War Game Tested 2 Afghan Troop Boost Plans

Washington Post: Obama and Advisers Are Evaluating Pentagon Exercise that Looked at Different Troop Level Scenarios

(Washington Post)  This story was written by Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung.

---

The Pentagon's top military officer oversaw a secret war game this month to evaluate the two primary military options that have been put forward by the Pentagon and are being weighed by the Obama administration as part of a broad-based review of the faltering Afghanistan war, senior military officials said.

The exercise, led by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, examined the likely outcome of inserting 44,000 more troops into the country to conduct a full-scale counterinsurgency effort aimed at building a stable Afghan government that can control most of the country. It also examined adding 10,000 to 15,000 more soldiers and Marines as part of an approach that the military has dubbed "counterterrorism plus."

Both options were drawn from a detailed analysis prepared by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior commander in Afghanistan, and were forwarded to President Obama in recent weeks by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

The Pentagon war game did not formally endorse either course; rather, it tried to gauge how Taliban fighters, the Afghan and Pakistani governments and NATO allies might react to either of the scenarios. Mullen, a key player in the game, has discussed its conclusions with senior White House officials involved in the discussions over the new strategy.

Washington Unplugged: Greg Jaffe Talks About His Report
Afghanistan Helicopter Crashes Kill 14
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

One of the exercise's key assumptions is that an increase of 10,000 to 15,000 troops would not in the near future give U.S. commanders the forces they need to take back havens from the Taliban commanders in southern and western Afghanistan, where shadow insurgent governors collect taxes and run court systems based on Islamic sharia law.

"We were running out the options and trying to understand the implications from many different perspectives, including the enemy and the Afghan people," said a senior military official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the classified game.

The Obama administration initiated a major review of its war strategy in late September after questions emerged about the legitimacy of the Aug. 20 Afghan elections, which were marred by allegations of widespread fraud, and a troubling update on the progress of the war by McChrystal. He warned that unless the United States moved quickly to wrest momentum from the Taliban, defeating the insurgency in Afghanistan might no longer be possible.

What was intended to be two or three weeks of intensive White House meetings has stretched on for almost a month. Obama and his national security advisers have sorted through the military and civilian aspects of the war, building toward a decision that many on the outside have urged be made sooner rather than later.

Last week, the president concluded the five planned review sessions, roughly 15 hours in all, with top advisers in the Situation Room.

McChrystal's analysis suggests that 44,000 troops would be needed to drive Taliban forces from populated areas and to hold them until Afghan troops and government officials can take the place of U.S. and NATO forces. The extra troops would allow U.S. commanders to essentially triple the size of the American forces in the southern part of the country, where the Taliban movement originated and where the insurgents have their strongest base of support.

McChrystal would also use the additional troops to bolster the effort in eastern Afghanistan, which has long been a focus of the U.S. military, and push additional troops into western Afghanistan, where the military has maintained a tiny presence and where the Taliban has made inroads, U.S. officials said. A surge of 44,000 soldiers and Marines would also allow McChrystal to designate a brigade of about 5,000 soldiers to train and advise the Afghan army and police forces, accelerating their growth.

The increase of 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers would give McChrystal one U.S. advisory brigade of about 5,000 troops to speed the development of Afghan forces and a large number of support forces to include engineers, route-clearance teams and helicopters. McChrystal's analysis also suggested the option of increasing the number of troops by 80,000, but that isn't drawing serious consideration.

CBS Evening News: The Road Ahead

In television interviews Sunday, lawmakers outlined broad partisan differences over how many troops are needed in Afghanistan. Republicans have voiced strong support for granting McChrystal's request for more troops, and urged that it be done quickly.

"I'm afraid that with every passing day, we risk the future success of the mission," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) disagreed, calling the decision-making process "very proper and smart." The administration's lengthy deliberations are "what we need, because we're going to end up living with the results for a good period of time," Webb said on CNN's "State of the Union."

The administration's internal deliberations have emphasized that unless the Afghan government dramatically improves its performance, the Taliban will continue to find support. Administration officials said Obama's decision will consider a much broader range of options than the number of troops. At nearly every meeting in the White House Situation Room, McChrystal has been joined on the video screens at the end of the table by Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, and Anne W. Patterson, his counterpart in Pakistan.

One question being debated is whether more U.S. troops would improve the performance of the Afghan government by providing an important check on corruption and the drug trade, or would they stunt the growth of the Afghan government as U.S. troops and civilians take on more tasks that Afghans might better perform themselves. Another factor is cost. The Pentagon has budgeted about $65 billion to maintain a force of about 68,000 troops, meaning that each additional 1,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan would cost about $1 billion a year.

