This is where we are going:
Yes, Afghan forces are shrinking even as violence grows, but that smaller force is better trained, better advised, and better at taking the offensive against the Taliban, the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the Senate. The ongoing increase in US and other NATO advisors is crucial to this turnaround, Sec. Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford argued to skeptical Democratic senators this morning.
You can’t just count the number of violent incidents, Mattis told Sen. Richard Durbin, ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee: “Who’s initiating the attack is as important as the number.”
It is true that measuring violence alone isn't a metric of success or failure. Violence in Europe dramatically increased on June 6, 1944 and didn't mean the Allies were suddenly losing the war against Germany.
It is good that more of the violence is initiated by Afghan forces. That's what I wanted to see in Afghanistan.
Also, numbers matter. As I reminded you during the Iraq War. Not all troops can or should be SEAL/Delta-level troops, as I addressed again late in the Afghan surges:
Now, during the Iraq War, I constantly reminded people that we didn't need all security forces to be of the caliber of the 170,000 peak force of American troops or their equivalents (essentially the British, in any number). Many who stand guard duty in static locations where 99% of the time there is no major enemy threat simply don't need to be special forces. But somebody has to be there even if all they can do is call for help before firing a few shots and running from a force too large to handle.
You do need less-trained troops for guard duty and putting really good troops there is a waste of their skills and the time and resources used to train them. You need a mix. Will we have that?
UPDATE: Strategypage looks at Afghanistan where the government forces have better morale from American-led increased support; and where the Taliban are dying in higher numbers than the government.
Which makes me ask whether widespread Taliban attacks across the breadth of Afghanistan are really a sign of strength or an indication that the Taliban can't make a main effort in their spring offensive and simply want the optics of broad strength? Or perhaps the Taliban are trying to distract Afghan forces from harming drug-producing regions in the south that finance the Taliban?
