readers' comments

Military Chief Suggests Need to Enlarge

U.S. Afghan ForceBack to Article »
By THOM SHANKER

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told Congress that success
would also require much more time, a position challenged by a Democrat.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/asia/16mulle
n.html?sort=oldest&offset=12

280.
Prof Slobodan Lang, MD, FRCH
Zagreb, Croatia
September 16th, 2009
8:02 am
In contemporary wars neglected area is humanitarian knowledge. After every war weapons
are strengthened, diplomatic meetings and courts held – but there is no analysis of the
consequences of the existing rules and practices in humanitarian work. There is no study of
the real life consequences for people. This includes Iraq, Afghanistan and modern wars in
general. This is wrong, leads to human suffering, war crimes, new conflicts and long term
differences. Stop it. Introduce in Afghanistan humanitarian conference to evaluate and present
its findings to the President and people. After the war such a conference should be
international under International Committee of the Red Cross, Nobel Peace Committee or
United Nations. Shaw courage for goodness.
Recommended by 1 Reader

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can
order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here
or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for
samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

September 16, 2009

Military Chief Suggests Need to Enlarge

U.S. Afghan Force
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military officer pushed back Tuesday against Democrats
who oppose sending additional combat troops to Afghanistan, telling Congress that success
would probably require more fighting forces, and certainly much more time.

That assessment by the officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
stopped short of an explicit request for more troops. But it signals that the military intends to
have a public voice in the evolving debate as many Democrats express reluctance to expand
the war and President Obama weighs options.

Admiral Mullen, called before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify for his
nomination to serve a second term as chairman, said that no specific request for more troops
had yet been received from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior American and NATO
commander in Afghanistan.

“But I do believe that — having heard his views and having great confidence in his leadership
— a properly resourced counterinsurgency 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,” Admiral Mullen said.

Admiral Mullen’s comments were his most specific to date in a public setting on whether
more troops would have to be sent to Afghanistan.

The debate will probably be affected by the mounting political uncertainty in Afghanistan.
Election officials said one out of every seven ballots cast in the presidential election last
month would be examined as part of a huge recount and fraud audit.

A range of officials have said that the White House hopes to have at least several weeks
before having to deal with any request for more forces for Afghanistan — and the political
implications of such a request here at home. But Tuesday’s debate on Capitol Hill, which
framed the arguments for how to shape the mission, indicates that the sweeping public
discussion is already under way.

The military’s counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan is focused on protecting the population

and preventing the Taliban from destabilizing the country.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has not yet decided whether to support a request from
commanders in Kabul for more troops, should it be made. A group of about 4,000 trainers is
scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by November, bringing the American troop level there to
68,000.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday that Mr. Gates’s initial opposition
to expanding the American “footprint” in Afghanistan had at least been softened.

Previously, Mr. Gates expressed apprehension over a force so sizable that Afghans would
view the Americans as occupiers. Now, Mr. Morrell said, the defense secretary was taking to
heart General McChrystal’s “explanation that it’s not so much the size of the force, but the
behavior of the force that determines whether or not it is accepted by the Afghan people.”
During Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl
Levin of Michigan, the committee’s chairman, laid out the emerging position of
Congressional Democrats by insisting that accelerated efforts to train and equip Afghan
security forces should precede any deployment of American troops beyond those already
committed by the Obama administration. Mr. Levin’s stance is expected to have great sway
because he is the committee’s chairman and the most powerful Democrat in Congress on
military matters. Many House Democrats also oppose sending more troops.

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, countered by
asserting that more troops were “vitally needed” in Afghanistan and that any delay in ordering
more combat forces to the fight would put American lives at risk.

Admiral Mullen acknowledged the importance of the training effort advocated by Mr. Levin,
but said that such a mission could not quickly provide the level of security required by the
new counterinsurgency strategy.

“I share your view that larger and more capable Afghan national security forces remain vital
to that nation’s viability,” Admiral Mullen said. “We must rapidly build the Afghan Army and
police.”

But he also said that “sending more trainers more quickly may give us a jump start, but only
that.”

“Quality training takes time and patience,” he continued. “Private trust by the Afghans — so
vital to our purpose — is not fostered in a public hurry.”

Mr. Levin, who met with commanders and troops in Afghanistan during Congress’s Labor
Day recess, said that training Afghan Army and police units “would demonstrate our
commitment to the success of a mission that is in our national security interest, while avoiding
the risks associated with a larger U.S. footprint.”

And he said that “these steps should be urgently implemented before we consider a further
increase in U.S. ground combat troops, beyond what is already planned to be deployed by the
end of the year.”

Mr. Levin said new goals should be established for Afghan security forces. The army, he said,
should grow to 250,000 troops by the end of 2012, and the police to 160,000 officers by that
date. The current targets are 134,000 army troops and 96,000 police officers by the end of
next year.

Mr. McCain staked out an opposing view. He recalled that initial attempts in Iraq to shift the
security burden to local forces from American forces were a colossal failure. “I’ve seen that
movie before,” he said.

“I’ve been encouraged over the past year by the statements and actions of the president and
the unequivocal priority he has placed on achieving success in Afghanistan,” Mr. McCain
said. “The president’s approval of increases in troop strength was needed then, and I believe
even more necessary now.”
Other members of the committee said the civilian agencies of the United States government
needed to accelerate their assistance for rebuilding Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama said Monday that the public should “not expect a sudden announcement of some
huge change in strategy,” and he pledged that the issue was “going to be amply debated, not
just in Congress, but across the country before we make any further decisions.”

During a news conference, Mr. Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, also pointed out a
contradiction in the argument of those who support trainers but not more combat troops,
because mentoring by American trainers includes joining local forces when they go out on
combat missions.