The Globe and Mail's astounding ignorance concerning US forces at Kandahar

A letter sent to the Globe and Mail but not published:

Lots of US troops already at Kandahar‏

Your editorial "Make this summit about Afghanistan" (Sept. 15) advises Prime Minister Harper to urge President Obama to "support Canadians on the ground in Kandahar" and states that our forces "need support from the Americans".

But Canadians are already receiving very substantial military backing from Americans at Kandahar, which seems to have escaped the editorial's notice. For over a year a U.S. Army battalion has been part of the Canadian Forces' Task Force Kandahar. That battalion actually constitutes about one half the Task Force's ground combat strength. Since this spring a U.S. Army combat aviation brigade has been based at Kandahar Air Field; it is giving our soldiers extensive aerial support (both the battalion and brigade were ordered deployed by former President Bush). And a U.S. Army brigade combat team, deployed by President Obama, has been operational at Kandahar for over a month. That brigade has two battalions in the field in the province.

So there are already three U.S. Army battalions fighting alongside the Canadian Forces. Moreover, there are also substantial elements of two more U.S. Army brigades in the province helping train the Afghan security forces, including a battalion of military police that will work in Kandahar City under Canadian command. All in all the Americans probabaly have at least four times as many forces at Kandahar as we do. Very handsome, and welcome, support indeed.

What the prime minister might in fact usefully do is urge President Obama to send even more troops to the province, something the American military themselves may well suggest. But, seeing as Canada is committed to cease combat in 2011, Mr Harper is in a rather weak position to be a demandeur.

References:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/that-us-army-battalion-for-kandahar-has.html
http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/fs-fr/jtfa-foia-eng.asp#e
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/canada-hands-off-part-of-kandahar.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-and-training-afghan-police-in.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-really-taking-lead-in-kandahar-city.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302950.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009091302958

A Globeite reporter is no better, see end of this post.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Harper is well aware, and the US is considering even more troops for Afstan (via Norman's Spectator--good he's back and striking how little play this CP story got):

U.S. on right track by boosting troop ranks in Afghanistan: Harper

The United States is on the correct course by bolstering its military presence in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday on the eve of his White House meeting with President Barack Obama.

"They're putting an enormous amount of additional resources and troops into that theatre and I think that's important," Harper said in an interview with CTV.

"I welcome President Obama's re-engagement in Afghanistan."..

On Tuesday, America's top military officer called for more U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, saying they're necessary to deal with an increasingly hostile and sophisticated enemy.

His comments came amid growing concerns in Congress about escalating America's military presence in the country, with some fearing it could shape up to be Obama's Vietnam.

"I believe that ... a properly resourced counter-insurgency probably means more forces, and - without question - more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance," Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel.

The administration is waiting to hear from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, who's reviewing the Afghan situation. He's expected to ask for more troops, as is Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who has expressed concerns about the growing threat posed to U.S. soldiers by roadside bombs...

Harper said additional U.S. troops have been a godsend to Canadians who have been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years.

"They're putting a lot of them where we are in the south, and in Kandahar, in a way that is very helpful and very much in partnership with Canada. So we're very appreciative of that."

But he echoed what Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, said last week. Levin returned from a recent trip to Afghanistan and urged the U.S. to bolster the country's army and police ranks to help ease the burden on American forces.

"I do think it's important that, longer term, our objective be to make sure Afghanistan can take responsibility for its own security," Harper said...

Update: Norman Spector on the PM's visit:

...
Mr. Harper...has welcomed President Obama’s decision to send additional U.S. troops to Kandahar. In his private meetings and media interviews, the Prime Minister should expect to be questioned on whether he agrees with Congressional Democrats or with Admiral Mullen — and the Republican opposition — on the need for still more troops.

With U.S. domestic opposition to the war mounting, particularly in his own party, President Obama is reflecting on his position. And, while both he and Congressional leaders are no doubt grateful for Canadian sacrifices, they will be more interested in what Canada can do for them in the future.

In that sense, for the United States, Canada is now part of the Afghanistan problem. If we withdraw our combat troops in 2011, it could start a chain reaction among the NATO allies. And would make it more likely that the United States would have to supply any additional troops itself.

My guess is that Canada will eventually offer to help train Afghan forces after 2011 — and after the next federal election [emphasis added, see this post about the increasing urgency to make a decsion], whoever wins it. But, since the line between actual combat and training is blurry, Canadians should be under no illusions that this would mean an end to our involvement in the war, or an end to casualties.

One hopes the guess is acute. And we could do more than training in ways that could be acceptable to the two major parties, quite a few pundits, and to much of the public.