Administration officials say Obama might settle on a plan but delay announcing it until after a runoff in the Afghan national elections, scheduled for Nov. 7. The president is to begin a 10-day trip to Asia on Nov. 11.

Early this month, McChrystal was told to delay a planned Washington trip until Obama had finished gathering facts on the way ahead. "When you see McChrystal in town," along with Eikenberry and Patterson, a senior administration official said, "you'll know that [Obama] is close to a decision."

Staff writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

[dallisman]

After eight years, The Afghan students protest our president and burn the U.S. flag. Sharia Law will always be the Rule of Law in Afghanistan. One news station reported that the Afghan Police gave their bullet proof vests to the Taliban. The U.S financial system is frail and does not have the staying power to throw good money into a bottomless pit. Afghanistan is a waste because of the government corruption which most likely takes our money along with the drug money. Additionally, The Afghan religion and ideology won't change even if given a 100 years. The U.S. needs to economize its battles whereas to engage terrorism throughout the world. Our most dangerous ememies,Al Qaeda, are in Pakistan and we should continue to disrupt their top tier leadership as long as possible.

[jefleshman]

1. The Afghan students protest our president and burn the U.S. flag.
So, do we in America (sounds like freedom to me! Also South Korea when I was there the 1000 college students in the capital would do the same thing.

2. Sharia Law will always be the Rule of Law in Afghanistan
Always is a very strong word, are you sure? Will most likely be part of in some context a better phrase.

3. One news station reported that the Afghan Police gave their bullet proof vests to the Taliban.

LOL, sorry I was thinking about (the ones and twos) of our not so "good" cops in America who do much worse

I can go on and on. Bottom line is this is not a fast ffod answer. If you believed we would be in and out after removing a government...ummmm you fooled yourself. I give it 3 generations at best to find out if what we are doing will work...only time will tell. trust me, these are some of the most bravest people I have ever have had the pleasure of knowing.

How many of you would vote knowing there is a chance you could die?

[FauxNews]

Gee, they tested 2 plans and both plans increased the troops. Sounds like the best plan is to find a new planner.

[briannorwood]

For all you neocon right-wingers: Take a note. Obama actually asks the Dept of Defense to actually analyse and verify strategic and tactical decisions.

If only Bush had done so, we wouldn't be in Iraq and we'd already be done with Afghanistan.

What a difference a Commander in Chief who really acts like a Commander in Chief makes.

As for Mr. Cheney...sit down and shut up!

[jefleshman]

brian,

Ummmmm no one has said anything about Mr. Cheney or anything Bad about Pres Obama...is this a carry over anger thing, you have going on?

[jefleshman]

AOC,

Thanks for the chat the other day. I needed it. BTW have you had a chance to read the new JP 3-24?

[AOCGUY]

No - COIN is not my area of expertise but when I get time I will check it out. Gotta run but I will check bak later.

[jefleshman]

Forget all the ("quotes")remember your Principles!

Mass: Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time

Objective: Direct every military operation towards a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective

Offensive: Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative

Surprise: Strike the enemy at a time, at a place, or in a manner for which he is unprepared

Economy of force: Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts

Maneuver: Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power

Unity of command: For every objective, ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander

Security: Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage

Simplicity: Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding

[Ms_enza]

The one thing about freedom, you don't really have it unless you can give it away.

[Ms_enza]

It's a device of our creation. It's not a war, it's a raison d'etre.

[stillwaters6]

Let me get this straight...

We are playing war games with a country that has no rockets or military. Just some backpacks, car bombs, and IED's.

If America cannot handle this at this stage sending more troops will not do it. It will be worse than Vietnam. The tribalism in Afghanistan along with the terrain is more powerful than any miltary force on the planet. After all a presidency only lasts 4 years and it will take at least 30 years to get the job done...

IS IT WORTH IT TO JUST GO AND DIE? IF SO, INSTITUTE A DRAFT!

Afghanistan is nothing but a reverse suicide bomb mission on America...

[AOCGUY]

Just to get our terms straight, we are not at war with the country of Afghanistan. That fact alone complicates things, especially in terms of defining victory. In conventional wars of the past where nation-states faced off against each other there was a formal surrender. We now are fighting various elements whose leadership is fractured and constantly changing. At least in Viet Nam we had a defined enemy, we just didn't have a national will to win that war. I'm also not sure that the enemy doesn't have more advanced weapons.

[Ms_enza]

And the VC? Who was they?

We didn't have "the national will to win"... What a maroon...

