Afstan: The "longest war"?; troop increase speculation update

At least this column in the Washington Post starts out with the good news:

KHOST, Afghanistan -- This former Taliban stronghold, where Osama bin Laden spent time planning the Sept. 11 attacks, has become an American success story. The Taliban is being pushed out, and a government presence is extending into previously hostile territory. At NATO headquarters in Kabul, most of Khost has been moved out of the "red" column -- at least for now.

Khost shows that, with the right combination of resources and leadership, it can be done. But Khost is not simply a good-news story. It also underscores a larger, troubling truth: The conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize. This war, already in its seventh year, will eventually become the longest in American history, surpassing even Vietnam.

Success in Khost required some of America's best troops. Today elements of the legendary 101st Airborne Division -- the Screaming Eagles of the Battle of the Bulge -- are replacing troops from another storied unit, the 82nd Airborne, who, over 15 tough months, took Khost back [so I suppose Combined Joint Task Force - 82 will become CJTF - 101]. That success resulted from tactics developed locally by a stellar team: a courageous and honest provincial governor, Arsala Jamal, who has survived four assassination attempts; a creative American troop commander, Lt. Col. Scott Custer (yes, he is a direct descendant), who devised a more aggressive system of joint patrols with local Afghan army units; and a remarkable young Foreign Service officer, Kael Weston, who has established a direct dialogue with tribal leaders, university students, mullahs, madrassa students and even Taliban defectors.

As I saw in hours of meetings with these groups, Weston's intense hands-on process identifies problems and misunderstandings that might otherwise spiral out of control. One of these -- serious enough to attract international media coverage and public expressions of concern from Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- was the death of several women and children in two recent nighttime U.S. Special Forces actions. The tribal elders were blunt in our meeting; a white-bearded chief said, "Not even my brother can enter my house at night, but you Americans did not even knock." Gov. Jamal, his own closeness to the Americans making him even more vulnerable, was distraught. "This undermines everything we are trying to do here," he said.

Jamal and the elders understood that locally based American troops were not involved in the operations and that the targets were supposed to be an important Taliban cadre. Despite the furor, they stressed that they want the Americans to stay as long as necessary, knowing that will be a very long time; without NATO's continued presence, their government would fail. They have little confidence in the Afghan army, even though it seems to be improving, because there is as yet no indication that it can function in difficult conditions without active NATO support. Moreover, the elders, like everyone else, despise the national police -- Afghanistan's most corrupt institution. I heard firsthand accounts of blatant police shakedowns on the main roads, police destruction of agricultural produce because the officers were not paid off and direct police participation in the drug trade (which makes the police and the Taliban de facto partners).

The police are the front edge of Afghanistan's biggest problem. In conversations with more than 80 foreigners (diplomats, journalists, soldiers), Afghans in the private sector and, most important, senior members of the Karzai government, I found unanimity on only one point: The massive, officially sanctioned corruption and the drug trade are the most serious problems the country faces, and they offer the Taliban its only exploitable opportunity to gain support...

Richard Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations [he had a lot to do with Bosnia, too], writes a monthly column for The Post.

More on the east:

...
An area were there had been "some dramatic improvements in past year" had been in the east of the country, Gen. McNeill [outgoing ISAF commander] said. This had been achieved by doubling the number of U.S. troops there and by "generous" discretionary funds the U.S. Congress had allocated for American commanders to spend [emphasis added], he said...

As for who may be going where in the country:

...
Gen. Dan K. McNeill, top commander of the NATO-led international force, has already sent the alliance a similar message in starker terms: Provide more troops or accept a longer war. "I'd like the NATO allies and their non-NATO partners in this alliance to properly resource this force," he said in a recent interview at his Kabul headquarters, "and absent that, that they adopt the patience and will for a slower pace of progress."

McNeill estimated that it will be necessary to maintain at least the current foreign force level in Afghanistan -- now about 55,000, including 27,000 U.S. troops among NATO and non-NATO forces -- for at least three to five years until Afghan security forces are ready to take over. It will take that long for Afghan forces to obtain the airplanes, helicopters and other logistical support they need to be fully independent, he said...

The NATO leaders plan to debate strategies for southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been strongest. One idea under discussion is for the U.S. military eventually to take over the regional command for the south, which is currently headed by the Canadians and includes primarily British, Canadian and Dutch forces [first I've seen about this; I doubt the Brits, Dutch and maybe us would like it, since the US will also keep heading ISAF itself and Regional Command East]. Another proposal is to lengthen military tours, said William Wood, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, "so we're not swapping people out all the time." He suggested "extending the period for whoever is in charge of the south so it doesn't rotate every six or nine months."

U.S. troops in Afghanistan now serve 15-month tours, but other NATO countries balk at extending their shorter tours. "If they had us do more than six months, everyone would quit," British Bombardier Tim Dean, who is fighting in the southern province of Helmand, said in a recent interview...

...French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose nation has 1,500 troops on the ground, said last week that he will send more forces. French officials said details are still being finalized, but it appears likely to be a battalion of elite paratroopers. If the French are sent to the U.S.-led eastern region of Afghanistan, that could free up the United States to move 1,000 of its troops to the south, meeting Canada's demand for help.

The British, who already have 7,800 troops on the ground, plan to send the equivalent of another battalion plus a headquarters unit as well, though it was unclear if this will be announced at the NATO summit, British officials said. Poland has already promised to send 400 more troops by the end of April [maybe not April--see Update]...

This is what the UK Ministry of Defence said in February this year when announcing the composition of the Brits' next roulement of forces to take place in April:

...
As the lead formation deploying in April 2008, 16 Air Assault Brigade will provide the majority of the units serving in Afghanistan, the bulk of which represent direct replacements for previously announced deployments to Afghanistan. Overall force levels will be broadly unchanged [emphasis added--anyone want to comment?].

Update: The 1,000 reinforcements for Kandahar may take even longer than hoped to be identified:

The Conservatives are downplaying expectations that a deal to secure additional NATO troops for the Afghan mission will be made at a summit in Bucharest this week...

On the prime minister's plane [to the Bucharest NATO summit], Defence Minister Peter MacKay told reporters that Canada has done everything it can to convince its allies to help, but downplayed expectations that a commitment would be made by week's end.

Before heading to Bucharest, Harper told the House of Commons Monday [March 31] that...he's confident those [Canada's] conditions will be met "in the not too distant future."

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier also suggested Monday there's no rush to find a NATO partner, saying the matter could be settled "in a couple of weeks," adding that there's no hurry.

"We have until February 2009 to find more troops and to find the equipment that we need, so we still have time," Bernier said...

Let's work on that "not too distant future"; 2009 would be ridiculous--how could M. Bernier have said it?