PDA

View Full Version : This Is Pure Insanity! MORE Deployments!



Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pentagon Plans to Send More Than 12,000 Additional Troops to Afghanistan
The U.S. commander there, in an exclusive interview, calls for a further buildup to counter the Taliban
By Anna Mulrine
Posted August 19, 2008
The Pentagon will be sending 12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further force buildup in 2009.

A request by Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, for three U.S. brigades with support staff has been approved. "Now that means we just need to figure out a way to get them there," adds a senior defense official.



A U.S. Marine patrols a poppy field in the southern Helmand, Afghanistan.


U.S. Marines stand alert in the southern province of Helmand, Afghanistan.

The troops are slated to arrive earlier than has been previously discussed, on the heels of the deadliest months for American forces in Afghanistan since the war began.

The first wave of soldiers will be a U.S. Army brigade from the 10th Mountain Division, according to a senior military official. This brigade is scheduled to ship out between November and January, while two other brigades are likely to arrive "sometime in the spring or summer of next year," the official adds.

And there may be even more to come. "I've also asked for some additional forces on top of that for the current fight," says McKiernan, who wants to bolster the 101st Airborne Division in Regional Command East, which has been rocked by recent insurgent attacks. In July, nine U.S. troops were killed by insurgents who overran a combat outpost on the Kunar border of eastern Afghanistan. This week, militants tried but failed to overrun a base in Khost, just a few miles from the border, launching waves of attacks just before midnight on Monday.

Finding those particular troops to supplement the 101st, however, depends on conditions and troop levels in Iraq, adds McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in June. "That's really a zero-sum decision."

He disputes the notion that the three brigades on the way represent a troop "surge" for Afghanistan, predicting the need for an extended involvement of a larger force. "I've certainly said that we need more security capabilities," he says. "But I would not use the term 'surge,' because I think we need a sustained presence."

Both major U.S. presidential candidates have called for putting a greater military emphasis on Afghanistan, and it now appears that whoever wins the election will inherit a growing war already underway.

In March, 3,500 troops from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived to bolster NATO forces. Originally slated to return to the U.S. in October, they have seen their tour extended by one month.

The three additional brigades would considerably increase the U.S. force presence in Afghanistan, which currently stands at 34,000. Of these, 15,000 U.S. troops are under NATO command, while an additional 19,000 operate independently, primarily in the volatile eastern border region.

There has been growing concern that there are too few NATO troops to take on an emboldened Taliban. In some cases, the warlords directing attacks on American forces are the same ones the CIA backed in the 1980s when they fought Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan.

Some U.S. military officials express skepticism, however, about the impact more U.S. troops can make seven years into the war, in a large country that has grown increasingly violentówith citizens, they add, who are increasingly disillusioned. "I don't know if it's too late," says a senior military official. "But it's going to be much, much harder to turn things around at this point."

U.S. military officials are particularly concerned about the sharp spike in roadside bombs, up "30 to 40 percent" over last year, says McKiernan. "It's the largest casualty-producing event in Afghanistan."

Causing that spike is what McKiernan describes as the "deteriorating condition" of the ungoverned tribal areas of Pakistan, with a porous border that facilitates the planting of such bombs.

Clearing up ungoverned lands rife with insurgents in Pakistan, McKiernan says, is pivotal to improving security in Afghanistan. "We have a cross-border firing incident out of Pakistan almost daily, and unfortunately those aren't diminishing," he adds. "There are militant sanctuaries in Pakistan, and they operate at will."

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">More deployments for our suicidal toops in Iraq! WE can't make our own bullets, and an IED costs about the same as a PIZZA! This is totally absurd, and a complete waste of life and treasure.

George Bush makes me ill. Look at the mess he's stirred up with his aggressive actions in Poland, and between the Russians, and Georgia. He won't be satisfied until he gets us all blown up!

And McCain wants to defeat evil! Oh, I'm so relieved! As if such a question was even rational!

Gayle in Md. </span>

eg8r
08-20-2008, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As if such a question was even rational!
</div></div>Since when have you ever been rational?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 12:22 PM
Gee, let's see, Ed, the only one I can think of right off was the last time I put you on total ignore. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gifzzzzzzzzzzzz

Deeman3
08-20-2008, 12:42 PM
Of course, Obama has called for this "surge" in troops in Afghanistan as well.

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 01:00 PM
And that call is equally mistaken, IMO. It's too late. Same mistake, different country. Like is said, neither candidate has shown me what I need to see in order to feel inspired to vote for him, one, however, is drastically compromised, and dangerous given the thrust of power behind him, while the other, has some redeeming qualities, particularly in the intellectual department.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-20-2008, 02:24 PM
Doesn't this fit in with McCain's and the Republican's, sudden renewed interest in Osama, after the last 6 yrs of GWB switching the blame behind 9/11 to Saddam?
Bush was the War President for Iraq
and McCain wants his own headlines...plus with the Surge working so well, that other little conflict is just about over.
Roger, Over,...

