Change in Afghanistan Strategy

[Farnan]

LONDON — The Bush administration is considering changing its war strategy in Afghanistan in light of rising levels of violence and an increasingly complex insurgent threat, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

“You have an overall approach, an overall strategy, but you adjust it continually based on the circumstances that you find,” Gates said. “We did that in Iraq. We made a change in strategy in Iraq and we are going to continue to look at the situation in Afghanistan.”

Pressed for more details about the review of Afghan strategy, Gates would say only, “We’re looking at it.”

A senior defense official traveling with Gates said later that the U.S. administration was examining a range of strategic questions, including whether to reduce the combat role of NATO troops in Afghanistan in light of planned increases in U.S. combat troops. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it amounted to a broad review that included more than just military aspects of U.S. strategy.

Meanwhile, Gates said that when facing allegations of U.S. airstrikes killing or injuring civilians in Afghanistan, it is better to apologize first and investigate later.

Gates was in London on Thursday for a NATO meeting that was expected to include a discussion among allied defense ministers of the struggles to turn the tide of insurgent violence in Afghanistan and to train Afghan security forces.

He flew here Wednesday night after spending a day in Afghanistan to discuss with Afghan leaders and American commanders the issue of inadvertent civilian casualties from U.S. airstrikes. At a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Gates said it was time to take a new approach to responding.

“I think the key for us is, in those rare occasions when we do make a mistake, when there is an error, to apologize quickly, to compensate the victims quickly and then carry out the investigation,” Gates told reporters later at Bagram airfield, where he received a briefing from an Air Force general on the rules and restrictions U.S. pilots must follow when providing aerial support to U.S. and allied troops engaged in ground fighting.

In Kabul, Gates offered the people of Afghanistan his “personal regrets” for U.S. airstrikes that have killed civilians and said he would try to improve the accuracy of air warfare.

“As I told them, I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes,” Gates said after meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. “While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder.”

Gates noted that violence has been on the rise in Afghanistan for the past two years, in part because of cross-border attacks from al-Qaida, Taliban and other extremist elements that find refuge in neighboring Pakistan. That has made it harder for U.S. and allied troops to improve security, which Gates said has restricted gains in other vital areas such as weeding out government corruption and developing the economy.

“We see some lessons to be learned from Iraq in terms of the need to establish security as a precondition or economic development and better governance. That means more forces,” he said. “But I think we are in complete accord with our European allies that the military side of this is only one piece of the solution.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/ap_gates_091808/

[Каие]

A senior defense official traveling with Gates said later that the U.S. administration was examining a range of strategic questions, including whether to reduce the combat role of NATO troops in Afghanistan in light of planned increases in U.S. combat troops. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it amounted to a broad review that included more than just military aspects of U.S. strategy.

Is that wise? for the US to take up more of a sole battle, when this war has always been touted as the coalition and NATO? I fear that would only dissolution the EU in NATO more.

Meanwhile, Gates said that when facing allegations of U.S. airstrikes killing or injuring civilians in Afghanistan, it is better to apologize first and investigate later.

I agree with that.

[Major.Stupidity]

Meanwhile, Gates said that when facing allegations of U.S. airstrikes killing or injuring civilians in Afghanistan, it is better to apologize first and investigate later.

I guess apologizing clears everything up.

[Каие]

I guess apologizing clears everything up.

No, but it at least makes them look better instead of looking heartless, as the key to this war is to win the hearts and minds.

[attilavolciak07]

, as the key to this war is to win the hearts and minds.

That's why they haven't 'won' yet, they have to cut the morality, the battle for 'soul of America' and the stablizing stuff and really focus on the task at hand.
You can't stablize a place you are fighting a war in.

[Carach]

Is that wise? for the US to take up more of a sole battle, when this war has always been touted as the coalition and NATO? I fear that would only dissolution the EU in NATO more.

what choice do they have when the rest of NATO dont want to commit to afghanistan?

[Gauvin]

Is that wise? for the US to take up more of a sole battle, when this war has always been touted as the coalition and NATO? I fear that would only dissolution the EU in NATO more.

Well, let's face it, only a few NATO countries have been doing any fighting... the U.S. the most.

The U.S. contributes the most to NATO, the Europeans do absolutely nothing, they showed that in Afghanistan, and in the Balkans.

