Troop Surge in Afghanistan

Since 2001 there has been coalition troops in Afghanistan and since 2006 the British Army has been fighting a fierce War against the Taliban in the countries notorious Helmand Province. Should these extra combat troops been sent much sooner? My answer is a simple yes they should. Since 2006 the security situation in Afghanistan has become increasingly worse. The Taliban are now even able to strike at the heart of the country in the capital Kabul. So President Obama has seen that Afghanistan is of major importance in the War on Terror and has announced a troop surge, but is 17,000 troops enough. I would suggest it is no where near enough.

Afghanistan is a large country with an area of 251,772  square miles. A country this size needs alot more troops than an extra 17,000 to bring about stability. In total there are around 70,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. Compare that to the number of coalition troops sent to Iraq in 1991 in the first Gulf War which totalled 959,600. In order for Afghansitan to become stable a massive influx of coalition troops is needed. In order for a country to be subdued massive force is needed in order to guard major cities, trade links and lock down the borders. The coalition has total airspace control but it not control of the ground. As is seen with the British in the south, they hold the ground where they are present but in other areas due to a lack of troops the Taliban roam freely.

The Politicians of the Coalition nations need to understand that you can’t go about things half hearted and expect results. There needs to be a massive increase in troop levels of around 10 times what is already on the ground and the committment needs to be long term. The War in Afgahnistan will go on forever unless troop levels are massively increased. Obamas 17,000 troops are a much welcomed gesture but much more is needed from him other coaliton leaders if the Taliban are to be defeated.