U.S. General Sees "Slow" Afghan Win

Key Commander Says Less-Than-Decisive Approach Must Be Accelerated

(AP)  U.S.-led forces are achieving a "slow win" in Afghanistan, but the less-than-decisive approach must be accelerated soon, a key American commander there said Friday.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, in a video conference with reporters at the Pentagon, said he remains hopeful that the Bush administration will send him more combat troops and other resources by winter.

He mentioned that Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the U.S. effort in Afghanistan is by necessity an "economy of force" mission, meaning it is under-resourced because the war in Iraq is considered a higher and more urgent national security priority.

"We need to get away from that, over time," to make a stronger push in Afghanistan, Schloesser said.

The current approach, he said, is making headway, but not at a rate that he considers satisfactory.

"It's not the way that I think ... the Afghans, the international community and the American people would like to see us conduct this war," Schloesser said. "It will take longer the way we are doing it right now, as far as the level of resources that we have. I'd like to speed that up. So it's a slow win. I'd want to make it into a solid, strong win" by committing more resources.

There are now about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, compared with about 146,000 in Iraq.

Schloesser, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, leads a contingent of international forces responsible for an eastern sector of Afghanistan, which includes a volatile area bordering Pakistan.

He predicted that insurgent activity would not fall off as much as usual this winter, when snow usually limits the fighting season.

"I do believe that the level of significant activities, maybe violence, will be higher than any previous winter since 2002," he said. The war began in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks launched by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which at the time used Afghanistan as a haven.

Schloesser declined to say exactly how many additional U.S. combat troops and support forces he thinks are needed in his sector, but said he was optimistic that they would be provided in the next several months.

"The numbers are going to be a couple thousand - some series of thousands," he said.

In addition to combat troops there is a need for more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance units of the type that currently are being used on missions in Iraq, he added.

In some areas of eastern Afghanistan there simply are too few U.S. or coalition troops to decisively defeat the Taliban, he said.

"I can come in and I can clobber the enemy but then I can't hold it and stay with the people," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mullen on Wednesday recommended to President Bush that a partial shift of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan be undertaken early in 2009, but it's not clear whether that will provide the help Schloesser says is needed to deal with enemy forces this winter.

"If we don't do anything over the winter the enemy will more and more try to seek safe haven in Afghanistan rather than going back to Pakistan," Schloesser said.

On the other hand, he said, getting additional forces is not a make-or-break issue.

"We're not losing this war, and we won't lose (it) if those troops don't show up in the next several months," he said.

U.S. and NATO officials say militants cross into Afghanistan from Pakistan, where they rest, recruit, train and resupply in tribal areas along the frontier where the Pakistani government has little sway.

Schloesser said he is counting on executing a two-track strategy this winter for further eroding the insurgents' fighting prospects.

The first is an aggressive effort to hunt them down.

"We will pursue them wherever they run," he said. "We will intercept them, and we're going to destroy their resources. My intent is to eliminate the support areas within our sector to diminish the enemies' ability to operate next year."

The second is what Schloesser called a "development surge." That would be a variety of projects, such as construction and road maintenance, designed to keep military-aged males employed who otherwise could be recruited to join the insurgency.

[claydowner]

The problems that NATO is facing in Afghanistan has been a lack of infantryman and supporting units like intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and military police troops. Civil administration projects like schools, roads, etc. have also been a huge challenge for the Canadian, British, Dutch, French and Americans on the ground. They have been making up for a lack of infantryman by increased use of tactical air support. Mobility in the mountains has put a premium on helicopter transport which is hugely expensive. The close air support has resulted in many Afghan civilian casualties. President Karzai complains about this and rightfully so. But until such a time that you can get more infantry and support troops on the ground funerals for civilians will be the rule of the day as the war against the narco-funded Taliban goes on for its seventh year. At the rate we are going ten years from now we will still be in Afghanistan. We may end up being in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet Union.

[babooph]

WW 1 gave the British upper class a fairly fast win ,but created a nation of rich & poor ever after.Notice the troops were smart enough not to fight for them again in ww2?[Dunkirk, Singapore-etc.]

[babooph]

A slow win for the military-a sword thru the heart of the once important US middle nlass.

[jgunther7]

The generals will streach the fighting on for as long as they can. Their lively hood depends on it.

[downsteamjim]

To Nancy Naive: The Taliban are perfect. They know how to treat a woman.

[youngjm0]

Russia lost the Afghan war because they have no support, they could not leave their bases without being shot up, blown up an had no idea where that it was coming from. Russia lost over 100,000 solders in a country that has no jungles, few trees, just mountains with caves. It is the Russian leaders that is Russia''s problem, they are still in the WW-? war thinking, they are not the ones fighting an dieing, it''s the dumb-*** that has no schooling and no other life to look forward too!! Most Russians has no running water, they still use out side tolets, The Russian people is still living in a third world life.

[youngjm0]

This wasn''t in the news, but their was over 800 Marines in Georgia when this happen and they didn''t leave, they was just out side of the capital to help get Americans out if Russia did go there, but Russia was told that the US has a Office their and that it was going to stay their!

[youngjm0]

Russia has no aircraft carriers, "NONE" Tanks 20+ years old, still diesels that don''t start, with no power or speed. they still have sights to fire with, if they don''t see you they can''t shoot you. With no air cover, their tanks are sitting ducks. The US can spot their tanks from outer space, an then it''s BOOM! another dead tank crew!!

[youngjm0]

The US is now flying Top Secreat Aircraft from Navada, that''s Vegas baby, we have video games that is killing from over 10,000 miles away. Russia has Generals that sits in Moscow, telling every one that they can do this an that. The US took Baghdad in 19 days, that''s over 1,000 miles of land from Kuwait. If russia tryed this it would take them over 200 days to get there. Iraq was the third largest army in the world, with nothing but Russian tanks, jet fighters an the AK-47. The same equipment that they have now, JUNK!!

[youngjm0]

It took Russia days to get just a few miles in Georgia, they stop because the US was landing over 3,000 Georgins troops, fresh combat troops, in the fight, Russia didn''t know if it was just Georgia troops that was being put on the ground. Russia ran in to a brick wall when these troops landed, and there jet plains started to fall out of the air.