Simon Shercliff

More troops to Afghanistan?

Since the then candidate Obama (much earlier this year) pledged more US troops to help resolve the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, many people have joined that bandwagon. Sounds reasonable: the way to deal with more violence under any circumstances is often by having a greater security presence, and one thing that everyone can agree on about Afghanistan right now is that the security situation is not good, and trending in the wrong direction. Secretary Gates and others have now outlined US plans for up to three more combat battalions deploying to Afghanistan next year, so the intent (clearly shared by the current Administration - Gates still works for President Bush) is becoming real. There has been plenty of speculation in the international media and blogosphere about the UK sending significantly more troops to Afghanistan as we wind down our presence in Iraq during 2009. For us, this speculation remains just that: no final decisions have been taken on major troop uplifts. But we have, however, deployed 300 troops of the Theatre Reserve to Afghanistan between now and August 2009 (as annoucend by the Prime Minister today).

But my conversations around Washington over the last few weeks on the future of Afghanistan policy have gone much deeper than pure troop numbers. Our militaries, fantastically brave and resilient as they are, can only march forward towards success if they are part of a more comprehensive effort. These extra military deployments are being discussed within that context: more civilians; better targetted and coordinated development projects; and above all an Afghan government leading its people in a credible fashion. No one would claim to have found the silver bullet. But there is a definite consensus emerging on the major principle: Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means alone.

Posted at 16:32 16 December 2008 by Simon Shercliff  |  Comments[3]