," Mr. Hadley said in an interview in his White House office Tuesday. "That's why I think Pakistan is at the center" of the challenge for the incoming administration.
On the bright side, we are working on our supply lines problem:
Increasing attacks on truck traffic coming through Pakistan has NATO and the U.S. arranging for two other supply lines. One comes through Russia and Uzbekistan by rail to the Afghan border, then by truck south. This is the old Soviet military supply line, which is still largely intact (the railroads and highways). The other line comes into the Caucasus via the Black Sea, across Georgia and Azerbaijan, they via the Caspian sea to Turkmenistan, then by rail to Afghanistan. Trucks and railroad equipment have to be found to handle moving several hundred shipping containers a week via each of these routes.
Of course, the alternative supply lines run through Russia or Georgia, where Russia has recently demonstrated it is willing to send troops. But we can trust Russia, right?
Sources of numbers: Glittering Eye and USA Today.
