President Barack Obama is quietly deploying an extra 13,000 troops to Afghanistan, an unannounced move that is separate from a request by the US commander in the country for even more reinforcements.

 

The extra 13,000 is part of a gradual shift in priority since Obama became president away from Iraq to Afghanistan.

 

The White House and the Pentagon both announced earlier this year that the number of US troops in Afghanistan was to be raised by 21,000, bringing the total at present to 62,000, with the aim of 68,000 by the end of the year.

 

But the Washington Post, based on conversations with Pentagon officials, said that on top of those an extra 13,000 "enablers" are also being deployed. They are mainly engineers, medical staff, intelligence officers and military police. About 3,000 of them are specialists in explosives, being sent to try to combat the growing fatality rate from roadside bombs.

 

The deployment of such non-combat troops is in line with the professed aim of the new US commander, General Stanley McChrystal, to try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan population.

 

In addition to the deployments under way, McChrystal has also requested an extra 40,000 troops he says are necessary to prevent the country falling into the hands of the Taliban. That request has provoked an intense debate within Washington, with some political advisers in the White House opposed to any further escalation of a war that is already proving unpopular at home.

 

The Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai, today expressed support for McChrystal's request. "I'm fully behind him for what he's seeking in this report," Karzai told ABC's Good Morning America.

 

As part of the internal debate, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, who is cautiously supporting McChrystal, is due to meet later today the vice-president Joe Biden, who is opposed to the troop increase and favours a shift in priority to tracking down al-Qaida in Pakistan.

 

A decision on McChrystal's troop request appears to have been postponed for a few weeks. Any extra troops will come as a result of a parallel reduction in the number of US troops in Iraq.

 

A US military planner told the Army Times: "We've increased forces in Afghanistan before we've reduced forces in Iraq in a meaningful way. If they want forces sooner than 2010, there are no additional forces available. You'll have to pull them from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan."

 

The US spokesman in Iraq, Brigadier General Stephen Lanza, said yesterday that the number of US troops in Iraq will be down to 120,000 by the end of the month, down 23,000 since January. But any further large-scale reductions will have to wait until after Iraqi elections next January.

 

He said the aim was to get all combat troops out of Iraq by August, leaving 50,000 troops to advise and support the Iraqis.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/1...roop-deployment

 

Ugghghghghghghghhhghghghghghg

Ideally I want us to just say f*** it all and go home the more thought I give it, but I know that's not politically feasible.

Lame. What the heck is the point of this? Do we really think we're going to turn that place into a successful democracy? GMAFB

I saw this on Fox News. Made it seem like he is trying to doing it all sneaky.

 

No matter who was president, we'd be sending more over there. You can't take troops out as of yet. Not stable enough.

Ideally I want us to just say f*** it all and go home the more thought I give it, but I know that's not politically feasible.

 

Exactly.

I saw this on Fox News. Made it seem like he is trying to doing it all sneaky.

 

No matter who was president, we'd be sending more over there. You can't take troops out as of yet. Not stable enough.

 

You'll die before we make that place stable enough. Alexander the Great couldn't conquer that region and neither could the might Soviet Empire. This is doomed to fail.

I don't think there is a goal to conquer. I think there's a goal to flush out enough of the Taliban and enough of the terror elements left in tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan that what remains can't hurt us, the western world, or destabilize a nuclear Pakistan for at least a few years.

I saw this on Fox News. Made it seem like he is trying to doing it all sneaky.

 

No matter who was president, we'd be sending more over there. You can't take troops out as of yet. Not stable enough.

I don't even know that it's possible to be stabilized. It's a f***ing s***hole, and it can't be governed, at least not in the way we understand it.

Lame. What the heck is the point of this? Do we really think we're going to turn that place into a successful democracy? GMAFB

You should go and read the NSC's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. I just had to skim over it for a class. It was dripping in Kool-Aid, talking about how between Iraq and Afghanistan we liberated 50 million people from tyranny, terrorism, and oppression and brought them liberal democracy. lol yeah ok. That's a pretty wildly optimistic assessment of Afghanistan, at best.

Good read from Sullivan's blog today comparing Mexico and Afghanistan.

 

 

Everybody knew this was coming, which was the main reason I didn't understand the Nobel Prize deal (even though it didn't upset me greatly like it did so many people). I'm not sure what the right answer in Afghanistan is, and honestly, I'm not even sure if the people in power know what the answer is there.

Edited October 13, 200916 yr by whitesoxfan101

Good read from Sullivan's blog today comparing Mexico and Afghanistan.

 

Well the big difference is that Mexico is invading us...

Well the big difference is that Mexico is invading us...

Actually, if you want to go in the strict military sense, they're more like refugees than invaders.

Well the big difference is that Mexico is invading us...

 

:notworthy

 

 

Actually, if you want to go in the strict military sense, they're more like refugees than invaders.

 

Either way, we are still paying for them.

Either way, we are still paying for them.

 

We really need to give the Statue of Liberty back to the French.

"Give me your tired, your poor,

 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

 

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Did we really have to specify "wretched refuse" though?

We really need to give the Statue of Liberty back to the French.

Or just modify it so that she's giving the finger instead of holding a torch.

Did we really have to specify "wretched refuse" though?

 

And with the drug traders and human slavers it is bringing in, we are getting exactly that.

Well the big difference is that Mexico is invading us...

The ghost of Pancho Villa?

 

Either way, we are still paying for them.

 

And remember money is always more important than human life.

Edited October 14, 200916 yr by GoSox05

And remember money is always more important than human life.

 

So what are you going to tell the people who lose their lives here?

So what are you going to tell the people who lose their lives here?

 

We don't like to talk about that. Focus on the positive, ignoring any negatives that positive might create. Didn't you get the memo?

We don't like to talk about that. Focus on the positive, ignoring any negatives that positive might create. Didn't you get the memo?

 

Reagan wrote that play over twenty years ago, why is it so hard to follow?

Reagan wrote that play over twenty years ago, why is it so hard to follow?

 

And that was over 20 years ago...I thought things were supposed to be different now?