President Bush promises more troops for Afstan...

...(those would be, one hopes, those to help us in the south) but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs wonders where they'll come from:

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq.

Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said insurgent Taliban and extremist forces in Afghanistan have become "a very complex problem," one that is tied to the extensive drug trade, a faltering economy and the porous border with Pakistan. Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, with June the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001.

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon. "Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

Mullen has raised similar concerns over the past several months, but his comments yesterday were more pointed and came amid rising concern at the Pentagon over the situation in Afghanistan, where insurgents have regrouped in the south and east...

Bush also promised to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by the end of the year [emphasis added]. He acknowledged the increasing violence there, saying that "we're going to increase troops by 2009," but did not offer details.

Mullen said military commanders are looking at the prospects for sending additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009, but only if conditions in Iraq continue to improve over the coming months, which would allow some forces to be withdrawn and reallocated. The war in Iraq has occupied as many as 20 military brigades during the troop buildup over the past year, reducing violence there substantially but convincing many officers and experts that a quick drawdown in Iraq would jeopardize gains.

Recent bleak assessments about the Taliban and a dramatic increase in the number of attacks in Afghanistan have left military commanders with nowhere to turn as they seek more troops. The Army and Marine Corps have been stretched thin by numerous deployments to both war zones, and the administration has been unable to persuade allies to send more troops...

New CDS General Natynczyk, for his part, is pleased with Afghan National Army progress (contrary to the Globe and Mail story below this optimism is not at variance with the American worries above--both the ANA and the Taliban can be more effective at this point in time, each in its own way):

Canada's new top general says he's still confident Canadian soldiers can quit combat operations in Kandahar by 2011, despite a surge in Taliban attacks and gloomier assessments of the Afghan war from the Pentagon...

In his first news conference as the Canadian Forces top commander, Gen. Natynczyk batted down concerns about the strength of Afghan insurgency – worries that have arisen since Taliban fighters freed 800 prisoners from a Kandahar jail, including 400 sympathizers, on June 13.

The upsurge reflects the fact that the spring and summer fighting season is always busier, he said.

“We knew there'd be a spring and summer campaign season … everyone was predicting that a little while ago and we're into the fight right now.”

He said the Afghan army is making “huge progress” in taking over responsibility for security from NATO coalition forces. This transfer is one of the goals Canada has set for its promised military exit from the Afghan province of Kandahar in 2011.

Gen. Natynczyk, 50, made much [why should he not? MC] of one mid-June counteroffensive in the Arghandab district north of Kandahar, where Afghans and Canadians beat back and defeated Taliban forces [more here and here, as Babbling takes on the Globe and Mail's committing a certain type of journalism]. He said it's proof that Afghans are increasingly ready to take charge.

“The Afghan army that we have trained with this past two years are actually stepping up. It was their plan [in Arghandab]. It was their leaders. … What I see is that the Afghans are taking ownership of this operation,” he said. “Where we were by their side or ahead of them in the past two years, now we're behind them and supporting them.”

Gen. Natynczyk's assessment of the situation in Afghanistan is more rosy than that of some U.S. military officials. A recent Pentagon report offered a downbeat assessment of security, saying Taliban forces had “coalesced into a resilient insurgency.”

In May, more U.S. and coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq for the first time since those wars began, according to the Pentagon. On Wednesday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Washington that the Taliban had become more effective...