Going Too Big With the Afghan Army

I think the question of whether or not to send more U.S. forces to Afghanistan has perhaps gotten more attention than it deserves relative to other questions in play regarding our conduct in that region. One such question is what appears to be a trend toward more and more airstrikes in Pakistan, even as everyone acknowledges that this is not a sustainable solution. Another is this business about trying to give Afghanistan a 400,000-strong army.

Andrew Exum notes that “a massive security apparatus of 400,000 men might be more than the Afghan economy can sustain over the long term.” And indeed it might. Our Army has about 540,000 active duty soldiers for a much richer country with many more people and worldwide ambitions. Admittedly, we also have reservists and an Air Force and Marines and Navy and other branches. But still, a 400,000-strong army would be enormous army for a country like Afghanistan and the budget being proposed to train and equip it is larger than the entire budget budget of the Afghan government.

It’s hard to know how this ends. You demobilize and they become warlord bands? You keep them in place, by far the most powerful institution in Afghanistan and dependent on the U.S. taxpayer for their budget, thus securing us a little colony in the central Asian mountains?