I am glad to see that we are now focusing our efforts in the right country.
US 'to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan'
Barack Obama: Reports say he will announce the deployment of thousands more US troops to Afghanistan. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Barack Obama is expected to send 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan when he unveils his long-awaited strategy for the Afghan conflict next Tuesday, US media reports said today.
The Politico website said the US president would make a prime time address to the American people to announce his plans for what he has described as "a war of necessity".
Just as significant as the number of troops, however, will be pointers to a US exit strategy – something that will be closely watched by the British government, which is under public pressure to withdraw 9,000 UK troops from Afghanistan.
The McClatchy news service reported that the White House plan contained "off-ramps" – points, starting as early as next June, at which Obama could decide to continue to increase troop numbers, halt deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting", depending on political and military progress.
The US currently has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, along with 42,000 from other countries, as the conflict there enters its ninth year.
Obama reportedly plans to announce the deployment over nine months, beginning in March, of three army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, as well as a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 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 US-led Nato forces in southern Afghanistan – a move to which the US has long been committed – while 4,000 US military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate expansion of the Afghan army and police.
The US president drew up his final plans following a high level strategy meeting yesterday, the ninth he has held on Afghanistan.
The US vice president, Joe Biden – who favours a smaller force to concentrate on tackling al-Qaida – the national security adviser, Jim Jones, the US ambassador to Afghanisan, Karl Eikenberry, who opposes sending more troops, and senior US military commanders took part in the talks.
Obama is expected to follow up his decision with meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats, who fear the US is heading for a Vietnam-like quagmire.
Officials told McClatchy that the commander of the US-led international force in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal – who asked for 40,000 more troops – could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to testify before Congress towards the end of next week.
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and Eikenberry are also expected to appear before congressional committees.
As part of its plan the Obama administration, which remains sceptical about the Afghan president Hamid Karzai, would "work around him" by engaging directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior US defence official told McClatchy.
The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency.
It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options – a "high-risk" approach calling for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000.
During a visit to China last week Obama said his goal in Afghanistan was to hand a clean slate to America's next president.
He said he did not want his successor to inherit the conflict because a "multi-year occupation" would not serve US interests.
Will we be successful? Russiacan answer to that.
Funny how preemptive warfare and nation building were cause for national outrage up until 1/20/09.
How is it pre-emptive, we are still trying to get the guys that blew up the WTC? Regradless, I say no troops because we are broke, how are we going to pay for it? We need out of our shitty wars, we need healthcare reform WITHOUT a public option, and we need to get our finances in order. Stop spending, do not add a war surtax, and eliminate waste.
If sense were common, everyone would have it.
4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...
Check out my world famous Bob Loblaw's Law Blog at http://www.synergyhw.blogspot.com/...Just kidding, it's a health and wellness blog.
I say we start selling opium to the Chinese again and make use of Afghanistan's number one export while keeping those commies in check.....
Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
and drag down the features of age,
no folds or creases from unkempt wear
eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012
Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.
How to Use HCG
What is the US objective in Afghanistan?
I think I know the general gist of it: correct me if I'm wrong.
Basic US strategy is to keep the Taliban from gaining political power in Kabul. The US will support whoever the non-Taliban figure head is.
But it's kind of like treading water. And perhaps, that's fine.
Remember the British. They were in Afghanistan in the 1840-50s, and 2 times later.
Afghanistan is a nation-state only in name.
Tribal clans, warlords, and blood ties are far more important than the concept of a political nation-state.
As for the region: Pakistan has the same potential or more, for problems.
I say we hire the Chinese to build a wall around Afghanistan. Done and done.
Ron Paul 2012
No gym for home, work out floor with 30, but is it for 20 like 30 lb when you no lift it to be for men, for 30 lbs instead? or half is 10 for 20 pounds?
just bomb the crap out of all of these mid east countries minus israel, let god sort them out.
Israel is the scum of the Earth, IMO. I hope Israel gets what it deserves someday.
It will happen because of demographics, no matter what. The end of the religiousist, special, nation-states for the "chosen" people.
And we non-Jews are "Goyim." = "cattle."
It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.
-- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.