More US troops may not solve Afghanistan

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain and President George W. Bush all agree on one thing, more US troops should go to Afghanistan. But would they make much difference?

Many experts believe a boost in combat troops would help check worsening insurgent violence. Some are not convinced more troops are the answer and all believe that the problems facing Afghanistan require much more than military solutions.

A big increase in the number of Afghan soldiers and police, many more foreign trainers to teach them, plus renewed efforts to tackle corruption and the opium trade are among the prescriptions offered by analysts to stabilise the country.

"I think troop numbers are one of several key factors," said Seth Jones, an Afghanistan specialist at the Rand Corporation research group.

Mr Obama, who visited Afghanistan over the weekend, has promised to send at least two brigades - probably around 7,000 troops. The Democratic senator from Illinois has pledged to send them quickly as he would make Afghanistan a priority ahead of Iraq.

Mr McCain has said commanders should get the three brigades they have requested. But the Republican Arizona senator backs Mr Bush's policy that Iraq has priority, so the stretched US military could take longer to get additional forces to Afghanistan.

Mr Bush has pledged an unspecified number of extra troops for Afghanistan who would likely arrive only after he has left office - although Defence Secretary Robert Gates said last week he wanted the forces there "sooner rather than later."

The increased political attention to Afghanistan reflects widespread Western concern over rising violence, which is at its highest levels since US-led forces toppled the Taliban after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US.

With more international troops dying in May and last month in Afghanistan than in Iraq, where violence is declining, American public attention has turned back to what was sometimes termed the "forgotten war."