17k More Troops To Get Orders To Afghanistan
EmailABC’s Luis E. Martinez reports: When President Obama visits the Pentagon tomorrow he will be presented with plans that by week’s end could see as many as 17,000 additional US troops receiving their deployment orders for Afghanistan.
Testifying on Capitol Hill today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there is little doubt that Aghanistan is the greatest military challenge for the US right now. To that end he spoke of the well-known request from the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, for additional brigades and for the first time he outlined an expedited timeline for their arrival which Obama will likely be presented with tomorrow.
Asked by Senator Carl Levin if a troop increase in Afghanistan was still dependent on the further drawdown of troop levels in Iraq, Gates replied, "Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think that we are actually in a position to address most of General McKiernan’s requirements in the relatively near future." He added that, "Should the president make the decision to — the final decision to deploy additional brigades to Afghanistan, we could have two of those brigades there probably by late spring, and potentially a third by mid-summer. "
Gates’ answer was a faster timeline for the arrival of the requested brigades than either he or Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have outlined before. Both have said in the past that the Pentagon could send two additional brigades to Afghanistan by the summer and that it would take time to send the a third brigade and the additional "enabler" troops to support their effort.
Two Defense Officials say that Gates was referring to plans that will likely be presented to President Obama tomorrow during his meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plans will identify the three brigade combat units that will head to Afghanistan later this year and some of the enabler troops — this could total around 17,000 troops. Orders will go for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade to arrive in the spring, counting their self-contained support and aviation units, this combat brigade plus enablers could total about 10,000 in number. In the late spring or early summer, an Army Stryker Brigade will flow into Afghanistan, that’s about 4,000 troops. A third Army Brigade Combat Team will flow into Afghanistan in the fall, that’s an additional 3,500 troops.
Pentagon planners have estimated that meeting McKiernan’s request will take 25,000 troops over the next 18 months. It is possible that by Thursday, the Pentagon may have given orders to a significant portion of the requested troops to begin flowing into Afghanistan. The first of the four additional brigades that Gen McKiernan has requested, the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division has already begun flowing into Afghanistan. This week’s orders would be for the additional three brigades and enabler troops that would meet his request.
Gates said later in his testimony that he would be skeptical of further troop requests from McKiernan in Afghanistan noting how important it is to put an Afghan face on the conflict and learning from the Soviet Union’s mistake in the 1980′s when even 120,000 troops weren’t enough to win there. He reaffirmed the US mission there will last many years.
"This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan," Secretary Gates said. "Afghanistan is the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world, and if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience or money, to be honest. Now, we can help the Afghans….But it seems to me that we need to keep our objectives realistic and limited in Afghanistan. Otherwise, we will set ourselves up for failure."
Also, Gates says he doesn’t envision any further significant troop flows into Iraq given the various drawdown schedules in place, namely the SOFA that requires all US troops out by the end of 2011.
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
I don’t consider myself a hawk, but the Taliban need to be defeated. They throw acid on women trying to go to school, attack artists and scholars, and harbor Bin Laden. I also think we should move into northern Pakistan and stop their operations there.
Posted by: Reason | January 27, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
Let’s ask the Russians how many troops we need to conquer Afghanistan….
Posted by: samhiguchi | January 27, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
I thought Obama was going to surrender to them when he was elected
Posted by: hammer | January 27, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
Total waste of time. Good point samhiguchi.
Posted by: Huh | January 27, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm
Oh and a total waste of money. Forgot that one especially given the fact that we are broke.
Posted by: Huh | January 27, 2009, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
samhiguchi, you are exactly right.
Posted by: Ken | January 27, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
I have a son leaving for boot camp soon & he has already been warned that after bootcamp then 13 weeks of training to be pre-paired to there.
Posted by: Cindy | January 27, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Let’s ask the Russians how many troops we need to conquer Afghanistan….
****************************************
Did we forget that we set up bin Laden? Sent money into Afganistan to defeat the Russians?
Or are we just playing the Snark?
Posted by: THinking | January 27, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
THinking – Nobody forgot the irony. How about Israel training and funding Hamas in the past to counter the PLO.
