WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's emphasis on the war in Afghanistan, including an influx of additional troops, has exposed weaknesses in U.S. military planning that top officers are scrambling to address.
The U.S. military command structure in Afghanistan was designed for a much smaller force. But with the increase ordered by President Obama, the number of U.S. troops will rise to 60,000 by the end of summer and is expected to reach 68,000; NATO troops are increasing to 35,000. The U.S.-led force needs a larger headquarters operation, military officials and experts said.
Some officials favor assigning a second commanding general with a large staff of officers -- similar to the approach taken when the number of troops was increased in Iraq in 2007.
The second general would coordinate U.S. and coalition military operations, enabling the current commander, Gen. David D. McKiernan, to work on efforts to train the Afghan military and improve government services.
"You need a general who is, day-to-day, committed to the fight -- an operational commander -- and a general who is, day-to-day, committed to the governance," said a senior Defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal is still under discussion.
In Iraq, the military's headquarters was augmented by a cohesive group of officers, planners and soldiers reporting to a three-star commander.
"Afghanistan has not had the robust layer of planning," the Defense official said.
The mission in Afghanistan has long been seen as secondary to Iraq, but the Pentagon is examining ways to overhaul the operation after months of advances by Taliban militants and extremists.
The Pentagon also is considering a radical shift in deployment cycles, assigning key leaders and planners to Afghanistan for as long as five years. They would be rotated in and out in nine-month stints, and probably would be placed in the same locations and jobs each time.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an e-mail interview that the changes were part of a "new strategy and a new commitment."
Mullen drew wide attention in 2007 with his assessment of U.S. priorities, saying, "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must."
Now, however, Mullen said, Afghanistan is recognized as the larger challenge.
"It's vital, and it directly affects our national interests," he said. "From now on, it's not about can-do, it's about must-do."
