McChrystal Wanted 50,000 More Troops

CBS News is reporting that General mcChrystal's original number for an Afghan troop surge was 50,000 not the 40,000 he has now settled on.

Given the magnitude of performing a wide ranging counter-insurgency/nation building campaign in Afghanistan, I think even 50,000 is far too low, particularly if the quality of Afghan forces is spotty.

The bigger question, as always, is what's the point? I think Stephen Walt frames the problem correctly:

Imagine that the situation in Afghanistan were exactly what it is today -- a corrupt government in Kabul with dubious legitimacy, the Taliban gaining strength, al Qaeda's leaders still hiding out in northwest Pakistan, etc. -- except that the U.S. military wasn't there. And then ask yourself: would you be in favor of sending 100,000 or so American soldiers to fight and die there?

My views on this subject are clear, so feel free to discount what follows. But I doubt we would be having a serious debate about sending a large number of troops to Afghanistan if we weren't there already. Instead, we would be treating Afghanistan the same way we treat most failed states. We'd express our concern, offer modest amounts of humanitarian assistance, we'd let the U.N. do its best, and if we thought al Qaeda was operating there, we'd go after them with special forces and Predators or other military assets. Just look at how we are currently dealing with Somalia or Yemen or Sudan and you get an idea of how we would be dealing with Afghanistan if were we not there already.

I'm very leery of Vietnam analogies, but I think there's a similar dynamic at work insofar as America's material resources and strength are being put on the line for a series of intangibles - denying al Qaeda a public relations win, preserving America's prestige, etc. Yes, there is a security threat on the table, but the existence of that threat does not lead in a straight line to 100,000-plus troops occupying Afghanistan indefinitely.

(AP Photos)