With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Max Boot: Historian Fred Kagan says we need 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan

[Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author, most recently, of"War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today" (Gotham, 2006).]

The dynamic duo of Fred and Kim Kagan have just released a typically cogent and persuasive study of troop requirements in Afghanistan. The entire 46-slide PowerPoint presentation is well worth reading. In it they analyze the size of the population in southern and eastern Afghanistan—the key areas in which the Taliban are on the march—and compare them with the levels of existing Afghan and international forces.

One of the key points they make is that even nominal troop figures understate on-the-ground strength because so many troops are diverted for support functions. Thus the Afghan National Army may have a nominal strength of 103,475, but only 53,417 soldiers are assigned to kandaks (battalions). As for the U.S. force, they estimate that out of 64,000 total, only 23,300 soldiers are actually on the ground doing counterinsurgency, compared with 105,000 in Iraq at the height of the surge. Our allies add another 16,000 counterinsurgents, but that still leaves us well short of the numbers needed to control vital terrain if we estimate a force ratio of one counterinsurgent per 50 civilians. The ultimate answer is to grow the Afghan National Security Forces, but that’s a long-term process. In the meantime, the Kagans estimate that we need 40,000 to 45,000 more troops in Afghanistan, and we need them urgently...

Read entire article at Commentary Magazine (blog)