由 xu 透過 Google 閱讀器傳送給您：
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, taking his seat
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
comments (293)Sign In to E-Mail Print Reprints ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy THOM SHANKER
Published: September 15, 2009
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.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic
An Increasing Commitment
The Takeaway With Thom Shanker
Related
Many Allies of U.S. Share Pain of Afghan War's Toll (September 16, 2009)
Times Topics: Afghanistan | Michael G. MullenReaders' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »Read All Comments (293) »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.
您可以在這裡操作的事項：
- 使用 Google 閱讀器訂閱 Blogspot RSS Feed
- 開始使用 Google 閱讀器，輕鬆掌握所有您最愛網站的最新資訊