US military realism/pessimism about Afstan

Not exactly rose-tinted glasses (as for Canadian realism, see second part of this post):

AP:

...

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is completing an assessment of what he needs to win the fight there. That review, however, won't specifically address force levels, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But military officials privately believe Gen. McChrystal may ask for as many as 20,000 additional forces to get an increasingly difficult security situation in Afghanistan under control. One leading Republican already is saying Gen. McChrystal will be pressured to ask for fewer troops than he requires.

"I think there are great pressures on General McChrystal to reduce those estimates," Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said in an interview broadcast Sunday. "I don't think it's necessarily from the president. I think it's from the people around him and others that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

Adm. Mullen on Sunday described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating," he but refused to say whether additional forces would be needed [video here].

"Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of (the) Taliban and extremists taking over again [emphasis added], and I don't think that threat's going to go away," he said.

Adm. Mullen also expressed concern about diminishing support among a war-weary American public as the United States and NATO enter the ninth year of combat and reconstruction operations...

Adm. Mullen said the security situation in Afghanistan needs to be reversed in the next 12 to 18 months [emphasis added]...

LA Times:

...
Although American attention has focused primarily on the fight in southern Afghanistan, many senior U.S. military officials have come to the view that they need to step up the fight against Jalaluddin Haqqani and other insurgent leaders in mountainous eastern Afghanistan [emphasis added]. They believe that a greater U.S. push there, combined with pressure from Pakistani troops on the other side of the border, could grind down the groups, several of which range between the two Asian nations.

Some military officials believe Haqqani has suffered setbacks because of Pakistani army pressure and is at a vulnerable moment.

"In the east we have an opportunity," said an advisor to the U.S. command. "The Pakistanis have done damage to the Haqqani network."

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of forces in the east, told reporters traveling with U.S. envoy Richard C. Holbrooke on Sunday that Haqqani "is the central threat" in the east and that "he's expanded that reach."

Commanders with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said Haqqani, who formerly centered his attacks in Afghanistan's Khowst province, has been advancing farther afield, including as far south as southern Paktika province...

NY Times:

...
Mr. Holbrooke [US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan] visited regional command centers in Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif and Bagram on Saturday and Sunday. Speaking to Afghan reporters at the NATO base in Mazar-i-Sharif, Mr. Holbrooke said that part of the new strategy would include reaching out to members of the Taliban [emphasis added] who show a willingness to lay down their arms. Many Taliban fighters, Mr. Holbrooke said, “fight because they’re misguided, or because they want a job.”

“Anyone who renounces Al Qaeda and comes back to work peacefully in the Afghan system,” he continued, “will be welcome.”...

Meanwhile, Globeite Paul Koring in Washington commits a clanger:

...
Thousands of U.S. Marines are currently being sent to Kandahar along with neighbouring Helmand province...

It's actually the US Army arriving in force at Kandahar, Mr Koring.