Canada has contributed more than France or Germany, despite our military being less than half their size. I'm proud of Canada's contribution.

[Gumpfendorfer]

We had a battle plan for Afghanistan as soon as UBL became a factor in Afghanistan. That plan is what the Pentagon took into Afghanistan. It didn't call for 40,000 US troops, so it didn't call for 40,000 NATO troops either. We turned them down because they were not needed.

Focusing on OBL, instead of stabilizing Afghanistan has been the fatal mistake and has had dreadful consequences, not only militarily. Those troops were needed from day one, not to defeat the Taliban, but for the aftermath, to stabilize the country. By the time the US realized their mistake it harm was already done. We've had that argument.

What rampage do you speak of? Come on man, that's just silly.

Again in the early days of 2001/2002/2003 the number of civilians dying because of air strikes drove a lot of the Southern Tribes into the hands of the Taliban. Apart from other reasons. There have been quite a few incidents in which Afghans settled old scores by calling in US Air force apart from the usual mishaps. What happened two weeks ago when 90 people were killed has not been a one timer.

By rampage I not only mean that, but also installing the warlords back in power.

Relations will never be perfect between the US and our NATO allies, because we see things differently. The thing is, those NATO countries have nothing to point to in the last 50 years, or during the time the West has had to confront Islamic radical driven insurgencies, as an argument that they could do it better.

I am not saying they do better, but I do get tired that NATO is blamed for not doing enough. Its not their war to begin with and they have little to say about the entire operation. Its the US calling the shots. NATO wanted to be in from the start, realizing the gravity of the problem. They have been sidelined most of the time. NATO was extremely popular with the Afghan population in the beginning, Afghan leaders begging them to deploy outside of Kabul. It baffles me why it took years to exploit that opportunity and why the US blocked it in the first place. Its truly beyond me.

And again: Iraq was the game changer for Nato.

From day one enough troops on the ground, combined with a political settlement with large parts of the Taliban, the side lining of the warlords and a major effort to rebuild the country and viable Government would have made all the difference. There would have been no peace, but the entire situation would have been much better.

Instead the US choose for the military solution only in 2001. So I hope you pardon me for banging my head against the wall when I now hear on TV that the US command says there is no military solution. After seven years? I mean, it's not rocket science.

[Furious Mental]

It's absolutely true that European countries are doing as little as possible in Afghanistan. However, few seem to realise, or want to admit, that this situation was to a large extent pre-ordained by the bombastic diplomacy (if you can even call it that) conducted by their American counterpart. When the invasion of Afghanistan was being planned pretty much all NATO countries were gung ho about it and were offering many more troops, more equipment and with many fewer provisos than would ultimately be the case with ISAF. Their only condition was that the invasion had to be a NATO operation. The Pentagon didn't like the sound of this since it meant conceding overall command to NATO, and of course it was confident that the US had the resources to run the whole show anyway (perhaps not anticipating that it would also end up invading Iraq). So the offers were rebuffed and European countries were essentially told to come back later and do some peacekeeping.

Aside from the fact that this was a diplomatic faux pas and was poorly received by the governments in question, it also meant that by the time ISAF actually started up European countries had decided they weren't so enthusiastic, they didn't have the money, etc, etc and the previous offers were scaled down considerably. Any possibility of a diplomatic offensive to rectify this was then ruined by the invasion of Iraq and the re-election of Bush, who was of course viewed as a rude idiot and then, as his domestic political capital drained away as well, as a lame duck. As they say, you reap what you sow.

[TAG]

Ive meet Marines in my base last week, they came to master urban warfare in Arab town simulator anyway i was surprised to hear that after that they are heading to Afghanistan and not to Iraq.

[VALIS]

Well, let's face it, only a few NATO countries have been doing any fighting... the U.S. the most.

The U.S. contributes the most to NATO, the Europeans do absolutely nothing, they showed that in Afghanistan, and in the Balkans.

Canada has contributed more than France or Germany, despite our military being less than half their size. I'm proud of Canada's contribution.

Take all that back! Italy has just announced they are sending 4 Tornado planes to Afghanistan to patrol the airspace!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...43&c=EUR&s=AIR

ROME - The Italian government said Sept. 23 it would send four Tornado aircraft to Afghanistan.

Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa said the aircraft would be used for surveillance missions and not for bombing missions.

