Gen. David McKiernan (left) speaks to a group from the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry in Afghanistan.
Despite criticisms of the efficacy of the “surge” in Iraq, a U.S. commander in Afghanistan has dared to say that a planned “surge” in Afghanistan would in fact not help U.S. interests in the country. The commander did make sure not to completely deweaponize the Bush administration’s rhetoric, suggesting instead that a different type of surge is needed.
A troop “surge” is credited with stemming violence in Iraq, but could a similar strategy work in Afghanistan? A top U.S. military commander isn’t counting on it.
In 2007, as part of the surge strategy, President Bush sent roughly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq in an attempt to improve security.
That effort coincided with a drop in violence, and, now that the troops in Iraq are returning to pre-surge levels, the Army is identifying combat units that could go Afghanistan to fill the need for 10,000 additional troops, military officials said.
But a different type of surge is needed in Afghanistan, said Gen. David McKiernan, the top NATO commander there.