President Barack Obama, voted in to the White House last year after pledging to make Afghanistan one of his top priorities, quickly urged his military top brass to find new ways of enabling US troops to come home.

One was repeating the successful surge in Iraq and sending thousands more US troops, but for a country posing different challenges and a very different enemy, terrain and mission.

In general, there are two schools of thought in Washington.

There are those who favour massive deployment to protect the population, a reduction in air strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians, training the embryonic Afghan police and army, and the emergence of an effective government.

Others back limited deployment and concentration on eliminating Al-Qaeda, conscious that tens of thousands of extra soldiers would reinforce the idea of an army of occupation and sow discontent among Afghans.

With General David McKiernan sacked in May and replaced by General Stanley McChrystal as head of foreign forces in Afghanistan, some see the new strategy as just the old one, only with greater resources.

"You're going to need to convince me that the new strategy is really new," one former high-ranking European military officer in Kabul said recently.

"At the moment, we don't see much of a difference on the ground, apart from the fact that there's more of everything -- more men, more equipment, more money," he added.

Last month, McChrystal submitted his wish-list for the coming months: a reported 40,000 extra troops, which according to one US military official would be deployed in the north and west, where Taliban attacks are increasing.

The US contingent would then pass the 100,000 mark compared with just a few thousand at its lowest point, as attention switched to Iraq.

There are currently 100,000 US and NATO troops from about 40 member countries stationed in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the US Army is looking to counter the increasing threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which, according to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, account for three-quarters of coalition fatalities.

Washington last week announced it was to supply new armoured vehicles capable of better resisting the bombs, which are often placed on roadsides and have killed around two soldiers a day recently.

The all-terrain vehicles are said to have the same level of protection as those used by US soldiers in Iraq.

The new model is also lighter and designed to adapt better to the rugged, mountainous terrain in Afghanistan.

Obama warned earlier this year that defeating Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and preventing their return would be a long haul.

The West's worst-case scenario is that nothing changes and that ultimately Afghanistan becomes what it was for the Soviet Union, the British, the Mongols and even Alexander the Great -- easy to conquer but difficult to keep.

earlier related report
Afghan firefight highlights tough choice for NATO: analysts
One of the US military's worst days in eight years of war in Afghanistan has highlighted the dilemma facing NATO -- whether to pour troops into rural areas or concentrate on defending towns and cities.

Eight US troops and two Afghan army soldiers were killed on Saturday, when hundreds of militants swept down a remote hillside in a dawn raid in eastern Nuristan province, prompting a fierce firefight that lasted into the night.

The commander of the 100,000-strong US and NATO force in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has reportedly called for 40,000 extra troops and wants counter-insurgency to be concentrated on urban areas.

But analysts question whether that approach will work, suggesting it could give a green light for the resurgent Taliban to once again spread their influence, nearly eight years after they were ousted from power.

Haroun Mir, director of Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies, said to do so would be "mistake", as most Afghans live in rural areas.

"They will feel abandoned if NATO cannot protect them. This rural population will come under the security of the Taliban. It's already happening," he told AFP.

The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) estimates the Taliban now has a "permanent presence" in 80 percent of Afghanistan, including the outskirts of their spiritual home of Kandahar, in the south.

If NATO switched its focus away from rural areas, Afghanistan could be "Balkanised" like neighbouring Pakistan, where much of the country is under tribal control, ICOS president and founder Norine MacDonald told AFP.

"The best case scenario would be to do both" urban and rural counter-insurgency, she said, adding that McChrystal had at least acknowledged that a new approach -- and more troops -- were required.

"There's been a de facto retreat or inability (by NATO) to stay in rural areas for the last three years," she added.

"The ability of the Taliban to move freely in rural areas of Afghanistan has been one of the secrets of their remarkable success."

The "rural versus urban" dilemma has been a key issue for NATO in Afghanistan, an ISAF media officer told AFP, on condition of anonymity.

McChrystal's predecessor, General David McKiernan, favoured a rural push but with indications of an upsurge in attacks on urban centres, the current general is looking to change tack.

A high-visibility security presence in towns and cities is psychologically important, she added.

"That's not to say that the rural areas are not important. We have to work very diligently with our Afghan counterparts to prioritise the most immediate security risks."

Haroun Mir said Saturday's attack showed the problems facing NATO and Afghan forces along the strategic border area with Pakistan, which is a haven for Al-Qaeda and Taliban sympathisers and used to launch attacks.

Insurgents exploited a lack of NATO and Afghan troops in the isolated mountainous area, he said.

Further strikes were likely in other parts of the border region, he predicted, adding that it was part of a new strategy based on tried and tested Mujahideen tactics in the 1980s against Afghanistan's Soviet occupiers.

For ISAF, redeployment in the east is not a "withdrawal" but a "calculated repositioning of ISAF forces in that part of the country to ensure that our concentration of effort and forces match", the media officer said.

"There is still a significant troop presence out in the east, however it's difficult to have a uniform approach, to have a footprint in every small valley" she added.

Illustrating the complexities of the region, it remains unclear whether Saturday's attack was carried out by Taliban or Al-Qaeda or localised militia from insular communities simply opposed to any outside presence, she said.

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
News From Across The Stans

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News