Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen wants to increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 30,000 next summer. One wonders where these troops are supposed to come from given that Mullen and other generals are trying to sabotage Obama's plan of retreat there. As the British leave, some troops will now also be needed to cover Basra.
Following their masters, the Brits also plan a troop increase in Afghanistan. This time by 3,000. They may be able to so because the Iraqi parliament just denied them a stay in Iraq beyond January 1.
Not everyone seems to be on board though:
U.S. military officers, speaking privately, concede that the bleak
outlook in Afghanistan will probably prompt a scaling back of US goals
for the country. There is widespread belief in national security
circles that the Bush Administration’s goals for Afghanistan were too
ambitious. Whether new boots on the ground will bring anything other
than short term tactical gains is the big question to which few in
Washington have an answer.
But when in Afghanistan, how will those troops get supplies?
The road war in Pakistan continues. Another convoy of NATO/U.S. supplies was attacked yesterday and three drivers were killed. Additionally:
On Thursday, more than 10,000 protesters in Peshawar demanded Pakistan prevent Western use of the supply route to Afghanistan, saying the equipment transported was being used for attacks on Pakistani soil.
The U.S. will increase the bribe/protection money it is paying the Pakistani military:
The United States will provide more than $300 million a year in military aid to Pakistan over the next five years, diplomatic sources told Dawn.
…
[Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell]said the proposal for new assistance for to Pakistan has come from
the Central Command and is at early stages. The proposed funding is in
addition to existing programmes, including the coalition support fund
and foreign military financing.
This may induce the Pakistani military to do more for convoy protection near the Khyber pass. But that would only move the problem down south to the port of Karachi where the convoys start and where a sizable Pashtun refugee population lives.
NATO is negotiating with Russia over opening a new supply route through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The U.S. plans a different route through Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. There might well be additional ideas behind this plan:
Another dramatic fallout is that the proposed land route covering Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan can also be easily converted into an energy corridor and become a Caspian oil and gas corridor bypassing Russia. Such a corridor has been a long-cherished dream for Washington. Furthermore, European countries will feel the imperative to agree to the US demand that the transit countries for the energy corridor are granted NATO protection in one form or the other. That, in turn, leads to NATO's expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia.
I doubt that the effort will succeed. Russia will have a say in this no matter how much bribes the U.S. is willing to pay the dictators of those countries.