Brigade’s Deployment Changed to Afghanistan from Iraq-Nam

The 173rd Airborne Brigade, based in Vicenza, Italy, was supposed to deploy to Iraq-Nam as part of the normal rotation of troops. Earlier this week, in response to a request from the commander in the field, the 173rd is going to Afghanistan. This will keep America’s strength in the country at 27,000, the highest it’s ever been. Other troops will be found to take the brigade’s place in Iraq. It’s a case of redeploying Peter to replace Paul.

The war in Afghanistan, which has been a legitimate cause from the beginning and in which diplomacy truly had failed, has largely been forgotten thanks to the Mess in Mesopotamia. Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry led the fight against the Taliban, which has reestablished itself in the mountainous southern part of the country, and he requested more troops when Defense Secretary Gates visited him in December. The General had already extended the 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division’s stay in Afghanistan by 120 days while another unit was found to replace it. The lucky 173rd got the call.

The escalation, or “surge” if one prefers, in Iraq does not occur in a vacuum, and this is something that the Bush administration has failed to realize. There is not an infinite supply of personnel. As with any valuable resource, the best results occur when those resources are employed where they can achieve something. It is almost a tautology. Afghanistan is not being won, but there may yet be a chance to win it. By win, one means establishing the writ of the Karzai government beyond the suburbs of Kabul. To win, it is necessary to maintain current troop levels.

The situation of the 173rd Brigade illustrates one of the reasons that a rapid withdrawal from Iraq-Nam is necessary. Iraq-Nam may or may not be a significant factor in the overall security picture of the United States; honest people can differ over how important it is. What cannot be disputed is that Iraq-Nam is not the entire US security picture. Other places and other concerns do enter into the overall situation.

The war in Iraq-Nam has been lost and the question now has become whether the US will continue to waste resources in a failing effort. Alternatively, it can redeploy those resources into an area where success may remain in the realm of the possible. Or in simpler terms, is it worse to lose Iraq-Nam and win Afghanistan or to lose them both while trying to look resolute?

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home