| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Obama to Send 'Up To 45,000' Extra Troops to Afghanistan |
| 2009-10-16 |
| [Quqnoos] The US is expected to announce a significant surge of up to 45,000 extra troops for Afghanistan, the Telegraph reports. President Barack Obama's administration is understood to have told the British government that it could announce the significant troop increase in Afghanistan, the British newspaper adds. Mr Obama's decision comes after his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, warned of a 'mission failure' unless more troops are pumped into the country. The troop surge is likely to be announced next week, according to the article. The White House did not confirm the claims after President Obama met with his senior advisors and military commanders for the fifth time to revise his strategy in Afghanistan. "I would not put any weight behind the fact that a decision has been made, when the President has yet to make a decision," White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters. "I've seen the report. It's not true, either generally or specifically. The President has not made a decision." Earlier British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced the sending of an additional 500 troops to Afghanistan. Britain currently has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, most of them based in the volatile southern Helmand province. The number of US troops in Afghanistan will reach 100,000 for the first time, if President Obama approves the deployment of the additional 40,000 forces. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #12 Get Nasty or Go Home Gee, somebody else said that a few years ago. I do believe it was me. We destroyed one Afghan government, we can do it again. It looks more and more like it's going to be necessary. I just hope someone either has the guts to do it, or is capable of doing it on the sly and blaming it on others. Yesterday would have been a good time. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-10-16 22:45 |
| #11 "I would not put any weight behind the fact that a decision has been made, when the President has yet to make a decision," White House spokesman, Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs, told reporters. "I've seen the report. It's not true, either generally or specifically. The President has not made a decision." Hey we are confused on this side of the pond also. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-10-16 16:36 |
| #10 Jeebus. The Peter Principle in action. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-10-16 12:46 |
| #9 Working link for the Michael Scheuer "Get Nasty or Go Home" story http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/12/go_big_or_go_home |
| Posted by: Maggie Ebbuter2991 2009-10-16 11:01 |
| #8 I wish we could ditch that ROE. But he is doing the right thing by listening to his Generals. If he does bad, treat him bad. If he does good, treat him good. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-10-16 10:19 |
| #7 Following McChrystal's primary request would be the first good thing The 0ne has done. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2009-10-16 10:14 |
| #6 It's not true, either generally or specifically on this or any other issue. The President has not made a decision Truer words have never been spoken by this regime; especially with my addition. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-10-16 09:55 |
| #5 Obama is less likely than previous presidents to give the British heads-up on policy decisions. I kind of suspect this is a fabricated leak designed to pressure him into doing something the leaker wants - namely, to put more troops into Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-10-16 09:47 |
| #4 Obama promise. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-10-16 07:24 |
| #3 That said, military victory would require 400,000 to 500,000 additional troops This is from General Tommy Franks in 2001 and remember these troops were not constrained by self-defeating ROE's: "It's always been somewhat entertaining to me to see the views of some of the pundits who have suggested the introduction of large conventional forces in Afghanistan. I think a great many people are aware, and I know you're aware of the fact that for some 10 or 11 years of Soviet experience in Afghanistan, they introduced 625,000 people on the ground, and had 15,000 of them killed and 55,000 of them wounded. So we took that as instructive -- as a way not to do it. " |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-10-16 04:56 |
| #2 Subject: Get Nasty or Go Home -- "The go-light strategy in Afghanistan is a joke." Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C., October 12, 2009 has essay critical of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Excerpts: ...the Taliban-led insurgency's trend line is steadily climbing upward, an ascent that began in 2007 and would not be possible without widespread and increasing popular support. Rather than popular support for the Taliban being based on intimidation and money, what we are seeing in Afghanistan is popular opinion catching up with Islamist determination... Because the U.S.-NATO occupation powers the Afghan insurgency and international Muslim support for it, we must either destroy it root and branch or leave. This issue merits debate, but that must wait until McChrystal gets the troops needed to delay defeat. Afterward, only the all-out use of large, conventional U.S. military forces can be expected to have a shot at winning in Afghanistan. Since 1996, the United States has definitively proven that clandestine operations, covert action, Special Forces actions, and aerial drone attacks cannot defeat al Qaeda. It has likewise proven beyond doubt that nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. ================================================ --snip-- 'soek, posting the whole article as a comment seriously mangled the page formatting. Folks can read the whole thing at the link you kindly provided. -Scooter |
| Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-16 03:26 |
| #1 Obama tops Bush in troop buildup |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-10-16 00:07 |
