Setanta wrote:We need a large troop commitment in Afghanistan precisely because the nation is devastated after forty years of nearly continuous civil war and invasion. Without adequate security provision, the killing of foreign contractors on construction projects, now a commonplace, will continue. To put paid to the Taliban and Al Qaeda will require more than the cosmetic commitment we've made to date.
To understand why we can't/don't commit any more troops to the Afghan area, you have to understand a the most important key in all military operations....
LOGISTICS[/u] We can't support a huge influx of troops in Afghanistan because the amount of supplies that would be needed to support that number of troops simply
can't be moved into that country in a reliable fashion. The old military maxim stands true:
"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Since Afghanistan is a landlocked country with a poor (at best) road network, almost everything that our troops in 'stan need has to be flown in (we dont have the advantage of a common border with them as the Soviet Union had and even they couldn't keep their troops supplied well enough)
Our ground forces commander in 'stan has as many troops, vehicles and aircraft (fixed and rotary) in country that he can currently support. To throw more troops into that country would tax both the Air Forces ability to fly sufficient supplies in and the Armys ability to move those supplies to the units that need them.
If you are going to comment on military matters, please have the foresight to do a little research on your topic so that you understand the military realities of a situation.