DTN News: Afghanistan TODAY November 1, 2009 ~ How U.S. President Barack Obama's Afghan Strategy Is Shaping Up
*Source: DTN News / Int'l Media
(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, DC /KABUL, Afghanistan - November 1, 2009: U.S. President Barack Obama's advisers appear to be laying the ground for a hybrid war strategy combining both counterinsurgency with counterterrorism in Afghanistan that would entail a troop increase next year.
Two men pull a carriage down a street in the old city of Kabul on November 1, 2009. Abdullah announced on November 1 that he was pulling out of this week's run-off presidential election in Afghanistan.'The decision which I am going to announce was not an easy one. It was a decision that I have taken after wide-ranging consultations, with the people of Afghanistan, my supporters and influential leaders,' Abdullah told supporters.'In protest against the misconduct of the government and the Independent Election Commission (IEC), I will not participate in the election,' he added.
The biggest question, officials say, is how many more troops and trainers Obama will decide to deploy.
STRATEGY
Support within the administration is growing for continuing a counterinsurgency strategy with a greater focus on protecting major Afghan population centers.
Counterinsurgency advocates include Defense Secretary Robert Gates and military leaders, including General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
An Afghan policeman searches a man on a street in Kandahar on November 1, 2009. Challenger Abdullah Abdullah on November 1 pulled out of Afghanistan's run-off election, plunging the war-torn country into fresh political chaos less than a week before the scheduled contest. After President Hamid Karzai snubbed a series of demands promoted as a bid to avoid a repeat of massive first-round fraud, Abdullah said he saw no point in standing in the second round, but stopped short of calling for a boycott.
Officials said this strategy could be combined with a stepped up counterterrorism campaign, advocated by Vice President Joe Biden, using unmanned aerial drones and special operations forces to combat Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in the Afghan countryside and near the border with Pakistan.
TROOPS
Officials say Obama has ruled out a troop reduction and will, at a minimum, need to send large numbers of military trainers to Afghanistan if he hopes to accelerate the expansion of the Afghan army, a top priority for his Democratic allies in Congress.
McChrystal has recommended deploying an additional 40,000 troops next year, a figure that includes trainers.
Another option, and one that may be more politically palatable for Obama and his allies, would add about 10,000 to 15,000 troops, a large portion of whom would be dedicated to training.
But officials said Obama may opt for a number in between 15,000 and 40,000.
Military commanders and lawmakers have said discussions were focused on sending two additional brigades, totaling between 10,000 to 15,000 troops, to southern Afghanistan, a key Taliban stronghold.
Another brigade also may be added in eastern Afghanistan near the border with Pakistan.
Brigades range in size but generally include 3,500 to 4,000 troops. They can swell to over 5,000 troops if other units are attached to them. Marine brigades can be larger.
Currently, there are about 67,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 allied forces in Afghanistan.
TALIBAN
U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Taliban-led insurgency includes an estimated 25,000 full-time fighters, up from 7,000 in 2006.
That would suggest that international troops currently outnumber insurgents 4-to-1. The Afghan army has about 100,000 troops.
A U.S. troop increase could give Western forces a greater numerical advantage, provided Taliban growth slows. But U.S. officials and experts said such comparisons were suspect in guerrilla warfare since the Taliban mainly operate in small units using hit-and-run tactics.
Tory MP warned Nato's strategy in Afghanistan is making terror attacks in UK more likely ~ An RAF Chinook helicopter lands during a re-supply of ground forces during operation "Panther�s Claw", in Helmand province in Afghanistan in this July 13, 2009 handout photograph received in London on July 16, 2009. President Hamid Karzai has promised to provide extra Afghan security forces to reinforce British soldiers battling Taliban insurgents, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Wednesday.
The troop surge proposed by top US commander General Stanley McChrystal would only fuel the difficulties facing Nato troops, he warned.
Mr Holloway, a member of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said Nato was "on the brink of failure" as Afghan support for its work nose-dived amid deteriorating conditions.
His comments came in a wide-ranging paper on Afghanistan, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, which also addressed resources provision for British troops. It included the disclosure that Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe sent a memo less than a month before his death complaining about the lack of helicopters.
In the paper, Mr Holloway insisted that Al Qaeda could be prevented from regaining its foothold in the country without the presence of tens of thousands of foreign troops.
"Put starkly, our current situation is working against the West's security interest and is making attacks on the streets of Britain more, not less, likely," he wrote. He said that the war in Afghanistan was playing into the hands of Al Qaeda propaganda.
"Al Qaeda needs Nato in Afghanistan, more now when western troops are out of Iraq," he wrote in the Centre for Policy Studies paper.
"Before 2006 who had heard of Musa Qala, Sangin or Kajaki? Today they are global rallying cries across the websites of global jihad. Places like Helmand are, for Al Qaeda, a gigantic film studio.
"For them, Afghanistan is the best place in the world to generate video footage of 'Mujahadeen' attacks on 'infidel forces', which in turn supports both fundraising and recruiting. Al Qaeda needs pictures of 'heroic martyrdom operations' and mutilated children."
Aside from the traffic issues and the reality that no A380 can break-even at 65% (as Airbus would have some believe), getting credit to pay for the big airplane has proved equally difficult. Critics have been quick to predict production rate cuts on the Boeing 737, ranging from a single unit adjustment to ridiculous “analyses” of 40% or more being lopped off of current rates. Of course that hasn’t happened, largely because the double-booked slots have meant where one customer defers, another is waiting in the wings to take up an earlier delivery position. The same rings true on the A320 lines in Toulouse and Hamburg too.
In contrast, Boeing’s low rate, coupled with the (relative) ease of finance for a sub-$90m airplane is far simpler to arrange in contrast to an A380 (not least because of the variable discounting Airbus provided to entice orders in the first place).
The engineering challenges have also hampered Airbus’ ability to stabilise production.
Based on the original plan, Airbus had hoped to produce 45 A380s by 2010. In a way, the deferrals have certainly aided longevity into the A380 because had Airbus managed to get to that goal, the backlog would have been completed in a record five years or so.
As it is, deferrals have added significant costs to that longevity. Battling with wiring redesigns, cabin customisation costs through lack of standardised features alongside performance enhancements and tackling the additional several ton weight excess has proved more costly than envisaged. The business proposition for the A380 was never a good one when the idea was first drummed up in the mid-1990’s.
