The Torch: Afstan: US troops heading south/Obama's policies/Brits/Info ops

As they arrive over quite a few months, if the timeline in this story is right--but see link at end of this excerpt:

...
Mr. Obama and his aides have yet to outline a strategy for precisely how many reinforcements would be sent and how specifically they would be employed.

But the Pentagon is already planning to send more than 20,000 additional troops in response to a request from Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials say that force would include four combat brigades, an aviation brigade equipped with attack and troop-carrying helicopters, reconnaissance units, support troops and trainers for the Afghan Army and the police.

The first of the combat brigades is to deploy in the eastern part of Afghanistan, while the rest of the brigades are expected to be sent to southern and southwestern Afghanistan. All told, it would increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan to about 58,000 from the current level of 34,000, and add to the approximately 30,000 other foreign troops who are operating there under a NATO-led command.

The Pentagon schedule for sending the troops bears little resemblance to the 2007 buildup in Iraq. Pentagon officials said it would take 12 to 18 months to deploy the reinforcements. (In contrast, more than five brigades were sent to Iraq for the surge within five months [this earlier story foresees a much more rapid strength build-up - MC].)..

Meanwhile, our possible coalition government (indeed prime minister Harper too) might listen up to the president-elect:

...
"The situation in South Asia, as a whole, and the safe havens for terrorists that have been established there represent the single most important threat against the American people."

Although he didn't name Pakistan, Mr. Obama left little doubt that he was referring to that country where large sections remain beyond the control of the government.

"We're going to have to mobilize our resources and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and any other extremist groups that intend to target American citizens," Mr. Obama said.

Echoing Mr. Gates, who is now expected to remain for at least another year at the Pentagon, Mr. Obama said: "As Bob said not too long ago, Afghanistan is where the war on terror began, and it is where it must end."..

Brits also looking more likely to do more:

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff, said that more service personnel could be deployed in Afghanistan as Britain withdraws from Iraq.

But he insisted that the additional force sent to Afghanistan must be smaller than the 4,000 troops that will soon leave Iraq.

Air Chief Marshal Stirrup's remarks, in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute, come as US President-Elect Barack Obama urges a major Western reinforcement in Afghanistan.

Britain currently has 8,100 troops there, compared to 4,000 in Iraq.

The defence chief said the UK was now "close" to a "dramatic" reduction in numbers in Iraq, but insisted that there could be no "one-for-one" transfer from there to Afghanistan. He also repeated calls for Britain's overall foreign commitments to reduce.

But in a shift from previous statements, he added: "I'm not saying that we couldn't or shouldn't do more in Afghanistan if we judge that to be necessary."..

US defence officials are believed to have suggested that the UK should send more than 2,000 more troops to Afghanistan in the New Year, when British generals are due to assume command of Nato forces in southern Afghanistan.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, last week revealed that British ministers are willing to consider Mr Obama's plans. "If there are requests for help, we'll look at them hard," Mr Miliband told the Daily Telegraph.

Air Chief Marshal Stirrup and other Forces chiefs had previously appeared cool about a bigger Afghan force. His comments on Monday night remove any obstacle to more British troops being deployed in the New Year.

Plus some acute observations:

In his lecture, the CDS gave a stark assessment of Nato's work in Afghanistan. "We shouldn't be satisfied with our progress in 2008," he said.

In particular, he said the Taliban are winning on "information operations," successfully spreading propaganda about civilian casualties caused by Nato forces and leaving Afghan civilians frightened and insecure.

He said: "They've beaten us to the punch on numerous occasions, and by doing so they've magnified the sense of difficulty and diminished the sense of progress. This is down in part to their skill, and in part to our own failings [here's a modest CF effort]."

Air Chief Marshal Stirrup also urged politicians and voters to keep a sense of perspective about what can be achieved in Afghanistan.

Referring to Afghanistan as "in many respects a Medieval country," he said the best the West can hope for is to help the country make gradual and modest progress towards security and democracy.

"Terms like winning and victory have no place in the lexicon there," he said.

And note this: