U.S. Starts Talks On How To Deploy New Troops To Afghanistan

This is a pretty good article here from the Associated Press that showcases some of the discussions that the U.S. is having with NATO allies in regards to troop deployments in Afghanistan. Here's some of the details:

With the United States reevaluating strategy in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is telling allies that additional U.S. forces planned for the war must be shared across the region taking the brunt of the fighting.
The United States plans fresh brigades in the region early next year, and defense ministers from Canada, Britain, Australia and four other nations with troops in southern Afghanistan want to hear from Gates on how the new forces will be used.
"The big 800-pound gorilla in the room will be this subject of troop commitments from the Americans," Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said before a strategy session at a converted Canadian military station.
MacKay said he wants to know more specifics, such as how many troops will be sent to the volatile Kandahar province. That, he said, "will be telling as far as our future success there."

Here's where one of the key volatile points is when these discussions come around:

Critics of the management of the Afghan war frequently point to the way NATO and the United States have carved up jurisdiction — one country working in one province, another next door, myriad development plans that sometimes conflict with military objectives and an overall lack of coherent planning

It appears that Defense Secretary Gates wants to get away from the segmented force strategy that has one or two countries in charge of one province and another country in charge of a different province. We have seen countries like America, Canada and Britain shouldering way more of the load because they drew the provinces with the heaviest Taliban pressure like in Helmand province, while way up in northern Afghanistan, you have German troops playing soccer all day long.

Now, how well the troops can be integrated is another matter and although I've never been a fan of a "NATO force" , it seems pretty logical that there needs to be some significant changes made to both spread the burden as well as improve military and communication integration.

US details role for additional Afghan forces

The Bush administration has announced plans to send 3,500 additional Marines to Afghanistan before year's end and then an Army brigade of about 5,000 soldiers early in 2009. As many as three additional Army brigades could follow in the months after that.
The increases are in line with promises President-elect Barack Obama made during this year's campaign to pull forces out of what he calls a misbegotten Iraq war and concentrate on a neglected Afghanistan. The Bush administration denies it shortchanged the Afghan war in favor of Iraq.
Currently the U.S. has 31,000 troops in Afghanistan. There also are 31,000 troops from NATO countries and other allies.
A suicide bomber on Friday drove his car into the gate of an army base in southern Afghanistan and detonated his explosives, killing three civilians, a provincial official said.
The bombing in Zabul province also seriously wounded four Afghan army soldiers, Deputy Gov. Gulab Shah Alikhail said. The attacker died in the explosion, he added.
The incident follows a report by the U.S. military that Afghan and coalition forces killed four militants in a firefight north of the capital Kabul on Thursday.
In some respects the meeting Gates attended Friday exemplifies the piece-by-piece war strategy. It involved only nations with significant fighting forces in one part of the country — the south where fighting is heaviest.
U.S. officials traveling with Gates suggested he is pushing back against further segmentation. He was telling even strong allies that the additional U.S. forces will support regional war goals, not those affecting any particular province.
The situation in Afghanistan now is the worst since the U.S.-led invasion of 2001 and the country is in danger of a "downward spiral" into violence and chaos, according to an intelligence report draft described to The Associated Press last month.
The National Intelligence Estimate said Afghanistan's deterioration has accelerated alarmingly since summer.
This has been the deadliest year for American forces since the war began, with well above 100 killed. The toll reflects both the increased number of American troops fighting in Afghanistan and the insurgency's increasing potency.
More than twice as many Americans have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq since May, even though there are more than five times the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
The White House has accelerated a review of how to reverse the security slide and shore up Afghan President Hamid Karzai's fragile government.
Top U.S. generals, European leaders and analysts say the blame lies to the east, in militant sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan. As long as those areas remain havens where fighters arm, train, recruit and plot increasingly sophisticated ambushes, the Afghan war will continue to sour.
Afghanistan was the launching pad for al-Qaida's terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S. accused the then-ruling Taliban of harboring al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. The U.S. invasion a month later quickly drove the Taliban out of power, but the Islamic militants have persisted and regrouped.