The Army announced today a new mission to meet requirements in Afghanistan. Four brigade combat teams (BCTs), one separate brigade and an Army command, each in a modified configuration, will deploy between April and August 2012. Approximately 1,460 active component officers and senior non-commissioned officers along with approximately 300 DoD civilians will deploy in 18-person teams to provide training assistance to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).
This article fleshes this out:
Each brigade will deploy with fewer than half its assigned number of soldiers and will be comprised only of officers and senior noncommissioned officers, along with a contingent of Defense Department civilians. Once in Afghanistan they will operate in 18-person teams in a train-and-advise role.
A lot fewer than half, if the DOD announcement is right that the total is about 1,800 people, including about 300 civilians. Unless I misunderstand and each brigade will send about 1,500 troops. But since I thought that Afghanistan had far fewer than 100 battalions, a total of 1,800 fits that since you could have teams with each battalion, with brigade and higher headquarters, and with support headquarters of other battalions.
Of course, I thought we were still going to be fighting through the summer of 2013 and end after that. Does this mean the transition begins this April and we fade out over the next year or so, instead? I guess our military isn't getting the fighting season they said they needed to knock down the Taliban so that Afghan security forces can handle them.
Before I assume that this deployment of advisers is instead of new combat forces rotating in, I'll wait to read more. I hope the article is giving the wrong impression.
But I won't be shocked if the Afghanistan campaign is being run from Chicago and not Central Command.
UPDATE: Have we begun to draw back from combat already? I only ask because I noticed that my casualty notices have been getting pretty thin lately. Mind you, that's a cause for relief in one sense. But is the low casualty rate recently some short term luck and skill or is it a sign we've started avoiding missions that might cause casualties? I checked the stats and we've lost only 5 dead so far this month. Last year we lost 18 for the entire month, so perhaps this is just a seasonal low. Or a single (but rare) helicopter crash could take place by the end of the month. I'm happy for lower casualties but not if we are simply avoiding combat. We should fight to win, and putting troops in the field where they can be killed--but not allowing them to fight to win just for the optics of fewer killed troops would be pretty cold.
So if our casualties pick up, I'll get to feel both depressed that our troops are dying and relieved that increased casualties likely means we have not decided not to win. Oh, and a healthy portion of guilt for being relieved. Which is why I'm relieved not to have the responsibility for ordering troops to their deaths. Punditry is easy, that way.
