The Iraq surge and Afghanistan

David Wood, in an excellent article yesterday for the Baltimore Sun, notes that "President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars." He reports that "already a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq."

The article manages some fresh insights on the (well-tread) question of troop levels, and is well worth a read. There are legitimate arguments both ways as to whether more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan, but one thing is certain: these decisions should be made by the Pentagon and the commanders in the field--not dictated by developments in Iraq. The dubious "surge" strategy in Iraq threatens to do just that.

Afghan war needs troops
KABUL, Jan 7 (Baltimore Sun) By David Wood: Radical Islamist Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the U.S. military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against U.S. troops and undermanned NATO forces, prompting American commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions...

Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps...said U.S. commanders understand that the Afghan war is an "economy of force" operation, a military term for a mission that is given minimal resources because it is a secondary priority, in this case behind Iraq.

Nevertheless, Conway said, he favored dispatching a Marine battalion here, a decision that must be approved by the new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and by the president. "It has to be made pretty soon," Conway said. "We can't jerk the troops around and say, 'Hey, oh, by the way, you're going to Afghanistan in February.'"