. Military Space News .
Outside View: Planning and implementing

Britons question reasons for Afghan conflict: poll
London (AFP) Nov 11, 2009 - Nearly half of Britons think the military campaign in Afghanistan is actually increasing the threat of a terrorist attack on home soil, a poll said Wednesday, amid rising public criticism of the war. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and military leaders have argued that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan will help reduce the risk of an attack by extremists in the region against Britain and other Western countries. But only 21 percent surveyed supported that view, while 46 percent said the conflict was in fact increasing the threat by creating anger and resentment among the Muslim population, according to the GFK NOP poll. Another 14 percent believed it was making no difference to the threat, while 19 percent said they did not know either way, the poll for the Independent newspaper said.

The poll of 1,000 voters, conducted last weekend, is the latest showing falling support for British involvement in the conflict as the troop death toll rises. The bodies of another six soldiers were given an emotional homecoming from Afghanistan on Tuesday. The return of the coffins -- including five men shot dead last week by a "rogue" Afghan policeman they were helping to train -- marked a low point of Britain's involvement in the eight-year conflict. The latest repatriation of bodies also came as questions grow about the Afghan mission, crystallised in a row between Brown and one dead serviceman's grieving mother. Brown apologised to the mother of a soldier killed last month after she complained that his handwritten letter of condolence was strewn with errors.

Obama to make troops decision 'in a few days': British PM
London (AFP) Nov 11, 2009 - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday he expected President Barack Obama to announce new US troop numbers for Afghanistan "in a few days". "I've... talked to President Obama and I expect him to announce in a few days what his numbers for Afghanistan will be," Brown said, speaking at his weekly question session in parliament. Obama was meeting with top US military brass and his national security team Wednesday to examine four strategic options as he nears a decision on whether to plunge thousands more troops into Afghanistan.

There are currently 68,000 US troops in the country out of a 100,000-strong NATO-led force. Britain has the second-largest contingent with 9,000 soldiers, but has promised to send an extra 500. Washington has called for other NATO countries to send troops to Afghanistan to help share the burden of the mission. The US, Britain and Canada are shouldering the brunt of the attacks by the Taliban in their stronghold of Helmand in the south of the country. Brown said: "We're the first country to have agreed to send additional troops for the next stage of the mission in Afghanistan and we are seeking to persuade other countries to join us in this."

Afghan bomb injures five Swedish troops, kills interpreter
Stockholm (AFP) Nov 11, 2009 - A roadside bomb in Afghanistan on Wednesday injured five Swedish troops and killed their interpreter, Sweden's armed forces said. The explosion happened at 0900 GMT some 40 kilometres (25 miles) west of Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan. The troops were participating in a joint patrol with Afghan soldiers. All five Swedes have been transferred to a NATO hospital for treatment. No details on the extent of their injuries were released. Almost 500 Swedish NATO troops are stationed in the north of Afghanistan. The blast coincided with the visit of Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who was holding talks with President Hamid Karzai and his former election rival Abdullah Abdullah. Sweden holds the current EU presidency.
by Harlan Ullman
Islamabad, Pakistan (UPI) Nov 11, 2009
Presumably, the Obama administration will soon decide on its strategy and accompanying plan for Afghanistan and the region. No matter what it does, there are three certainties. First, Obama's choices range from bad to worse. Second, the plan will be savaged by critics of both the left and right. Third, implementation and not troop numbers, however important, will define success or failure.

Presidents can make grand strategic pronouncements and set overarching policy direction. Neither guarantees success. As General of the Army George Marshall observed some 70 years ago, if you identify the right objectives, a "lieutenant can write the strategy." But that was when the nation's war aim was "unconditional surrender" by the enemy. And assigning real authority and responsibility turned strategy into action.

For good or ill, Marshall and his naval and air counterparts had close to total authority over their services. Oversight by Congress and outside watchdog groups was virtually non-existent. Sen. Harry Truman's investigation into procurement waste and abuse was a notable exception. Destroyers and Victory ships could be built in a week or less. Tens of thousands of aircraft, tanks and artillery pieces rolled out of factories every month. And, by the way, there was a real, very visible enemy with army, navy and air forces that had to be destroyed.

As President Obama creates his strategy that takes into account all the complexities, uncertainties and dangers in play, implementation matters. Marshall could be confident of his lieutenant because any strategy could be implemented if not through competence and experience then with nearly unlimited resources and without the obstruction of the heavy hand of government. We were able to spend our way clear of trouble. Those days are gone.

The Afghan endeavor rests on three pillars: security, governance and economic development. Each pillar requires planning that is intensive, comprehensive and detailed. And that planning must incorporate all of the toughest challenges and obstacles with solutions that will work.

Take the Afghan army. It is self-evident that this army does not and will not have for a very long time if ever the logistical, infrastructure and other support it needs to fight independently. Medical care is one critical area. What soldier wants to go into battle knowing that the nearest aid center or hospital is hundreds of miles away and that there is no transportation to get there? Of course, the United States and NATO can fill the medical gaps for the short term. But what happens when or if the full Afghan security force of 400,000 is fielded? What will support it? That answer will not please Afghan soldiers and families. Yet, this is one of a multitude of issues that must be addressed. Then, the plan must be implemented.

Regarding implementation, White Houses are notoriously and even purposely bad at it. It is up to the various departments and agencies of government to execute. And, as we all know, that process is badly broken. We talk of a civilian surge. But that is a fiction. For good and bad reasons, we simply do not have a large enough body of civilians to fill the needs of Afghanistan. A prime example is police. Every American cop has a day job and there are no reserves. So how do we train up the Afghans? As recent investigations show, we don't do that very well.

Can we or do we learn? Eight years ago the plan was to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, wipe out al-Qaida and get out. Similarly in Iraq, a similar philosophy applied. Overthrow Saddam Hussein, turn things over to a transitional government and withdraw. With no long-term objectives, planning was simple and implementation was unnecessary.

The recklessness of those approaches haunts us today and will plague us tomorrow if we only plan and do not follow through on implementation. But how to coordinate across the massive and often dysfunctional government here and a government that is far worse in Afghanistan? World War II does not yield all the answers because it was a two-step performance -- defeat the axis and then deal with the peace. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we are simultaneously fighting and building.

As Ike was in charge in Europe -- and he was in charge -- and Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Chester Nimitz ran their theaters in the Pacific, no such authority exists today. To their credit, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker ran Iraq as co-CEO's. The same is needed in Afghanistan. Whether the combination of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry can be provided similar levels of power and authority to implement any plan is uncertain. But without that discipline, the best planning in the world will be defeated by the inability to implement.

(Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Share This Article With Planet Earth
del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg RedditReddit
YahooMyWebYahooMyWeb GoogleGoogle FacebookFacebook



Related Links
News From Across The Stans



Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News


Amnesty denounces China executions
London (AFP) Nov 11, 2009
Amnesty International on Wednesday condemned China's execution of nine people over deadly ethnic unrest in its Xinjiang region, and expressed fears more could take place. The London-based rights organisation said the nine had received unfair trials which lasted less than one day, and they were denied legal representation of their choice. "In hastily executing these individuals after ... read more







The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2009 - SpaceDaily. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement