<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h_atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2010://1/tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570-</id>
  <updated>2010-02-07T16:56:52Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for The new White House Afstan/Pakistan policy.</title>
  <subtitle>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</subtitle>
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.12</generator>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=10570" title="The new White House Afstan/Pakistan policy." />
    <published>2009-03-27T12:56:14Z</published>
    <updated>2009-03-30T16:14:40Z</updated>
    <title>The new White House Afstan/Pakistan policy.</title>
    <summary>From the speech:Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals. I&apos;ve already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>The Armorer</name>
      <uri>http://www.thedonovan.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="<![CDATA[<s>GWOT</s> Whatever it is...]]>" />
    
    <category term="Politics" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.thedonovan.com/">
      <![CDATA[From the speech:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><div>Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals. <br /><br />I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August. <br /><br />At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home. <br /><br />For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 -- and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward. <br /><br />This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty. <br /><br />So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations -- an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague. <br /><br />At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future.<br />&nbsp;</div></blockquote><br /><br />Good words, though one wonders what's going to happen to the &quot;re-set&quot; the Army needs.&nbsp; It won't take too long before we've got soldiers who've personnally been at war for a decade straight, which will be a real test of the all volunteer force.<br /><br />Good words, <a href="http://www.michaelyon-online.com/obama-on-afghanistan-disappointing.htm">though Mike Yon didn't hear what he was looking for</a>.&nbsp; As I mentioned in posts previous to this&nbsp; - this contains the seeds for what needs to be done, which is teaching the Afghans to fish, so that when we leave, they can fill the vacuum with a functioning civil society.<br /><br />And yes, that includes including elements of the Taliban, if they can adapt, such as Daniel Ortega and company did in Central America, that is a path forward.&nbsp; Just as we, as a nation, compromised with the &quot;reconstructed&quot; rebels.&nbsp; As the Iraqis are trying to do with the the Shia/Sunni divide.&nbsp; <br /><br />All fragile, and all will take time, and failure is an easier path than success.&nbsp; There's goodness in there, if you support continuing the effort in Afghanistan&nbsp;(which I do).&nbsp; The devil, as always, is in the details - and the enemy gets a vote, which is something so many people in the political and journalistic worlds seem to forget.<br /><br />You can download the <a href="http://www.thedonovan.com/historystuff/Afghanistan-Pakistan%20White%20Paper.pdf">White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan </a>by clicking the higlighted link.&nbsp; <strike>it's a MSWord&reg; document, that's how it was provided</strike>.&nbsp;[update: Due to the kindness of Richard B, the document has been made into a .pdf.&nbsp; I'm annoyed with Adobe at the moment, their latest reader update corrupted my full Acrobat install...!]<br /><br /><br />Update: Noach Schachtman was in on a blogger's conference call with national security officials today:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><div>Richard Holbrooke, the administration special enoy to the region said of Pakistan: &quot;of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that's going to be the most daunting, because it's a sovereign country and there is a red line. And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil.&quot; Yet I haven't seen anyone in the administration state unambiguously yet that U.S. troops won't go to Pakistan. If anything, they've side-stepped the question.<br /><br />Draw your own conclusions. But to me, they're saying: Yes, there will be more troops (both human and robotic). We'd just rather not talk about them.</div></blockquote><br />To draw those conclusions - <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/white-house-won.html">read Noah's bit here</a>.<br /><br />Leaving the option out there... well, it could be the hard place, the hammer, or the goad.&nbsp; A little uncertainty is good for your enemy's (and&nbsp;mushy allies) souls.<br />]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570-comment:86416</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html#comment-86416" />
    <title>Comment from Grumpy on 2009-03-27</title>
    <author>
        <name>Grumpy</name>
        
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[John, as I read this, I was thinking of a program on C-Span, if fact, you can watch it online. &nbsp;It is in their video library. You can also link it from the &quot;Combined Arms Center&quot; website. The title, &quot;Understanding the US&nbsp;Army's Field Manual 3-07&quot;. This is on Stability Operations.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/index.asp" rel="nofollow">http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/index.asp</a><br />
<br />
Now, my suggestion is *invest* some time and read/watch both this and Obama's plans for both A'stan and P'stan. I admit, it can be confusing. &quot;Can there be a method to this madness?&quot; I believe there is a very good plan hidden here. It all depends on how does POTUS look at it in an applied sense, not a just theoretical viewpoint.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
LTG&nbsp;William Caldwell is involved, to me both were well worth the time.]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-03-27T23:12:15Z</published>
    <updated>2009-03-27T23:12:15Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570-comment:86400</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html#comment-86400" />
    <title>Comment from Colin on 2009-03-27</title>
    <author>
        <name>Colin</name>
        
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        I don&apos;t know, it the parts of the speech I heard all seemed a repackaging of everything I have heard before. I also think that Afghanistan is a bit like the Italian Front in late WWII, everything went to Iraq (D-Day and beyond) now that that war has wound down, troops and equipment can focus in Afghanistan, which is a good thing because the Canadian Forces is wearing out as well, as I suspect some of the other smaller nations forces are. The biggest problem I see is how to support extra troops there, with the main supply line under daily threat and the secondaries being long and slow, I can see operation tempo being restricted at times.
    </content>
    <published>2009-03-27T19:59:48Z</published>
    <updated>2009-03-27T19:59:48Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570-comment:86385</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html#comment-86385" />
    <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-27</title>
    <author>
        <name>John of Argghhh!</name>
        <uri>http://www.thedonovan.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.thedonovan.com">
        <![CDATA[Indeed.&nbsp; That matches my own information from, *koff* impeccable, albeit pedestrian, sources.]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-03-27T18:23:44Z</published>
    <updated>2009-03-27T18:23:44Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570-comment:86377</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10570" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/the_new_white_h.html#comment-86377" />
    <title>Comment from DJ Elliott on 2009-03-27</title>
    <author>
        <name>DJ Elliott</name>
        <uri>http://www.longwarjournal.org</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.longwarjournal.org">
        <![CDATA[Word that 4/82 BCT was going to Afghan was already out in the first week of this month.&nbsp; <br />
<br />
Part of the two BCT equivalents diverted from Iraq.&nbsp; The other being the USMC MEB built out of diverted elements originally scheduled for Iraq.<br />
<br />
The remaining numbers to make it 4,000 is the 82nd's Div HQ.]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-03-27T16:52:56Z</published>
    <updated>2009-03-27T16:52:56Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
</feed>