"The planes will obviously not be used for bombing purposes, but in observation operations, the same way German Tornadoes are being used there," La Russa said.

La Russa had said earlier this year that the deployment of the aircraft could be shelved due to budget shortfalls.

Italy's military chief of staff, Gen. Vincenzo Camporini, said the aircraft could now be operational in Afghanistan by mid-October. Italian wire agency ANSA reported that the government had freed up 13 million euros ($18.9 million) to cover the deployment for the remainder of 2008.

[Каие]

Well, let's face it, only a few NATO countries have been doing any fighting... the U.S. the most. .

The US is mostly operating outside NATO and ISAF, alone. Which is dangerous on its own...

The U.S. contributes the most to NATO, the Europeans do absolutely nothing, they showed that in Afghanistan, and in the Balkans.

Because they spend more than the world combined in military spending? ...as for the Balkans I believe only Britain is left in Kosovo.

Canada has contributed more than France or Germany,

To be fair the French are...French and the Germans are not allowed to use their army except for defensive reasons as written in the constitution, and is heavily regulated by the Bundestag, we are not taking any more risks after last time .

despite our military being less than half their size. I'm proud of Canada's contribution

So am I, Canada fought hard...but will soon be out, leaving it all to Britain and the USA.

[Rapax]

Because they spend more than the world combined in military spending? ...as for the Balkans I believe only Britain is left in Kosovo.

Maybe you should substitute your believes with facts then. 34 different nations currently contribute troops to KFOR and Britain is one of the lesser contributers, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan I assume. As far as I can tell, Germany has the most troops in KFOR with a current strength of ~2300 soldiers.

This nonsense of Germany not doing anything is getting tiring anyway. I know that our government avoids combat operations like the plague and even refuses to acknowledge that there's a war going on, but that doesn't mean that Germany doesn't contribute immensely to ISAF. Not to long ago I've read that the german air force handles 40% of all material and 45% of all troop transports for ISAF. It's third biggest troop contributor, it handles an entire Regional Command and it provides 6 Tornado recon jets to ISAF.

[Каие]

Maybe you should substitute your believes with facts then. 34 different nations currently contribute troops to KFOR and Britain is one of the lesser contributers, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan I assume. As far as I can tell, Germany has the most troops in KFOR with a current strength of ~2300 soldiers.

Britain is scheduled to go back into Kosovo with several battalions scheduled for a 2009 deployment. I believe it s a rotational thing, my mistake anyway in the statistics.

[attilavolciak07]

At least America is focusing some more on Afghanistan, but Iraq was thrown into the mess for reasons unkown.
America, don't start on two different projects, if you fail in Afghanistan, don't go and start a new 'project' in Iraq.

[Akrotatos]

To win in Afghanistan they actually need to hold ground. Taking a city, leaving the area and then leaving only for the Taliban to return after a few months isn't exactly winning the war.

[Admiral Piett]

To win in Afghanistan they actually need to hold ground. Taking a city, leaving the area and then leaving only for the Taliban to return after a few months isn't exactly winning the war.

That's one of the reasons we lost Vietnam. It wasn't just politics, but very poor decisions in the military too.

[The King Of Peasants]

Hundred percent agree with future filmaker. What I love about Gates is he actually changes tactics if the current ones aren't working the combo of him, a change of tactics, extra troops, and Petraeus should do Afganistan a world of good!

[Каие]

Hundred percent agree with future filmaker. What I love about Gates is he actually changes tactics if the current ones aren't working the combo of him, a change of tactics, extra troops, and Petraeus should do Afganistan a world of good!

I don;t think it's gates who made any changes, it was most definitely Patreus, a behemoth of a tactician.

[Sharrow]

Hearts and Minds in a country of nigh on endemic warfare is proving difficult but for NATO there is the chance of success.

HOwever, the civil side of matters will be key - the opium question raises its ugly head once more- a severe problem.

Soooo where are the rest of NATO? I see Brits, Americans, Canadians, Turks all standing together. I see German and French troops not allowed out after dark..... Ok, I appreciate this situation is evolving and am slightly cliched BUT the central point remains - where are the Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Norwegian, Italian etc etc brigade groups????

Shopping together? They certainly are not in the Afghanistan theatre in a serious manner at present.
I hope matters will improve in this regard soon!

(p.s. all additional deployment info gratefully received!)