| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| Unannounced Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan | |
| 2009-10-13 | |
| President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials. The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan. The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office. Still, it suggests that a significant number of support troops, in addition to combat forces, would be needed to meet commanders' demands. It also underscores the growing strain on U.S. ground troops, raising practical questions about how the Army and Marine Corps would meet a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. Defense experts said the military usually requires that thousands of support troops deploy for each combat brigade of about 4,000. That, in turn, exacerbates the strain on the force, in part because support troops are some of the most heavily demanded in the military and are still needed in large numbers in Iraq.
| |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #3 The big conflict in the administration over Afghanistan is between those who want more combat troops in-country and those who want Predators/SF/Peace Corps/NGOs/Camouflaged-Meals-On-Wheels instead. Depending on where the support troops end up, it sounds like a compromise. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-10-13 21:14 |
| #2 I think this is a mistake. We don't need thousands and thousands of support personnel all tethered to an increasingly tenuous supply chain. We either need 1) troops for clear and hold, which means as many people at the tip of the spear as possible in the villages, or 2) troops for counter-strike actions, which means the special forces etc., and the modicum of support they require. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-10-13 20:55 |
| #1 shame ObamaCo. feel they have to hide it from their nutroots supporters. Remember, this was "the good war" when they could attempt to beat up W about it. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-10-13 20:33 |