The hidden surge

The L.A. Times's Julian Barnes explains how Stanley McChrystal is increasing combat troop levels in Afghanistan without increasing total troop levels:

U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with "trigger-pullers," Defense officials say.

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.

The plan represents a key step in the Obama administration's drive to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress in the war nearly eight years after it began.

Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to noncombat duty, such as guards or lookouts, or those on clerical and support squads.

"It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers," said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Officials have spoken in recent days about aspects of the plan.

Kevin Drum responds, "an increase in combat troops is an increase in combat troops.  It doesn't really matter how you get there."

I would argue it does matter if those combat troops aren't getting the same level of support, putting them at greater risk and making them less effective. And it's not as if private contractors have exactly distinguished themselves in those jobs lately.