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
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
NATO, Afghan Forces Launch Offensive in Eastern Afghanistan
2008-07-24
NATO and Afghan forces have launched an offensive against militants to regain control of a remote district in southern Afghanistan.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) says troops began an operation Wednesday in Ghazni province, after militants took over the Ajiristan district on Monday. ISAF says some militants in the area were killed during a coordinated airstrike.

A damaged police vehicle after it was hit by a roadside bomb in Chaparhar district of Nangarhar province east of Kabul, 23 Jul 2008 Meanwhile, a district police chief was killed when a roadside bomb struck his convoy in Nangarhar province.

In Wardak province, the U.S.-led coalition says troops killed militants during a search in the Saydabad district Tuesday.

In Washington, a Defense Department spokesman said the decision to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan will be left to the next presidential administration.

U.S. commanders have been asking for three more combat brigades, or about 10,000 troops, to help confront rising violence in Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said the U.S. does not have the man-power to send urgently needed military reinforcements to Afghanistan. He said U.S. troops are all heavily committed in Iraq.

In other news, the U.S.-led coalition said U.S. and Afghan forces killed militants Monday during clashes in the Maruf and Shah Wali Kot districts of southern Kandahar province.
Posted by:Fred

#4  I'm with tw. I guess history will decide.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-07-24 23:51  

#3  TW, I've got to agree with OP on this one. On 9/12/2001, the president essentially told us all to go shopping instead of boldly saying we need to immediately increase the size of our military while simultaneously cutting non-essential government spending (non-defense). The numbers of volunteers would have been very high at that point. The ability to chop frivolous spending would have been there too. He wasted the opportunity and we are all worse of because of it.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-07-24 15:56  

#2  Old Patriot, the president can only work within the restrictions and funding voted by Congress. Look how hard President Bush has had to fight just to get both Houses of Congress to stop posturing long enough to pass the increased military and manpower budgets he did request each of the past seven years. Sadly, he cannot waive the magic wand of our desires and instantly get what's needed long term instead of enough money to continue supplying bullets the troops need instead of the over-armoured HMMVs they don't nearly as urgently.
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-07-24 14:50  

#1  On Tuesday, the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said the U.S. does not have the man-power to send urgently needed military reinforcements to Afghanistan. He said U.S. troops are all heavily committed in Iraq.

This is one of the worst blunders GWB has made in his presidency - not restoring the military to what it was before Bill Clinton took an axe to it, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. We currently need a military 25%-45% larger than it currently is, yet we've only just begun to expand. We've been involved in this conflict for how many years - 30? 40? It took a major strike on our territory before we acknowledged we were at war, and we're only beginning to expand the military. We've lost almost seven years of recruiting, training, equipping, and using a larger military to ensure our success. I think GWB will be recognized as a good president by posterity, but this is one area where he and his administration has failed miserably.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-07-24 14:20  

00:00