A top US general is calling for more troops in Afghanistan. Could he get them?

General John Nicholson's request to the Senate could turn back former President Barack Obama's slow winding-down of US troop levels.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Gen. John Nicholson, the top US commander in Afghanistan, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017, before the Senate Armed Services Senate Committee. Nicholson said he needs a 'few thousand' more troops to better accomplish a key part of the mission in the war-torn country.

The top commander of US forces in Afghanistan has asked the Senate Armed Services Committee for the deployment of a few thousand additional troops to the country in order to overcome a stalemate in the 16-year-long war.

In a hearing on Thursday, Army Gen. John Nicholson did not give an exact figure for the number of troops necessary but suggested they could come from the United States or its allies in the coalition. He added that he had discussed the question of troop levels with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Joseph Dunford.

President Trump has said little about his intentions regarding Afghanistan. But at the hearing, Nicholson told senators he believed that the Trump administration would be open to adjusting troop levels on a more ad hoc basis, rather than on capping them at a predetermined number.

The general also accused Russia of trying to undermine US efforts, noting that it had also recently invited diplomats from the Taliban, China, Pakistan and other regional neighbors – with the exclusion of the Afghan government – to Moscow for meetings about the future of Afghanistan. He added that Russia had sought to spread a “false narrative” that the Taliban, not the Afghan government, was fighting Islamic terrorist groups. When asked by the Associated Press if evidence existed that suggested Russia was providing support for the Taliban, Nicholson declined to comment, saying he was referring to classified intelligence.

The request returns a spotlight on a war that has largely fallen out of the US public eye, and raises the possibility that the Trump administration could break with former President Barack Obama's gradual winding-down of US involvement in the region and pivot toward greater military involvement there.

Mr. Obama campaigned for president on a pledge to wind down the war and pull out all but a small embassy protection force by the time he left office. But faced with what he described as a “risk of reversal” due to a revived Taliban and unreliable Afghan military and police forces, Obama ended up announcing that he would leave about 5,500 American servicemen there when he left office, as The Christian Science Monitor’s Howard LaFranchi reported back in 2015. And this past July, he changed plans again, ordering a much smaller troop reduction – from 9,800 at the time to 8,400, roughly the present level.

Those decisions drew condemnation from many Democrats – who saw them as stepping stones on a path to endless war without a clear vision of how the US would eventually withdraw – and some Republicans who advocated for the maintenance of a robust US troop presence.

Reaction to Nicholson’s request on Thursday broke down along similar lines, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts highlighting the war’s $13 million-per-day price tag, and Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona backing the request, which he called a “penalty” for Obama’s reluctance to boost troop levels.

"When the general says we're not winning? And the Russians are increasing their influence? And al-Qaida is increasing? We really have no choice," said Senator McCain, according to the Associated Press.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.