NP Rank:
'Let come what may' : Obama will send 34,000 troops
Now that President Barack Obama has - apparently - made his decision about the troop surge and will send some 34,000 troops to Afghanistan, not only is he taking heat from the left, but both sides want to know what the objective is, and what , if anything, he and General McChrystal hope to accomplish.
And some liberals are extremely disappointed, and upset. An interesting analytical piece can be found at Huffington Post, entitled, " By Sending More Troops to Afghanistan, Obama will Enable GOP's Revival"
An excerpt, below, with a request to sign the petition against sending more troops:
We've reached a crucial juncture. More troops to Afghanistan would be a disaster, both over there and politically over here. Can you sign the petition urging Obama to rethink Afghanistan strategy and not send more troops? For every signature we get, CREDO Mobile will generously donate $1 to the blog fellowship that supports Derrick Crowe, a prominent anti-war voice who's been a leader on this issue. (For a bit more about Derrick's work, click here.) Click here to sign the petition, add your voice, and support Derrick. Obama's decision about whether to send more troops in Afghanistan is expected on December 1st, and he may well be going with an increase of around 30,000 towards a war we don't have a way to win.
So the President has apparently made his decision about Afghanistan: He’ll send another 34,000 troops there, according to multiple reports. The White House is preparing for Obama’s first-ever prime-time address to formally announce the move. But for the moment, it’s not at all clear what those troops will be doing.When top commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal laid out his gloomy Afghan war report in August, he cautioned that “additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.”
Right now, there’s no word of any big strategy shift — just news of an influx of more forces.
According to McClatchy, “the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky.; the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y.; and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.”
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan - to which the U.S. has long been committed - and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
An increase of that size “would mean deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war,” Spencer Ackerman recently noted. Yet paradoxically, it also repreents a relatively small number of extra trainers, given NATO’s stated goal of radically expanding Afghanistan’s armed forces, from under 100,000 today to 250,000 in the future. Will new NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan commander Lt. Gen. Bill Caldwell will have the forces he needs to accomplish this key job?
NowPublic on Facebook
Recommendations (26)
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom -
Babel-Fish
Negros Oriental, Philippines -
snuffysmith
Washington D.C., D.C., United States -
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
Redwater, Alberta, Canada



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 18:05 on November 24th, 2009
I agree with most of the highlighted article. There has, however not been a strategy shift from what Obama announced in March.
The strategy in March called for a 3D approach, an approach that has been successful for Canadian Forces since 2006.
3 D (Defence, Diplomacy and Development) was intended to encompass Military, Governance and Government and Non Government Organizations for development.
General McChrystal's report outlined the requirement to perform this strategy.
I suspect that President Obama will also outline an exit strategy during his prime time address on Tuesday Dec 1st.Training the Afghan Army will be the responsibility of all NATO nations. Those countries with caveats can easily participate in the training function. I would think that the target date for getting the Afghan forces to take over responsibility for security would be by the end of 2014.
There will also be additional funding requirements to equip the Afghan National Army, which basically operates with small arms and pick up trucks now.
So in Summary:
Strategy as announced on March 27th
Additional troops to succeed in securing the country.
Training the Afghan Army and Police by the end of 2014
Draw down of US/NATO forces as soon as some elements of Afghan securiy forces can take over
Equipment for the Afghan Army.
The big question: How much will it cost? How will it be funded?
at 18:26 on November 24th, 2009
Wow, thanks for this, Pocci, and for the reccy. Yes, how much and who?
at 19:28 on November 24th, 2009
i agree acp, ty for the post smk
at 22:33 on November 24th, 2009
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49397 Afghan Army Turnover Rate Threatens U.S. War Plans
By Gareth Porter*
at 23:14 on November 24th, 2009
I still think the total information is iffy, so much creative journalism and by the way there was only on source of figures used in this article all others of a similar nature are related to it
Source: mcclatchydc.com
This very small newpaper seemingly spoke to undisclosed members of the Military establishment and got this wonderful projection... hmmmn
Then there's the half way creative journalists who do not seem to know what half way really means.
20,000 troops
We will see on Monday.
I am not signing as I know if the troops are not sent more US soldiers will be killed than if they were sent.