Posted by: Huh | January 27, 2009, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
Hey we just paid $40k to the families of the 15 civilians that we killed in Afghanistan. What an excellent business/military model this endless war is.
Posted by: Huh | January 27, 2009, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
Great! Which companies will be replaced Halliburton? It’s time to pay off some old favor(s) along the campaign trails ,isn’t it? It’s getting ineteresting.
Posted by: mtr2311 | January 27, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
More into the “Meat Grinder…” Now that’s what I call “Change!”
Posted by: hmn... | January 27, 2009, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
What do you call Democrats who abhor Iraq’s invasion but support assaults in Afghanistan that kill MORE civillians? Oh right, HYPOCRITES!!! Just another shell game, with your tax dollars and American lives. But hey, they’re not “your kids” so: “screw ‘em, they should have gone to college! Oh wait, some DID go to college? Well they are in the military so they aren’t worth much.” Love that liberal/conservative welfare/warfare “Empire NOT a state” mantra. How many civillians and US military brothers and sisters must die to fufill the agenda of the Obama/Bush plutocracy? Oh well, at least “your kids” are safe. You just have to pay the bill for all of this. Enjoy your taxes!!! Hope you can wash that pesky blood off your hands.
Posted by: hmn... | January 27, 2009, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
Who did say Bush air-raided villages and killed innocent people? History is repeating itself, that’s the irony of CHANGE!
Posted by: mtr2311 | January 27, 2009, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Gates is correct to be cautious. As several commentators here point out, there’s very little to be gained in Afghanistan even under the best scenario, against a huge potential loss. How many more Americans will we slaughter? How many more dollars in debt will we dump on their next of kin?
Posted by: Avery St. Clair | January 27, 2009, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
Bomber’s Martyrdom Tape Renews Fears Over Consequences of Closing GitmoTuesday, January 27, 2009 Terrorist Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi talks about his time at Guantanamo Bay in this martyrdom tape obtained exclusively by FOX News.As President Obama pushes for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the debate over where to house the terror detainees being held there is heating up. An exclusive video of a former Gitmo detainee’s martyrdom tape, obtained by FOX News, is a reminder of the concerns that terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies.Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi was transferred back to his home country of Kuwait after his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Last April he blew himself up in a homicide attack that killed 12 people in Mosul, Iraq. Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack. “In the name of Allah, most compassionate, most merciful and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet,” al-Ajmi says in the video. “I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and, after we were tortured, connected me with the Islamic State of Iraq [ISI]. And it is the gift of Allah to follow the path of this nation, the ISI.” In the video, translated by the NEFA Foundation, a non-profit that tracks terror groups, al-Ajmi mentions Guantanamo Bay right away. For many jihadists, having served time at Guantanamo is seen as a badge of honor.Al-Ajmi’s attack is one of the most well known and well documented cases of an ex-Gitmo detainee returning to the battlefield as a homicide bomber. His video renews concerns of many in the intelligence community of the potential consequences by releasing these prisoners. Sixty-two detainees released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman
Posted by: neofred | January 27, 2009, 7:40 pm 7:40 pm
Let’s quit the war on terror and wait for them to return to New York or L.A. We will fight it here, You Liberal New Yorker and Liberal L.Aers can all hide under your desks, while it all goes down
Posted by: neofred | January 27, 2009, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
Here’s how we can win in Afganistan.
Lets the in theater commander make all of the tactical decisions and our troops free to fight the war.
Remove all of the liberal press because the bad guys are using them as a mouth piece for their propaganda.
The alternative is to let barrack runs the war. With his knowledge of combat tactics, experience with the military and the supports of millions of lefties, maybe the bad guys can laugh themselves to death.
Posted by: Reality2009 | January 27, 2009, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm
This is going to get ugly, but Obama did promise this even though the mainstream media barely reported it. They needed to get him elected and Palin was a more convenient distraction.
Unfortunately, many more troops will die under Obama’s command than they would have under McCain’s. No question about it. And when other conflicts heat up (India/Pakistan & Israel/Iran), we won’t have enough troops to assist our allies. I hope Obama’s younger supporters are ready for CHANGE. The draft is coming.
