Afghanistan could get up to 30,000 new US troops

Afghanistan could get up to 30,000 new US troops

start.verizon.net

The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 _ the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I knew that the 20 thousand Obama wanted to send over was too good to be true, Myself being a combat vet and having a deep love for our troops and for our country is starting to turn, I love and support our troops but cannot stand our military leaders anymore, My friends are in A-Stan and my younger brother who was supposed to be home for christmas has left early to return. I just think its funny to rip these guys from Iraq and put the in A-Stan..I mean enough is enough..My patriotic heart is now honestly beginning to ever wonder why we touched down in October 2001...

start.verizon.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, there's the "change" everybody voted for. Supposedly conclude ONE war, but then EXPAND another, while concurrently trying to start up a couple more (Pakistan, Iran).

4 more years of the same old Corpo-Giants / M.I.C. profiteering off of death and destruction, with the help of more political puppets, with nary a beat skipped...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I have to admit that I almost bought into this change crap he has been shoveling..I will always stick up for the troops but more troops equals more spending and more down the drain we go..I pray for my younger borther and my friends and all troops over there and heading there but im so sick of my goverment. The american economy is in the crapper and now this...I shudder to think.

I don't know any soldiers that are complaining .Of course I don't know many average soldiers .Most just see it as their job .I know my husband does .

De Oppresso Liber

Originally posted by SFwife
I don't know any soldiers that are complaining .Of course I don't know many average soldiers .Most just see it as their job .I know my husband does .

The only thing I complain about is the stupid rotator ride over to the AOR. I think they make it crappy so that you're happy once you're in theater!

OK I admit there are some things to complain about

Certainly, the problems we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan are not because of our troops.

Our senior military leaders quite simply, don't know their trade. The reason they want massive numbers, is that with sufficient numbers, you can conceal incompetence. Large enough numbers, and you can conceal gross incompetence.

We need generals who know about war and how to fight, and fewer generals whose expertise is knowing how to work the Washington cocktail circuit, flawless time-in-grade, pristine performance reports, crease smooching, and political role-playing do not win battles.

Our military leadership is as predictable as the sunset. We telegraph every approach. We hole up at every opportunity, foregoing the basic military principle of freedom of movement.

Our generals can't lead. They manage, and even then, do so from hundreds or thousands of miles away from the battlefields.'

Our senior military leaders learn by rote, teach the same, and strive to maintain their distance from the fighting, on the battlefields, the enemy, and thus constant distance from victory.

And it's our troops that pay the price for their arrogance and lack of intuitive war fighting skills.

Oh, we have our Alexanders, our Greenes, our Morgans, and our Pattons, but they'll never become senior military leaders because they don't fit the narrow criteria for mistake-avoidance standard in our current military.

PowerPoint presentations does not a leader make.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Well, there's the "change" everybody voted for. Supposedly conclude ONE war, but then EXPAND another, while concurrently trying to start up a couple more (Pakistan, Iran).

4 more years of the same old Corpo-Giants / M.I.C. profiteering off of death and destruction, with the help of more political puppets, with nary a beat skipped...

The war in Afghanistan has been struggling since the day we invaded due to lack of troops. Once Bush focused all of the military efforts on Iraq, all of our troops in Afghanistan immediately felt the dramatic impact.

The increase in troops to secure Afghanistan has been necessary for a very long time.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Well, there's the "change" everybody voted for. Supposedly conclude ONE war, but then EXPAND another, while concurrently trying to start up a couple more (Pakistan, Iran).

I'm sorry but I laugh when I see people act surprised

It's not like this was not known before.
All this talk has been about leaving Iraq hardly any mention of reduction in Afgahnistan!


Edit to add "not"




[edit on 20-12-2008 by SLAYER69]

Its not the amount of troops It is which/what troops ...doesn't always take big numbers to get the job done . That is just my opinion of course which I know others share with me .

I suppose it is a good thing . Everybody knows US troops will be in some country or another occupying them on some feeble pretext , so the hellhole of Afghanistan is as good a place as any . Keeps them tied up there fighting an unwinnable war rather than free to be used to cause trouble around the globe.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Oh, I'm not the LEAST bit surprised.

I saw what this guy's agenda was from the very beginning. He really didn't even try to hide it. He was one of the most boisterous "Boogeyman Iran" threateners of the crowd while the propaganda was churning overtime. Then it went towards Pakistan (which is STILL in the works) and expansion of Afghanistan. People latched onto the "getting the troops out of Iraq" rhetoric, and literally ignored all of the foreign policy nightmares these guys have in the works.

Absolutely NOTHING is going to change in terms of foreign policy insanity. In fact, it's likely going to get WORSE.

I posted this news story, Seven hours ago here.

Afghanistan could see 30,000 new US troops
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not asking this thread to be closed. I'm just pointing the fact out since this has been like the 5th or 6th time this has happened with a news story I posted in the breaking news forum.


Anyway here are my comments:

I wouldn't be surprised to see that number go higher as troops are pulled from Iraq and relocated to Afghanistan. Personally I could see it going over 100,000. Bases and facilities are being constructed as I type that will house and support the thousands of new personnel coming in.

Pakistan needs to tread very carefully next year or those troops could easily find themselves in Pakistan.

What if we go into a total global economic crisis and our troops are basically stranded there in the midst of all of those that hate them so badly? I worry this is bad timeing for our friends and loved ones being called up.

reply to post by antar


If they really got stranded I fear that their survival instincts would take over and they would do whatever it took to survive.

Raiding for resources, massacres, mass executions, oppression, and holding the country in the iron grip of tyranny. Humans will do some pretty terrible things when pushed to the brink.

Another historical precedent could be if contact was lost for a long time they might convert to Islam and assimilate into the population, just like the Mongols did. Anyone familiar with Timur? The Mongols and Turks did a mixture of both tyranny and assimilation in Afghanistan.

reply to post by SFwife


Even the best of the best complain from time to time or so I have heard....

reply to post by MikeboydUS


My apologies Mike..I did a search with the article headline and nothing showed...we can have this removed if you like because for me its not about the points or posts..Just topics that hit close to home for me...

SFwife, you are very rare. Very correct of course, just very rare.

Properly addressed, we don't need a lot of troops in Afghanistan to take on the Taliban and shut them down. Properly approached, a small army competently led, can always prevail over large numbers.

Less than 300 Special Operations forces, consisting of Special Forces, TACP personnel, Company Branch Operatives, and a few others brought down the Taliban government in the early days.

Not divisions of soldiers, led by a general from thousands of mile away.

If we could follow the basic principles of warfare, 10,000 selected ground troops would be sufficient to bring these Islamic guerrillas to their knees, and do so within six months.

But you have to take the gloves off and so it smart.

The greatest, most effective counter tactic against guerrillas, in cities or mountains, hasn't been used yet. The solution?

Bring in more troops. Because that's what the US Army "book" says.

So now we'll drag out this fight in Afghanistan for several years, when we could win and go home within six months.

God help us from our leaders.