[R-G] A 'surge' for Afghanistan?

[Anthony Fenton]

A 'surge' for Afghanistan?
A Marine proposal under discussion this week would redeploy troops  
from Iraq.
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
  http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p01s05-usmi.htm
Kabul, Afghanistan

The top general of the Marine Corps is pushing hard to deploy marines  
to Afghanistan as he looks to draw down his forces in Iraq, but his  
proposal, which is under discussion at the Pentagon this week, faces  
deep resistance from other military leaders.

Commandant Gen. James Conway's plan, if approved, would deploy a  
large contingent of marines to Afghanistan, perhaps as early as next  
year. The reinforcements would be used to fight the Taliban, which US  
officials concede is now defending its territory more effectively  
against allied and Afghan forces.

Within the Pentagon, General Conway's proposal has led to speculation  
about which, if any, American forces would be best suited to provide  
reinforcements for a mission that, most agree, has far more political  
appeal than the one in Iraq. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint  
Chiefs of Staff, has already recommended against the proposal, at  
least for now, a military official said Tuesday.

That leaves the decision up to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"It came down to an issue of timing," says the official, who didn't  
want to be named because of the sensitivity of the recommendation.  
"The chairman didn't feel that this was the right time."

Conway says that marines, who have been largely responsible for  
calming Anbar Province in Iraq, can either return home or "stay  
plugged into the fight" by essentially redeploying to Afghanistan.  
The general returned Monday from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan,  
where he visited with marines and stressed that the Corps is not out  
to snatch a senior command billet in Afghanistan, nor is it trying to  
get out of Iraq "while the getting is good."

Critics of the plan worry that it would leave too much risk for the  
Army in Iraq, but Conway argues that the Corps would assume more risk  
in Afghanistan than it has now in Anbar Province, where violence has  
abated considerably.

"The trend lines tell us that it may be time to increase the force  
posture in Afghanistan," Conway says, in his first public comments on  
the matter since the proposal was leaked to the press last month.

Ideally, he says, the international community would provide more help  
for the roughly 50,000 coalition forces there now – about half of  
them American troops, mostly from the Army. About 300 marines are  
currently stationed in Afghanistan.

"But if it requires additional US forces," Conway says, "then it goes  
back to our suggestion that maybe we need more marines in there with  
a more kinetic bent."

Adm. William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which oversees  
operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is said to be "very strong"  
on the Conway option, says another senior military official, who  
asked not to be named, adding that the whole mix of forces must be  
looked at before a decision can be made.

"We're at the taking-a-hard-look-at-it stage," says this official.  
"The positive side of the Marines looking at this for a deployment is  
it would be a good mix of combat power and training and equip missions."

Secretary Gates's focus so far has been to seek more help from the  
international community to provide trainers and other forces to  
combat the resurgent Taliban.

Top Army and Air Force officials have expressed concern about the  
Conway plan, even as US officials on the ground in Afghanistan appear  
to welcome the idea.

The Corps would probably deploy a Marine Air Ground Task Force, a  
self-contained unit that brings with it its own headquarters, ground  
elements, logistics, and air-assault capabilities that may be  
especially suited to the scale of operations in Afghanistan, Conway  
says.

Gates has appeared to shoot down the idea in remarks over the past  
month. But sources say the Defense secretary hasn't yet been fully  
briefed on the matter.

Less secure in Afghanistan

Two years ago, the Pentagon was set to proclaim military success in  
Afghanistan and tie it up with a bow. But this year the security  
mission in Afghanistan has suffered from the US focus on Iraq and a  
heavy reliance on an international force.

NATO's command in Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance  
Force, has had some victories on the ground there, working with the  
nascent Afghan Army and police force. But the US considers some  
allied nations to be "casualty averse," not expecting to be engaged  
in heavy combat operations back when they signed up for what they  
considered a training-and-peacekeeping mission. Suicide attacks in  
Afghanistan are on the rise, and US casualties, though relatively few  
compared with those in Iraq, have increased as well, according to  
American military officials on the ground there.

Conway, for one, is convinced that Afghanistan's security needs  
inevitably will require more American forces – and that the Corps,  
with its "expeditionary" focus, is well suited to the mission.  
Already, he has sent two Marine battalions to mountain warfare  
training in California to prepare for the missions in Afghanistan  
should the request come.

The Corps is already beginning to plan the drawdown of its forces in  
Anbar in Iraq, where the bulk of Marine forces are deployed.

So far, the calm in Anbar, which began before the surge of US forces  
this spring, has continued, and Marine officials believe the strategy  
there has worked. It seems unlikely that a large contingent of  
marines would stay in Anbar much longer if that peace continues.  
Unless marines are sent elsewhere in Iraq, that would leave Conway an  
opening to redeploy them to Afghanistan.

Such a deployment would also ease the Corps' deployment tempo, a goal  
Gates established for both the Army and Marine Corps upon taking  
office in January.

The decision about which forces, if any, to send to Afghanistan has a  
political subtext. If the White House were to send more US forces  
into a country most Americans thought was already secure, Democrats  
would be sure to exploit the security retrogression during an  
election year.

Such a decision, too, would have reverberations within the Pentagon,  
since the US force that would return to Afghanistan would carry with  
it a political prize. While much of the American public wants US  
forces out of Iraq, many see Afghanistan as the more righteous  
mission, because the origins of the 9/11 attacks can be traced there.

"Marines may be jockeying for the longer-term and maybe more popular  
role," says Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for  
Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington.

If more American forces are needed in Afghanistan, then the Pentagon  
must look at the "entire pool" of forces before it decides that what  
is best for the Marine Corps is also best for its policy in  
Afghanistan, says Mr. Cordesman.

Institutional memory lost?

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution,  
another think tank in Washington, is not necessarily opposed to  
Conway's idea, but he worries that taking marines out of Anbar, where  
they have been effective, could rob the US of vital knowledge about  
the province.

"The Marines know more about that province than the Army does," he says.

Marines are already being asked to help with the fight in  
Afghanistan. Last month, Corps officials announced that AV-8B Harrier  
jump jets – attached to the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed  
aboard an amphibious assault ship – flew more than a dozen sorties  
over Afghanistan. The jets conducted reconnaissance, escorted ground  
convoys, and dropped precision-guided munitions on enemy targets,  
according to Corps officials.