Posted by: Tony D | January 27, 2009, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
What’s funny to me is that this “war on terror” reminds me so much of the “war on drugs” both caused by the power which wishes to quash them and both FAILED…..
Posted by: lookingahead | January 27, 2009, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Does anyone really remember what the mission was in Afghanistan?? What the hell is it now?
Posted by: foxisms | January 27, 2009, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
Reality2009..THATS AWESOME… lookingahead…READ.. Reality2009, his comment will answer your statement
Posted by: neofred | January 27, 2009, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
This war has little to do with terrorism or Osama Bin Ladon, if he is still alive. It is all about oil. Afghan President Karzai is protecting the interest of a US led consortium for the TAPI Caspian Sea Pipeline, which will supply India, and Southeast Asian markets with oil from the Caspian area. Additionally, 1.6 billion barrels of oil, in the Afghan-Tajik Basin, and 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, in the Amu Darya Basin will be exploited. The US army needs to clear out the insurgents so that construction can begin. Your sons and daughters are fighting and dieing for oil. George Bush originally tried to bargain with the Taliban.
- The Taliban reneged on an agreement with the big Oil & Gas companies before the invasion They were holding out for a larger share of pipeline tariffs for their people. The US decided a regime change was a better choice.
Posted by: IWasThere | January 27, 2009, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
IWasThere – You are right.
Posted by: Huh | January 27, 2009, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm
IWasThere wrote, “Your sons and daughters are fighting and dieing for oil.”
————————————-
If it’s a war for oil my response is, “so what?” Why wouldn’t we fight for oil? Last time I checked, nobody’s driving cars that run on air. You say “oil,” I say “vital natural resource.” And if fighting wars for oil is too troubling, maybe you should get behind drilling in Alaska and drilling offshore. Or would you rather see American soldiers die in Afghanistan and Iraq, just because you don’t want your picturesque wildlife sullied?
Posted by: tony | January 27, 2009, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm
I was not aware that when Obama pledged to stop the war in Iraq he forgot to mention he would be escalating a war in Afghanistan. We fund the Somalians, then we fight them (Mogadishu). We fund the Iraqi’s, then we fight them. We fund the Afghani’s, then we fight them. It appears to me that to stop the “war on terror” we should stop the major source of funds empowering them…the funds coming from the US Congress.
Posted by: steve123975 | January 27, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
steve123975 – Very true. And Israel funded and trained Hamas against the PLO. Pretty interesting!
Posted by: Huh | January 27, 2009, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
Obama’s Wars.. Afghanistan and Packistan!!
Posted by: for sure | January 28, 2009, 1:45 am 1:45 am
I voted for Obama, but I think we’re seeing Obama is carrying along “THE PLANS” that have been passed onto him to execute which is world government, military draft, depression to the U.S., and World War III. Similar to Vietnam, Afghanistan is one of the largest drug countries in the world with Opium. If the military buys up the Opium and sells it in the U.S., it’s a profit for our govt. I have respect for our military, but fear this is going on since it was done in Vietnam and we’re up to our ears in debt. Not to mention, oil may have something to do with it.
This promise of CHANGE I fear is going to lead to false promises and REVOLUTION by the American people if things keep going as PLANNED by the puppet masters.
Posted by: changeinquestion | January 28, 2009, 1:48 am 1:48 am
It seems we will refuse to learn the same lesson we taught the Russians 20 years ago- that a successful land war in Afghanistan is impossible. Not only have we neglected to rebuild infrastructure, we continually create new enemies of the Afghanis by ongoing collateral killings of civilians. Sun Tzu (author of classic ‘The Art of War’) has one word for such a sloppy, ill-conceived strategy– “defeat”.
Posted by: h5mind | January 28, 2009, 2:41 am 2:41 am
At the age of 41, I have been forced to join the military due to the current economic mess, in order to pay child support and help my current family survive. But, what really ticks me off is how the financial institutions in this country “made up” a financial problem in order to milk billions of dollars from the feds. If they really had problems and were on the verge of self destruction, then how is it possible that they gave at minimum millions of dollars in bonuses, buying ridiculous airplanes, spas, etc, etc. the only wway to fix our problems are to punish these financial institution leaders, get out of the worlds problems and focus on our own rear ends.
Posted by: Johnny_Truth_Comes_a_marching | January 28, 2009, 9:31 am 9:31 am
Obama will enter into this and when the crap hits the fan, he will not have the stomach for it and pull out, thus making every positive effort we’ve done in Iraq seem useless.
Posted by: James Bowen | January 28, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
Why is Obama escalating the violence in the Muslim world? He promised to reduce our troop presence and ease tensions.
How many Afghans must die for Obama’s illegal Crusade against Muslims!?
Posted by: Code Pink | January 28, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
Dumb idea; generally, I support the president, but this is not useful. Leave them to their own devices. Meet them at the border once a year and purchase the entire poppy crop, then burn it. Bribery worked (at least for awhile) in Iraq. We should try it here. No one can conquer Afghanistan, at least in a practical sense.
Posted by: kseyetie | January 28, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
Afghanistan is the front on terrorist. Unlike the absurd lie that “Bushie Boy” sold to some that are so “color blinded”
The election is over. Prez Obama has a mandate. Your anger is showing. Oh, I forgot when a person has so much pent-up anger, and they blame another guy, I call that misplaced anger. I am angry at Bush too
Posted by: sara wilson | January 28, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
war never creates peace…and for the christain far right even gods book says there will never be peace in the holy land. so lets leave them alone.
Posted by: T | January 28, 2009, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
I don’t think what we do in Afghanistan matters a whole lot as far as international terrorism goes. They are obviously ‘breeding’ terrorists in western Pakistan, and unless the Pakistanis do something about that, then there is not much the U.S./allies can do.
The main thing is to keep the terrorists from taking over Afghanistan again.
Posted by: Grand Old Party | January 29, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Bostinks, yeah the VietNam war…Ironically, Kissinger received a peace nobel prize while Le Duc Tho, the North Vietnamese Prime Minister who refused it. After series of The B52 bombimg near Hanoi, the VietCong was down under their knees for peace talk and Kissinger walked right into their trap for a quick fix or quick defeat rather. Vey Cliche’ but history tends to repeat itself.
Posted by: mtr2311 | January 29, 2009, 11:27 pm 11:27 pm
Obama made it clear during his campaign that he would pull troops out of Iraq and put additional troops into Afghanistan. What part of that did anyone not understand?
Posted by: marylou | January 30, 2009, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
Yeah, mtr2311, and every time the U.S. bombed the north the Communists would organize ‘peace protests’ over here and take to the streets. Bombing the North’s infrastructure was obviously the only thing that ever got Hanoi’s attention.
Obama’s Iraq/Afghanistan ‘lift and shift’ proposal is one of the few Dear Leader things that I really don’t have a big problem with. However, I get the feeling that if Bush had proposed the same, then it would have been ‘a disaster in the making’ according to the Communists and their MSM affiliates.
Proposing the opposite of your political opposition is just that…politics. It is not a substitute for real-world solutions.
Posted by: Grand Old Party | January 31, 2009, 4:57 am 4:57 am
We need to fallow the terrorists no matter were they go. If we just left them alone they will nuke us and then what! we cant let them get to organised
or make to much money. Its getting to easy to make a nuke and a lot of country’s hate us and need money.
Posted by: atv tires | January 31, 2009, 11:38 am 11:38 am
GOP, I know our foreign policy has been always suck but hey that just policies that determined by some politicians not the soldiers who carry out the mission. American will not succeed in any pro-longed war, period. People do not have that kind of patience and understanding the large views. I am afraid that Afghanistan is another Vietnam war. I salut to all American soldiers who risk their lives every minutes of their lives so we can sit here chatting over the Net.
Posted by: mtr2311 | February 1, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
But, but, I thought McCain was Bush 3.
Could it be Obama is a neocon warmonger? He’s already attacked Pakistan and killed civilians, even though Pakistan never attacked us.
Or did the evil Bush make him do it?
Can we start impeaching him now?
Posted by: Justin | February 2, 2009, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm