Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Military Counterinsurgency manual suggests Afghanistan troop levels should be 672,000 troops

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
steven johnson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:15 PM
Original message
U.S. Military Counterinsurgency manual suggests Afghanistan troop levels should be 672,000 troops
According to a 2006 paper, "Boots on the Ground: Troop Density in Contingency Operations" (pdf), written by John McGrath and published by the U.S. Army, it is generally though that 20 solders per 1,000 inhabitants is "the minimum effective troop density ratio" for a counterinsurgency campaign.
672,000 troops minimum needed in Afghanistan - U.S. Military Counterinsurgency manual suggests

The current troop levels are 100,000 of combined US and NATO forces. An additional 10,000 to 40,000 will not put us at the magic 20:1000 ratio for minimal counterinsurgency troop strength.
US general to send Afghan troop request this week: Pentagon

In February, a poll in Afghanistan found that one in four Afghans said attacks on U.S. or other forces can be justified, up significantly from the past couple of years but on par with the level of October 2005. The February poll found that only 18 percent of Afghans support increasing the number of US troops in their country.

Poll of Afghans Shows Drop In Support for U.S. Mission

Now McChrystal says we have lost the "information initiative" to the Taliban. So he wants a public relations campaign in Afghanistan and in the US. We already tried the "hearts and minds" approach in Vietnam. This did not turn out so well. God help us, we are in a quagmire.

Hearts and Minds (Vietnam)



"The information domain is a battlespace," Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wrote in an assessment made public on Monday, adding that the allies need to "take aggressive actions to win the important battle of perception."

As an initial step, McChrystal wants to change the goal of public relations efforts in Afghanistan from a "struggle for the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan population to one of giving them 'trust and confidence' " in themselves and their government. At the same time, he said, more effort should be made to "discredit and diminish insurgents and their extremist allies' capability to influence attitudes and behavior in Afghanistan."

One way to accomplish that, McChrystal wrote, is to target insurgent networks "to disrupt and degrade" their effectiveness. Another is to expose what he calls the insurgents' "flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran," including indiscriminate use of violence and terrorism, and attacks on schools and development projects.

In addition, McChrystal lists as a goal making public relations efforts beyond Afghanistan more effective. There has already been a step-up in press material sent to U.S. journalists. On Friday, seven releases were sent to The Washington Post, including one with four photos. The caption of one photo reads: "An Afghan commando team advances toward practice targets at a Kandahar training facility Sept. 24. Afghan National Army and police training is overseen by ISAF military mentors, with a goal that the Afghans will one day independently foster peace and stability in Afghanistan."


McChrystal Says Insurgents Are Winning Communications Battle




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Since Afghanistan is a few hundred miles inland, hundreds of thousands are not likely
The rail, road and pipeline systems between the Pakistani ports and Afghanistan make it very difficult and expensive to supply a few hundred thousand of our troops.

The Taliban could probably support that many. They are not mechanized and armored and they live off the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC