Petraeus' OEF strategy

[BLUEHAWK]

Petraeus: Here’s My Afghan Redeployment Strategy

• By Spencer Ackerman
• August 18, 2010 |
• 8:47 am |
• Categories: Af/Pak

KABUL, Afghanistan – General David Petraeus isn’t planning to wake up one morning after July 2011 and order his troops out of Afghanistan’s provinces all at once. Instead, his idea is to slowly and deliberately remove small units, district by district, in an intricate process he describes as “thinning out.”
“You can reduce your forces. But you thin out,” Petraeus tells Danger Room in an interview from his professorial Kabul office. “You don’t just hand over. The whole unit doesn’t leave.”
At least not in the early stages after the Obama administration’s announced date to start a withdrawal. And some of those troops won’t come home right away: They’ll be “reinvested” at first in parts of the country where security remains dicey.
For months, Petraeus has been questioned about how quickly the U.S. will remove its troops from Afghanistan after July 2011. He’s heard lawmakers and pundits parse everything he says for the tiniest iota’s worth of difference with President Obama. It’s “premature” to speculate what will happen eleven months from now, Petraeus says. Once again, he declares support for the Obama policy of beginning a “conditions-based” drawdown next summer.
But for perhaps the first time, Petraeus opens up, just a bit, about his thinking for how to send troops home, and in what size.
A few combat brigades of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops, like those Obama ordered to Afghanistan last winter, may indeed come back to America. But he is maintaining the mantra that withdrawals next year, beyond the 30,000 surge troops, will depend on how the security picture looks. Petraeus says the recommendations will come from “those who know it best” — his subordinate commanders.
Much as Obama will consider Petraeus’ advice, Petraeus will consider theirs. They will assess how much sense it makes to move troops out of certain areas; whether there is still more to achieve in battle; whether Afghan troops and police are ready to hold terrain cleared by Americans.
That focus will “start at the district,” he says, and then progress to the larger provinces. The idea is to ensure that U.S. troops don’t vacate a hard-captured area and abruptly turn it over to unprepared Afghans. “We’ve got a lot of months in this fighting season and a lot of work to do before July 2011,” he adds. “But in the tough areas, it’ll probably be district-level. More autonomous areas, it can be province-level.” (Brigade-sized Task Forces typically handle security in more than one Afghan province.)
Some units pulled out of stable districts might find themselves heading for more volatile ones. “You maybe take one company and send it somewhere else. Maybe send it home,” Petraeus explains. “We want to reinvest some of the transition.” It won’t necessarily be the case that a unit that “thins out” from a district heads directly home. “Some will, certainly,” Petraeus qualifies. “And this is all premature.”
In keeping with Petraeus’ admitted addiction to PowerPoint, the general passes on a briefing slide, titled “Transition,” to explain his thinking. The assessment for drawing down will be built around “Districts, Provinces, Functions [and] Institutions,” looking for what can be handed to Afghans with minimal disruptions in security.
In our interview, the general elaborates that “institutions” means U.S. functions like training the Afghan security forces — jobs that don’t have to remain American duties indefinitely. According to the slide, it’s a process that will draw on what security gains the U.S. command in charge of training Afghan security forces believes the Afghans can maintain; and the Afghan government itself.
Some of Petraeus’ division commanders are already looking toward drawing down their forces. In a separate interview with Danger Room, Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan, says that he’s considering turning over relatively secure provinces like Parwan, Panjshir and Bamiyan to the Afghans by the time his tour ends next summer.
But volatile areas aren’t off limits for possible troop reductions. Campbell says he’s taking a hard look at districts in the violent border province of Kunar that he might consider leaving, including the Pech Valley, where U.S. troops find themselves in a tough, mountainous battle. Campbell says that the provincial capital of Asadabad will need U.S. troops to secure it. But other parts of Kunar might bring the U.S. little but a violent fate, making it questionable to stay.
Campbell says he’ll review “the task and purpose” of what his troops are doing as he looks toward reducing their numbers in the east, asking if it “complement[s] the campaign strategy.”
That’s Petraeus’ focus, too. He’s got a lot to produce, both before and after July 2011: development of a competent Afghan security force. Protecting Afghan civilians from rising violence. Rolling back the insurgency’s momentum. Bolstering effective, transparent and legitimate Afghan governance. And balancing the need to prosecute the war with the U.S.’ disinterest in prolonging the longest war in its history.
It may be “premature” to speculate on what the U.S. troop presence will look like after the “conditions-based” drawdown begins next year. But Petraeus has formed the concepts to guide what he recommends to Obama about how fast U.S. troops should actually come home.
Editor’s note: Spencer Ackerman’s complete interview with Petraeus will be available online shortly.
Photo: Spc. Albert Kelley / CJTF-82



Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...#ixzz0xALReZJn