Military Chief Suggests Need to Enlarge U.S. Afghan Force

NEW YORK TIMES September 16, 2009
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.