We had 500,000 in country for more than 6 years with 4 more tears of 200,000. We killed 600,000 NAV and VC. We killed 1,600,000 civilians. We bombed their cities, burned their villages and fields, denuded their forests and jungles and pretty much at will, and you say we didn't have the "will to win"...

Those people couldn't have taken any more of our "lack of will".

What are you? A 30-something Republiscum? One thing you aren't... someone with battle experience.

[AOCGUY]

Ms_enza - Shoving soldiers into a war zone doesn't constitute a committment to winning and the massive demonstrations during the 60's certainly didn't display much national resolve either. And if you read any of my recent posts you should know that I have over 28 years active duty including command in combat, and over 37 years total DoD involvement. BTW, no one that knows me would ever accuse me of being a republican. Now whose the [maroon] (sp?)

[AOCGUY]

"who is" not "whose"

[Ms_enza]

AOCGuy,

You confused "not defeating them" with "losing to them". It's not a zero sum game.

From 1964 to 1968, the war in Vietnam enjoyed overwhelming popular support and yet all of the military experts were whispering that it was not winnable. Remember the Pentagon Papers? It's true they were published in 1968 but they reflected the military sentiment PRIOR to Tet starting prior to the Gulf of Tonkin. It only got worse AFTER Tet.

The lack of "desire to win" in America was nothing compared to the overwhelming military force we had for 10 years in Vietnam, and we still couldn't defeat them because it was not our desire to win that counted; it was theirs.

And in Afghanistan, they are fanatical and they've been at this for 30 years. The CIA only accelerated the defeat for the Soviets. It was inevitable.

This is not like post-war Germany and Japan, or even Korea. We had to kill MILLIONS of them before they acquiesced.

We are becoming a colonial power and we've yet to learn the lesson of colonial powers -- we rule only so long as they allow us. When they decide that death is preferable to our being there then we have to leave. And they made decision in 2003, when we failed to give them a reason not to.

We can stay, come to commit the most horrendous atrocities (that's what dropping two nuclear weapons, or fire-bombing, amounts to), and then leave. Or, we can leave now.

Our choice.

[jefleshman]

Ms_enza,

This is not like post-war Germany and Japan, or even Korea. We had to kill MILLIONS of them before they acquiesced.
------------------------------------------------

Not at all true, as a matter of fact you do not have to kill at all (defend yes)

You would be interested to read this article I am sure of it

SOURCE: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/08/talking_to_the_taliban?page=0,0#

I would be interested to know your thoughts Ms_enza...

BTW JCS-8....I wasnt being sarcastic, I was just confused why you brought it up.

[jefleshman]

Ms_enza

I misread your statement, you were talking about the bombings in main land Germany and the Japan stikes correct?

[sjc_1]

We need to stop trying to win the hearts and minds of the villagers with small patrols that just provide targets for the Taliban. We need to understand that country will never have a strong government and may never be able to defend itself. Given that, we should try to get a domestic force to police and defend the country and help to make it as sustainable as possible and get out ASAP.

[jefleshman]

sjc,

There is no such thing as absolute security. However, I do agree with the focus on their "Afghan National Security Forces" being partnered and trained by NATO/ISAF. This way we teach them to fish, not give them one. BTW we have been doing this now for a while and the Afghan Army is now at 90,000, but not all units are fully mission ready (they need more training).

Looking back now, I see the "strategy" was not in ignorance, nor from neglect. Afghanistan under the Taliban rule never had a police or military. So by haven limited numbers of US/NATO troops in focused areas is a good strategy (a focused effort rather than haphazardly putting soldiers all over the place). As you build the Governance (which is new) and infrastructure (which they didnt have to sustain governance or security), you are training and building the security forces as well.

Now, after some time the infrastructure and Governance has the ability to expand (it is not all perfect and never will be; but has the ability too...sustain is another question), hence the recent assessment to call for additional forces.

It is very much starting to all make sense. I know everyone wants to paint a blame game on why and how things are; the military strategist and our elected and appointed officials know what they are doing. It was never in the plan to put large number of forces initially here in Afghanistan.

[jefleshman]

Ms_enza,

So what assumptions/data do you think the War game should have?

[Ms_enza]

I have no idea. It's just that these so-called games are huge combinations of stochastic and deterministic models that rely on the values given many, many, parmeters and assumptions -- none of which can be absolutely verified.

If war could be so easily predicted, then why has the Pentagon eff'ed up so many times in the last 50 years?

[jefleshman]

Ms_enza,

If I may, I would like to share with you something. I am at the Tactical level in Afghanistan (lowest level, followed by Operational level and than Strategic Level). In the Military we use the military decision making process (MDMP) which has seven steps.

