Anyone who has ever read my writing (I'm talking to both of you) knows I am nothing if not blunt. So, I'm just going to throw this out there: I hate the L.A. Times. Every article I ever see from that paper has the most ridiculous right bend. Because of that, I was surprised to be nodding along throughout this article:

WASHINGTON -- A top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan said Friday that he needed thousands of additional troops to combat violence along the border with Pakistan, a requirement that appears to be at odds with recommendations from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus on future troop levels in Iraq.
...
Army Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, who took command of American-controlled eastern Afghanistan in April, said that coalition forces were at no risk of losing in Afghanistan without additional brigades. But he said that continuing with the current level of about 34,000 U.S. troops for an extended period would result in a "slow win."

Saying that we need more troops in Afghanistan, but we cannot do this without redeploying a significant amount of troops from Iraq isn't news to anyone who reads/writes national security blogs. We've been discussing this for months if not years. Recently, it's become an increasing part of the public debate. This is mostly due to Afghanistan being more dangerous for U.S. troops than Iraq was at the most violent part of the war. As Brandon Friedman tells us, this isn't mere hyperbole. It's a statistical fact:

When the Iraq War reached its deadliest peak during a 10-week period in April, May, and June of 2007, 308 coalition troops died.  That was 1 out of every 575 troops on the ground at the time.*  It was a terrible period in which even the most die-hard Bush supporters began to question the sense in continuing the occupation.   By contrast, 105 coalition troops have died in Afghanistan during the past 10 weeks.  But because there are only 52,700 troops in Afghanistan, this represents 1 out of every 502 troops on the ground.

More striking to me, however is General Schlosser's comment that the lack of additional troops for Afghanistan would result in a "slow win".

This is completely in contradiction to the Powell doctrine (advice that Powell should have invoked in the administration while planning the Iraq war) which calls for overwhelming force disproportionate to that of the enemy. A "slow win" in Afghanistan means we spend a long time fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. While that may result in the defeat of the both networks, we spend billions of U.S. dollars in the process and, more importantly, lose thousands of American lives.

The Powell doctrine is sound here. Overpowering force to prevent the loss of U.S. Soldiers. And General Schlosser knows it:

"It's not the way that I think the Afghans, the international community and the American people would like to see us conduct this war," Schloesser said in a video conference with reporters at the Pentagon. "It will take longer, the way we are doing it right now. . . . I'd like to speed that up."

Also interesting to me was this comment from General Schlosser:

U.S. commanders in eastern Afghanistan have "very low numbers of troops," Schloesser said. They are able to attack enemy positions, but not hold captured territory and begin the rebuilding necessary to win in a counterinsurgency effort.

This caught me eye because It's almost the same thing I told George Packer in an interview that will be published in Monday's New Yorker:

“When I got over there, it was almost more of an atrocity that we were still in Afghanistan than that we were in Iraq,” he said. “I’d like to personalize that for you.”
Eyes alight, Smith leaned forward and described how his battalion lost a paratrooper in the district of Sangin; he helped carry the flag-draped coffin onto a C-17. But, soon after his unit left Afghanistan, in April, “the Taliban were back in Sangin, because we didn’t have the troops to hold that city.”

I was a run-of-the-mill Sergeant when I was in Afghanistan last year, and I was afraid that some military leaders, especially those I served under, would challenge that quote. Instead, it appears that the highest ranking American military commander in Afghanistan the Eastern Regional Command confirmed it.

Cross-posted at VetVoice.