There's a simple diagram that TPM posted that has been created by the Defense Department to outline how our Afghanistan counter insurgency plan is supposed to work (click to embiggen):



I find myself wondering what the computer code to represent this logic would look like... Then I wake up screaming in terror...

So Obama has committed to sending an additional 30K troops to Afghanistan. His plan is to have these troops in the field by the summer of 2010 and begin withdrawing those troops in 2011. I can't say I'm thrilled by this because of recent developments in Afghanistan (fraudulent election, etc), but I'm resigned to it. I have a few thoughts on it though:

1. On it's face what Obama is doing looks little different than what Bush did in Iraq. Sending more troops, talking about withdrawal, but refusing to lock down specific milestones, time lines, etc. Obama does give the impression of being far more engaged in what's going on and seems to have given far more serious thought to how we get out of there eventually.
2. His commitment to begin withdrawing troops in 2011 demonstrates his seriousness about this effort. From a political perspective, setting the date to begin pulling out troops in 2011 means that, come the 2012 election, we'll be able to judge the success of his policy. Are we actually withdrawing? How fast? What's the current state of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban? Might even be time enough to launch a primary opponent against him if it's truly disastrous.
3. The scale of the increase is pretty huge. We're going to have substantially more forces than we've ever had in Afghanistan since 9/11. Since Obama took office we've seen troop levels go from about 30K to what will be 100K. Compare this to the Iraq surge where we had something like 130K and went to 160K. That was a marginal increase, this is an enormous escalation.

For now I will trust that Obama is doing the right thing because, frankly, there's not much that can be done to stop it even if I thought that was the way to go. Come 2011, we'll be able to judge this on it's merits, and see if he made the right call. The reality is Obama was handed the hugest shit sandwich when he got elected. A recession comparable to the Great Depression, two wars, massive debt, a health care system in crisis, and on and on. I think he's made some pretty huge mistakes, but so early on in his Presidency, it's hard to be sure.

I think it can be safely said that by the end of 2011 and into 2012, we'll know what to make of all of this. Until then I'll just try to be patient.

Yeah, I'm going to critique Juan Cole.  Ballsy, non?  Anyhow, he was discussing Obama's policy statements towards Pakistan and Afghanistan and had this to say:

Nor is it at all clear that sending more U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan can resolve the problem of the resurgence of the Taliban there. American and NATO search-and-destroy missions alienate the local population and fuel, rather than quench, the insurgency. Resentment over U.S. airstrikes on innocent civilians and wedding parties is growing.

Actually this is precisely why more troops are needed.  If you do not have sufficient troops, what you end up doing is hunkering down in bases and then coming out only to do search and destroy type missions.  If you have sufficient forces, you can use a far more effective counterinsurgency approach where your forces occupy and hold areas, building up local stability, and then moving forward.

This, incidentally, was always the problem with Iraq.  We've never had enough forces to really effectively control the country.  We'd have needed more like half a million troops to effectively run a counter insurgency operation.  In Afghanistan it's a different story because it's a smaller country with a far more spread out population, outside of Kabul which is mostly stable.  If we can get sufficient forces into the outlying provinces of Afghanistan and support it with infrastructure and economic development efforts, we have a real shot at improving things, IMHO.

If we keep forces at the level they are now, we simply have too few to do the job right.  Thus we end up going around blindly hitting the wrong targets, lashing out, and undermining the overall support for our presence.  So we either need to commit to this for real or get the hell out.

In Iraq, I felt we should get the hell out because:

1. It was a distraction from dealing with Al Qaeda
2. We have never had sufficient forces to do the job right

Afghanistan is different in both regards.  We just have to be willing to commit the resources to doing the job right.  If we aren't, then may as well get out and let the place fall apart.

Quoting from a CNN interview by Wolf Blizter to be aired shortly:

Q The criticism is that you took your eye off the ball by going into Iraq and, in effect, reducing the focus of attention on al Qaeda and bin Laden.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's just not true. I've heard that charge; it's simply not true, Wolf. The fact of the matter is we can do more than one thing at a time, and we have. And we've been very successful with going after al Qaeda. They're still out there, they're still a formidable force, but they're not nearly as formidable as they once were in terms of numbers and so forth. We have successfully defended the country for over five years against any further attacks.

So we can do two things at once, huh?  So explain to me why:

1. We has to redirect funds from Afghanistan to begin the planning for the Iraq war
2. We are withdrawing forces from Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban is resurgent to increase our presence in Iraq

Seems to me that we're spreading our attention, and our resources, awfully thin.  Furthermore, as I read in a Stratfor article yesterday, one growing problem with our focus on Iraq is that we don't have our best minds considering future conflicts.  For example, China, who recently tested an anti-satellite missile successfully, may be setting the stage to contest US naval power around Asia.  The logic being that while they do not possess the kind of naval power we have, they can substantially reduce our effectiveness by crippling the satellites we use for intelligence gathering, communication, and navigation.  Not a threat today, but one to consider for say 5-10 years from now that isn't on the front burner because of Iraq.