U.S. Panel Decides That Obama Administration Needs To Try and Win Afghan War with 10,000 Troops, Not 100,000

Oh boy. Another "panel" has waded into the analysis of the War in Afghanistan and my mouth is still open here after reading their expectations.

From the article at WorldDawn:

“However, if US efforts are not working, a more significant drawdown to a narrower mission that emphasises counter-terror objectives with fewer US forces will be warranted,” it said.

Some 10,000 to 20,000 US troops led by Special Operations Forces would fight militants, the study said, noting that most al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan have already been eliminated since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

But the task force said that such a strategy also came with major risks, particularly if the Taliban teamed up with international terrorists to fight a weak central authority in Afghanistan.

“Under those circumstances, Afghanistan could easily fracture into full-fledged civil war. That war would be every bit as devastating as earlier Afghan conflicts, creating millions of refugees and widespread humanitarian tragedy,” it said.

So, let me see if I have this right - we are going to send 90,000 American troops home from Afghanistan. Then we'll have 10,000 troops stay to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Then the panel makes the observation, "if the Taliban teamed up with international terrorists..." What?! Did they actually say IF???? Need I point to numerous UAV strikes that the U.S. has conducted in NW Pakistan on jihadis returning from Afghanistan...the strikes have hit compounds in North Waziristan and when all of the dust and body parts have settled we find 3 dead Taliban, 2 dead al Qaeda and 1 dead sombitch that we can't even identify what group he is with...and these morons on this panel think that al Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting separately?

This resembles the Joe Biden strategy: yeah, let's just target 200 al Qaeda with UAVs and some special ops and all will be good. In other words, let's ignore 70,000 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan - let's ignore that they conduct 95% of the attacks on American forces, Afghan forces and Afghan cities. Yep, just ignore that enemy.

According to this idiotic panel, our mission in Afghanistan is to kill the remaining few hundred al Qaeda in the country. Apparently. What this kind of panel report is, in my view, a surrender strategy. They get these putzes together in a room, a guy stands up at the podium and says, "Okay, we all agree that we can't win in Afghanistan so what we need to do today, gentleman, is to put together something that looks like a military strategy but in essence will allow the U.S. to surrender to a bunch of guys running around with towels on their heads and wearing five year old Nike knockoffs."

Consider smaller force in Afghanistan: US panel


WASHINGTON: A panel of influential US experts on Friday painted a grim picture of the Afghanistan war, calling on President Barack Obama to consider scaling back the military mission without signs of progress.

The task force of the Council on Foreign Relations largely backed the Obama administration’s current plan of intensifying military operations against the Taliban and starting a withdrawal in mid-2011.

But the panel — led by Richard Armitage and Samuel Berger, top aides to presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — said the administration needed to take hard decisions after its own highly anticipated war review in December.

The task force noted the nine-year-old war’s toll at a time of austerity.

The United States has some 100,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and is spending billions of dollars in the region each month.

“The task force endorses strategies for Pakistan and Afghanistan that place severe demands on the American people,” it said.

“The task force does so knowing that, at best, the margin for US victory is likely to be slim.”

“If progress is being made, the United States should be able to draw down its forces starting in July 2011, based on conditions on the ground,” it said.

“However, if US efforts are not working, a more significant drawdown to a narrower mission that emphasises counter-terror objectives with fewer US forces will be warranted,” it said.

Some 10,000 to 20,000 US troops led by Special Operations Forces would fight militants, the study said, noting that most al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan have already been eliminated since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

But the task force said that such a strategy also came with major risks, particularly if the Taliban teamed up with international terrorists to fight a weak central authority in Afghanistan.

“Under those circumstances, Afghanistan could easily fracture into full-fledged civil war. That war would be every bit as devastating as earlier Afghan conflicts, creating millions of refugees and widespread humanitarian tragedy,” it said.

“By its decision to remain focused on a narrow counter-terror mission, the United States would be held partly to blame for the suffering, making many Afghans even less willing to assist US operations,” it said.

However, the task force said a more focused mission could help the United States with the ultimate solution in Afghanistan — a political settlement that brings some Taliban into the mainstream.

A smaller force would also reduce US dependence on supply routes in Pakistan, reducing the neighbouring country’s leverage, the report said.

The task force faulted Pakistan’s security services, saying that despite offensives against some home-grown extremists, “Pakistan has not made a decisive break with all militants on its territory, especially those active against India and Afghanistan.”

But the study endorsed the Obama administration’s pursuit of closer ties with Pakistan, including last year’s 7.5-billion-dollar civilian aid package, saying it was crucial to encourage stability in the nation.

The task force called on the United States to give greater market access to Pakistan’s textiles. But it warned against talking to Pakistan about civilian nuclear cooperation, saying it would be counterproductive to give false hopes for a deal that stands little chance of approval by Congress.

The task force involved 25 scholars, although some dissented from findings.

Opinion polls have shown growing US opposition to the Afghanistan war.

However, leaders of the Republican Party — which swept congressional elections last week — have pressed Obama to drop the mid-2011 timeline, saying it only encourages the Taliban to wait for a US withdrawal.

The Obama administration has recently appeared to shift emphasis away from the drawdown, instead stressing the goal of handing over security to Afghans by 2014.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates, on a visit this week to Australia, said that the upcoming Nato summit in Lisbon would aim to endorse the 2014 target.