Thousands of U.S. Marines are preparing to take on a southern Afghanistan Taliban enclave in a massive show of force intended as a decisive start to President Barack Obama's "surge" of 30,000 extra troops.
The assault, expected to begin within days, will trigger the start of what is expected to be a bloody 2010 fighting season. U.S. and NATO forces hope to make military gains that will turn the tide this year so they can begin withdrawing next year.
We shall see how the gentle offensive (because of our restrictive rules of engagement and attempts to win civilian hearts and minds plus efforts to strip away less dedicated Taliban) works. If it doesn't, the whole surge offensive could be called into question.
I expect this will work, and deprive the Taliban of an economic and recruit asset, but the enemy has a say in the outcome too, as always.
UPDATE: This will be a big offensive (over 15,000 troops), with lots of Brits involved (over 3,000).
General McChrystal was asked if this is a test of the new strategy, and he said it is not and that it is a continuation of existing strategy. True to a point, but you'll recall that the first big Marine-led offensive in Helmand last year had the element of surprise. And yes, we've had restrictive rules of engagement for a while. But putting it all together and adding in the telegraphed offensive (although the enemy surely has noted preparations and could guess where the operation would take place without our warning) really is a new thing in total, despite some continuing threads from the past.
And he also said he feels we've turned the corner as far as judging who is winning. He isn't saying we are winning but he doesn't see the enemy with the wind at their back, so to speak. I've never been as worried as the press has tried to portray Afghanistan (and to be fair, some of that pessimism came from the military from McChrystal on down. I never bought that line). Mind you, we still have to fight and win. But the situation is serious, not desperate.
