Afstan: Gates groks the importance of the second surge.../Update: Maybe 35,000 total?/Upperdate: But smaller ANA

...and the perils of evacuating prematurely (Uppestdate below--note buildup slippage). From the text of his testimony to the US Senate's Armed Services Committee, Dec. 2:

While Al Qaeda is under great pressure now and dependent on the Taliban and other extremist groups for sustainment, the success of the Taliban would vastly strengthen Al Qaeda’s message to the Muslim world: that violent extremists are on the winning side of history. Put simply, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have become symbiotic, each benefiting from the success and mythology of the other. Al Qaeda leaders have stated this explicitly and repeatedly.

Taliban success in re-taking and holding parts of Afghanistan against the combined forces of multiple, modern armies — the current direction of events — has dramatically strengthened the extremist mythology and popular perceptions of who is winning and who is losing. The lesson of the Taliban’s revival for Al Qaeda is that time and will are on their side. That, with a Western defeat, they could regain their strength and achieve a major strategic victory — as long as their senior leadership lives and can continue to inspire and attract followers and funding. Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of Al Qaeda...

Consequences of Failure

Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war. Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for Al Qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan.

Success in South and Central Asia by Islamic extremists — as was the case twenty years ago — would beget success on other fronts. It would strengthen the Al Qaeda narrative, providing renewed opportunities for recruitment, fund-raising, and more sophisticated operations. Aided by the Internet, many more followers could join their ranks, both in the region and in susceptible populations across the globe...

As the president announced, the United States will commit an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan for an extended surge of 18 to 24 months. These forces — the U.S. contribution to this fight — will be deployed and concentrated in the southern [emphasis added] and eastern parts of the country. The first of these forces will begin to arrive in Afghanistan within 2-3 weeks.

In all, since taking office President Obama has committed nearly 52,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for a total U.S. force of approximately 100,000...

The Secretary of Defence clearly understands the importance of this: Osama bin Laden, November, 2001: "...when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse..."

As for the first troops in, they will be Marines (via GAP, see also this post):

President Obama's Afghan surge of 30,000 additional U.S. troops will include an immediate infusion of California-based Marines, with the first elements set to be on the ground in southern Afghanistan around Christmas.

The Leathernecks will bolster a force of about 8,000 Marines who deployed to the region in July to knock back Taliban gains in Helmand and Kandahar provinces where insurgents linked to Mullah Mohammed Omar threaten Afghanistan's second largest city.

"The first troops out of the door are going to be Marines," said Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway, according to the Washington Post. "We've been leaning forward in anticipation of a decision. And we've got some pretty stiff fighting coming."

Sources also tell Military.com that the Army will likely send three additional Infantry Brigade Combat Teams [emphasis added, see below], or about 9,000 more combat forces and 5,000 support troops -- including police and military trainers, bomb squads and engineers -- as well as around 7,000 headquarters staffers to manage the war more effectively...

Sources say the additional Marines will likely come from 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade [no official website at this time] based in Camp Pendleton, Calif.

While Army officials won't say on the record what units are included in the Obama surge, recent history in Iraq gives an indication of how the service might carry out the new plan - a combination of truncated turnaround schedules, redirections, and extended deployments. Army documents provided to Military.com show several infantry brigade combat teams that have more than a year back home that could be part of an escalation, including the 2nd IBCT of the 82nd Airborne, the 1st IBCT [no official website at this time] of the 10th Mountain Division and nearly all of the 101st Airborne Division...

The president's long-awaited troop increase had been envisioned to take place over a year, or even more, because force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make it logistically difficult, if not impossible, to go faster. But Obama directed his military planners to make the changes necessary to hasten the Afghanistan additions, said the official, who declined to be publicly identified because the formal announcement of details was still pending...

So the surge is indeed serious; as I wrote earlier:

...If, besides the Marines, President Obama plans to dispatch fewer than three Army BCTs with a combat focus (such a new overall commitment would amount to almost doubling current US ground combat strength) then I think it will be an indication that he is not really interested in making a success of Gen. McChrystal's COIN strategy. Take another look at this post, it's about a middle-ground choice...

As for premature evacuation:

...
The testiest exchanges took place over the question of when, and under what conditions, U.S. troops -- which will total about 100,000 with the new deployments -- will begin to leave.

Levin cited "some confusion" about the president's pledge to begin drawing down U.S. forces in July 2011, asking whether it was "conditions-based or not."

"No, sir," Gates replied without elaboration.

But Gates and the others began to hedge when Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) -- who was among the many Republicans who applauded what they called Obama's troop "surge" -- returned to the withdrawal question. Obama had made "two incompatible statements" on the subject, McCain said. "You either have a winning strategy . . . and then once it's succeeded, then we withdraw . . . or, as the president said, we will have a date beginning withdrawal of July 2011. Which is it? . . . You can't have both."

Gates said the administration has scheduled "a thorough review" of its strategy for next December and will "take a hard look" at its withdrawal plans "if it appears the strategy's not working."..

Update: This is interesting:

President Obama has authorized Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to deploy several thousand additional troops, as needed, beyond the 30,000 that Obama on Tuesday said he would send to Afghanistan, according to a Pentagon official.

Gates can increase the number by 10 percent, or 3,000 troops, without additional White House approval or announcement, the official said, adding that "this authority is designed to give him the flexibility to better manage the force and provide the commander with additional resources."

A senior military official said that the final number could go as high as 35,000 to allow for additional support personnel such as engineers, medevac units and route-clearance teams, which comb roads for bombs...

Upperdate: Also interesting:

...Gen. McChrystal wanted to increase the Afghan army to 240,000 troops over the next few years. Mr. Obama set a more limited goal of 130,000 by late next year. This does represent a scaling-down of nation-building, and, while risky, it may be sensible. A massive increase in the Army presents daunting obstacles, including finding sufficient literate recruits and reversing what is now an abysmal retention rate. A large national army also would require a strong and capable Afghan government to command it, and a permanent foreign subsidy. The new plan will give the administration flexibility to explore other ways to foster Afghan-led security, such as local or tribal militias...

Uppestdate: Secretary Gates clarifies ("inexorable"? oh dear)--and note the buildup slippage:

Gates: 'No deadlines' on troop withdrawal
Afghanistan drawdown could take 2 to 3 years, defense secretary says

...
The Pentagon, meanwhile, quietly acknowledged slippage on the front end of the 30,000-troop deployment that President Obama authorized for the first half of 2010.

"They are not all going to be there in six months," a senior military official said. The current thinking, the official said, is that the Pentagon will be able to push about 20,000 to 25,000 troops into the country by late summer, but that the final brigade -- about 5,000 troops -- will probably not arrive until early fall...

"July 2011, the time at which the president said the United States will begin to draw down our forces, will be the beginning of a process," Gates said. "But the pace and character of that drawdown, which districts and provinces are turned over and when, will be determined by conditions on the ground. It will be a gradual but inexorable process."..

And of course by December 2010 Mr Gates will probably no longer be defense secretary.