"On Forsberg's first draft of Kandahar history"/Helmand Update

BruceR. at Flit today:

A comprehensive review [do read it!] of available open-source reporting of the fight in Kandahar Province, by Carl Forsberg. It's definitely worth a war-follower's time. His summary of my own roto's achievement in 2008-09 regrettably does ring rather true:

ISAF operations in late 2008 and early 2009 did not have lasting effects on the enemy system in Kandahar...

Update: A useful review of Forsberg's piece by the CBC's Brian Stewart:

A U.S. think tank takes a hard look at our war effort
...
According to the report, the big blunder of the war in the south was to leave the under-resourced Canadians to hold Kandahar, the true axis of the battle in the region, while focusing on the struggle in Helmand, a mistake blamed on McChrystal's predecessor, who was fired abruptly earlier this year...

I've been wondering about Helmand. From one recent post:

...This sort of intense ground combat, involving the Brits too, against Taliban forces that stand and fight seems much more prevalent in Helmand compared to Kandahar province. Perhaps a reason Helmand will get the first major reinforcements--more Marines--of the second US surge...

From another:

...one wonders whether the evident immediate focus on Helmand (fairly soon it would seem there will be some 30,000 ISAF forces in the province, roughly double those now at Kandahar) reflects real and urgent COIN requirements--as opposed to just being the simplest thing to do first, Marines being "expeditionary"-organized and all that. 'Twould be a pity if Helmand were made better whilst the more important province, I should think, Kandahar got significantly worse.

So what has the new ISAF commander changed in terms of priorities between Helmand and Kandahar?

An additional US Army brigade combat team will be arriving at Kandahar between March-May next year.