1. Receipt of mission
2. Mission Analysis
3. Course of Action (COA) Development
4. COA Analysis
5. COA Comparison
6. COA Approval
7. Orders Production

The MDMP can be quick (hours) or as you will find more then not, days and weeks. I can only imagine at the Strategic level of combat (months).

Since they war gammed and compared Courses of Action (Step 4 and Step 5 are complete)...this is good news since a approval during a decision brief and orders should be soon to follow.

However, during the decision brief, the Commander may not like the decisions and we start doing a modified MDMP that is most likely directed to us. Like the commander may say "I like Part A and B of COA 1 but like part C from COA 2 and Part E from COA 3, combine them and make COA 4"

So a lot of work and smart people and many staff members goes into this analysis.

Just thought I would share this, because it is painful and not quick at all. Many many many hours goes into this assessment and plan.

[Ms_enza]

Jefleshman,

And if frogs had hips...

Operations Research, the branch of study in which war-gaming would reside, found its roots in WWII. The military has been responsible for some of the GREATEST accomplishments in optimal planning and execution. Of this, there is NO doubt. But OR has it limitations. The answers are only as good as the models and the data available.

For example, the COA analysis that you mentioned in the middle of the MDMP, depends on the enemy COA too, and alas, you are not privileged to receive that. So, you resolve your COA against the ECOA with some probability and then with some probability the enemy will react with such and such, and so and so on.

The problem is the probabilities assigned to each of the COA and their outcomes together with the set of COA/ECOA in the first place.

To date, with two wars raging more 8 years in backward nations with a degree of asymmetry that has not been witnessed by US soldiers since 1776, one has to wonder exactly who the "experts" are and WHY THE HELL we still keep calling them experts. (It's J8 by the way).

[jefleshman]

So you agree the science is no good without the Art as a plan is only good until the first bullet flies?

I think we have done quite well and come a long way with so little. You disagree?

And J8?????? What is that about?

J-8 = Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate, the Joint Staff

[Ms_enza]

"I think we have done quite well and come a long way with so little. You disagree?"

WITH SO LITTLE? What are you? A wingnut? We have spent 40+ cents of every tax dollar collected since 1950-something and you think we've performed miracles with NOTHING!

The US military expense is the equivalent of the GDP of all but the top 10/15 countries COMBINED.

Excuuuuussssse me, I forgot my "dash"... yes. JCS J-8

[jefleshman]

Ms_enza,

I was referring to the troop to task strength here in Afghanistan. Quite frankly we started from scratch and have come a long way.

Do you agree?

What the heck is a wingnut?

[fedup12]

We have spent 40+ cents of every tax dollar collected since 1950-something and you think we've performed miracles with NOTHING!
Ms_enza
---------------------------

I dont think a lot of people know how much we spend on the military. The right really likes to keep that quiet.

It always makes me angry when they quibble in congress (Right and Left) about this or that when those costs are a fraction or a tenth of a fraction of what our defense spending is. Education, Healthcare etc...

Just more stuff to kill or maim.

Dont get me wrong this spending to a degree is necessary to protect our interests, but whose interests are we protecting? Is it the rich guy with the shipping company, or halliburton with its oil interets? yes

Not me the construction worker from Kansas.

Then when the righties take office they UP military spending and lower taxes for the rich guys who are getting the most benefit.

[jefleshman]

by fedup12 October 26, 2009 1:47 PM EDT
Just more stuff to kill or maim.
------------------------------------------

Tell that to those who survived IEDs (x 2) in MRAPs.

From my point of view...well worth the money spent!

[fedup12]

From my point of view...well worth the money spent!
by jefleshman October 26, 2009 2:05 PM

Maybe! but so would the money that is spent on healthcare, social security or education. My point was Defense spending gets a pass on every level when they quibble about the most minute things elsewhere.

Dont be a hypocrit! We need to pay for these things somehow and the rich get the most bang for the buck when it comes to military spending.

And maybe our military guys should not have been in harms way for those IED's anyway. We need to put more thought into how we deploy these guys.

Im glad our new President is actually putting the study time in on this.

[Ms_enza]

"We were running out the options and trying to understand the implications from many different perspectives, including the enemy and the Afghan people," said a senior military official

THAT'S CLOSE, REAL CLOSE...

Should have said, "We are running out of options..."

[Ms_enza]

Yeah, war games... that's the ticket.

We have come to believe our own BS; drinking our own bathwather. All of these "successful conflicts" have been run through the "war games" first... Iraq was a 1-yr conflict, remember? Cheney told us so.

A "war game" is only as good as the assumptions and the data that goes into it -- when it comes to this stuff GIGO still applies.

Sometimes it's just GO no matter what the GI...