Doubts about more troops in Afghanistan

(Is Iraq taking resources from Afghanistan?) Yes, Iraq is eating up all the units of the US military. There is a drain of resources that comes from the Iraq War, but I wouldn't associate that with conflicts in Afghanistan or other places. (Why not?) The argument of Iraq vs. Afghanistan is not what I hear from people in the Pentagon. They're talking about a longer campaign and soft power and there's only so much the US military can do. And also when the US focuses more on counterinsurgency, it breeds more terrorists. (When you talk about dealing with counterinsurgency, hasn't the surge in Iraq produced results and a surge in Afghanistan could do the same?) I think Iraq and Afghanistan are not synonymous and the surge in Iraq has only been militarily successful, the jury is out on politics. The sanctuary inside Pakistan will always affect the situation in Afghanistan and a surge can't change that. Iraq is an urban war, and Afghanistan is not that at all. So the problem in Afghanistan is not a military one, it's about some problems between NATO members, the sanctuary in Pakistan, and finally there is a problem with the pace with which the Afghan government is developing security forces. (What is needed in Afghanistan then?) Mainly an effort to ensure the US can hold its gains and I don't think that's going to be achieved by a surge. It needs to use capabilities on the ground and resources there and intelligence.

Comments