You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
US weighs more troops for Afghan war
2008-05-04
NEW YORK - The Pentagon is considering sending up to 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies, The New York Times reported on Saturday. Citing unnamed Bush administration officials, the Times said the push could drive U.S. forces in Afghanistan to some 40,000, the highest level since the United States invaded the country in 2001 and toppled the Taliban government. One official said it would likely result in 'the re-Americanization' of the war.
That's likely a good idea. If we need 7,000 troops, take them from Europe, including Kosovo if necessary.
The increase would drive U.S. troops presence from about half to two-third of foreign troops in Afghanistan, and would require a reduction in troops levels in Iraq by at least a modest amount, the newspaper said. Planning for the increase began in recent weeks, it said.

'There are simply going to be more American forces than we've ever had there,' the Times quoted a senior official as saying.

NATO commanders in Afghanistan say they need about 10,000 more troops, but some dozen NATO countries have pledged only about 2,000, the Times said, citing unnamed NATO officials. So far only France has begun preparing more troops for deployment -- some 700. The officials also said the decision for more troops could be left to the next U.S. president, who will take office in January, and that few additional troops were expected in Afghanistan any time soon.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  No, AFGHANISTAN does matter - my read of Islamist strategy indics that Osama = Islamists have decided that BIPOLAR [US-West vs Islamism] IS BETTER THAN MULTIPOLAR [West, Islamism, Russ-China, etal.], at least for time being in CENTRAL ASIA AS ISLAMISTS ACQUIRE ENCLAVES + espec STRATEGIC WEAPONS CAPABILITIES.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-05-04 19:17  

#7  IMO, this is more evidencia of COVERT, PC = PDENIABLE recognition by the USA = USDOD that Osama + Radical Islam are indeed redirecting their Jihad's strategc focii towards RUSSIA-CHINA + CENTRAL ASIA. IN THE ABSENCE OF INVADING IRAN, THE USA = US-ALLIES MUST PRECLUDE ISLAMIST NUCLEAR TERROR [Iran-Bloc + Militants] EVEN IFF IT MEANS RISKING ANTAGONIZING RUSSIA-CHINA, etc.

*2008-2012/13 > USA = rising US-led OWG-NWO is presently winning the WOT in the ME, but can still be defeated at this stage - likewise, Radical Islam is presently losing in the ME but can still defeat the US-Allies. IFF THERE IS ANY ISLAMIST "HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI", andor AMER HIROSHIMA options, THE TIME FOR SAME IS NOW!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-05-04 19:02  

#6  The New York Times reported on Saturday. Citing unnamed Bush administration officials,

because the NYT has "favored insider" status among Bush officials....riigghht
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-04 09:02  

#5  US weighs more troops

In the middle of a war, and they're still pushing height and weight standards?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-05-04 08:48  

#4  shouldn't hollywood and the democrats be right on this? They've been complaining for some time now that this is where we should have taken the fight. It will be fun to watch their disorganized retreat.
Posted by: Sninert Black9312   2008-05-04 04:29  

#3  Make sure every one of those soldiers is a pilot who comes with a crop duster and 10,000 gallons of Roundup(TM) and this "surge" won't need to last longer than a week or so.
Posted by: gorb   2008-05-04 02:28  

#2  Because Afghanistan doesn't matter.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-05-04 01:10  

#1  It doesn't matter how many troops we have there.
Posted by: gromky   2008-05-04 00:36  

00:00