Marines vs. other NATO forces in southern Afstan

A Washington Post editorial Jan. 17 takes Mr Gates' line; I think the piece is right on some things,

...Defeating the Afghan insurgency will require the United States to take on a larger part of the fighting. Success will also require U.S. commanders to insist that a more coherent, nationwide counterinsurgency strategy be pursued -- including aggressive training of the Afghan army and police...

but wrong to think the Canadians and Brits in the south are "relatively ineffective" (I cannot assess the Dutch, and don't forget the some 600 Danes at Helmand). More numbers in the south are certainly needed and the Brits may in time be able to deploy more as they draw down in Iraq. The CF however can do no more; and if the opposition parties have their way will be doing no combat in little more than a year. So the Marines are very welcome indeed.

Meanwhile:

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army's chief of staff, said yesterday he hopes to shorten the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan this summer. The move would end a policy, required by the buildup of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq last year, that has placed significant stress on soldiers and their families...

Marine tours are usually seven months.

And Jumpin' Jack, for once, may be on to something:

The federal New Democrats say criticism of NATO allies in Afghanistan by U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates may be the tipping point that drives Canada out of the war.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who opposes to the war, predicts the hard feelings generated by the criticism will be just enough to swing Parliament against the idea of extending the mission until 2011...