Sid_Vicious
08-20-2008, 04:06 PM
wolf, you pounded the proper "nails on the head." All of this seems so clear to any open minded person, it's just rediculous. sid

wolfdancer
08-21-2008, 02:28 PM
Forget Afghanistan...we're heading for Russia.

Deeman3
08-21-2008, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Forget Afghanistan...we're heading for Russia. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Let's go!

Last time I was there, it didn't seem like it was worth much and certainly not enough to get bothered about. After all, we still got Georgia here. Maybe not an oil pipeline running through it but better baseball I'm sure.

Even if we were not in Iraq and Afghanistan we'd not face off against the Russians directly and we all know that. I do agree our presence in the Middle East weakens our possible responses to this and that Russia is taking advantage of it. Europe will slink away and by the time we get Obama in office, they will feel free to march on in the other places freed by the end of the cold war. Not a good thing but, not something we will ever do much about but bring resolutions to the security council which they will veto. What a system! Of course, if Barak does nuke one of the Arab countries, they might leave Poland alone for now.

If you remember, I said two years ago, I would support bringing our troops hoome if we bring them out of Europe, Asia and everywhere else as well and dump the UN. Can we broker that deal, at least on the CCB? I bet, if we did a WWII type effort, we could by drilling and building nuke plants, draining the reserve and making me a nuke motorcycle, jump the bones of this independence thing post haste and tell them all to F**K off. I beleive I had also requested we nuke France to seal the deal but now that they have a sane president, I'll drop that request. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

Chopstick
08-21-2008, 04:30 PM
Well, I tell ya. You complained for year that we didn't send enough troops (which turned out to be right) and when we did you complain about that. Sometimes I think there just ain't no pleasin' you.

Chopstick
08-21-2008, 04:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Forget Afghanistan...we're heading for Russia. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">
If you remember, I said two years ago, I would support bringing our troops hoome if we bring them out of Europe, Asia and everywhere else as well and dump the UN. Can we broker that deal, at least on the CCB? <span style="color: #3366FF">You got my vote on that all day long. I'll even hack the voting machines for ya.</span>

I bet, if we did a WWII type effort, we could by drilling and building nuke plants, draining the reserve and making me a nuke motorcycle, jump the bones of this independence thing post haste and tell them all to F**K off. <span style="color: #3366FF">Nuke motorcycle? Are your nuts cold or somethin'? Nukaler technology has improved so much in the decades since we built one, both in efficiency and waste reprocessing that we are foolish not to reconsider it. We are now actually capable of producing the safe clean energy that the original dream promised. What always griped me about nukes is this. The actual amount of mass that was converted to energy that flattened Hiroshima was .8 grams. Or was it .08, I forget. Anyway, about one grain of salt. So, we take that and put it in a big nukaler machine and hook it to a steam generator. A steam generator??? Ain't there no better way to suck the juice otta them atoms than hooking it to hundred year old technology? </span>

I beleive I had also requested we nuke France to seal the deal but now that they have a sane president, I'll drop that request. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> <span style="color: #3366FF">I like the way them french girls talk. I think I'd like to bag one if they ain't too smelly. </span> </div></div>

eg8r
08-22-2008, 03:05 PM
There is no pleasing her if the person making any statement is not one of her chosen libs.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-22-2008, 03:24 PM
maybe if we had a chance to end the war, instead of just sending more troops in there to be maimed, or killed????
We defeated the combined forces of the Axis in less time then this.
Course then we had the support of the free world, and not the feigned support of countries now supplying 73 men, one WWI Fokker biplane, and a half blind pilot....
Russia couldn't win in Afghanistan...and after arming them in the first place...we can ?
It's just another Vietnam...eventually we will just leave without any resolution....
AND That ain't exactly Napoleon we got in the WH for a CinC.....

Gayle in MD
08-23-2008, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I tell ya. You complained for year that we didn't send enough troops (which turned out to be right) and when we did you complain about that. <span style="color: #000066">That's right. Sending them in when its too late to squash a civil war is stupid. It's too late. Bush has already done what can't be undone. More dead young Americans won't change a damned thing. </span> Sometimes I think there just ain't no pleasin' you. <span style="color: #000066">And there ain't, when there is no way to overturn what can only be an irreversible original mistake.

The priority should have been bin Laden, and alqaeda. In fact, had Bush listened to the unprecedented warnings pre 9/11, and done what he should have done, instead of going fishing, and ignoring them, nearly eight thousand Americans would still be alive, and we wouldn't be ten trillion dollars in debt, and Iraq wouldn't have become a breeding ground for al Qaeda.!

</span>
</div></div>