Up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan by summer

[Turborama]

Source: Reuters

By Golnar Motevalli

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States is aiming to send 20,000 to 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan by the beginning of next summer, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Saturday.

Washington is already sending some 3,000 extra troops in January and another 2,800 by spring, but officials previously have said the number would be made up to 20,000 in the next 12 to 18 months, once approved by the U.S. administration.

"Some 20 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now. I don't have an exact number," Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters in Kabul.

"We've agreed on the requirement and so it's really clear to me we're going to fill that requirement so it's not a matter of if, but when," he said.

"We're looking to get them here in the spring, but certainly by the beginning of summer at the latest."

U.S. Army General David McKiernan, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan, has asked for the extra troops to combat a growing Taliban insurgency in the east and south of Afghanistan.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has pledged a renewed focus on Afghanistan, where U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in late 2001 after the September 11 attacks.

The United States now has some 31,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4BJ15K20081220

---

Aren't there some roads, schools and hospitals that still need to be built there...?

[dipsydoodle]

1. When will they finally realise

that the Russians used common sense to pull out.

[Peregrine Took]

2. I was going to say the same thing.

Do they think we will do it "better" than the Russians?

[conspirator]

13. Maybe the troops are just there to give protection to the CIA's heroin business nt

[shadowknows69]

17. Ding ding ding ding

We have a winner!!! Bush told us we supposedly vanquished the poppy trade when we "eliminated" the Taliban. Both lies. Both are stronger today and there's a reason.

[shadowknows69]

16. The Russians were smart enough to let themselves lose

Instead of continuing a charade of winning until their country was completely broke. Our American arrogance about "Never losing another one" will definitely cause us to lose another one.

[acmavm]

3. Geeze fellas, this is ridiculous. Yeah, as the Russians. And the British.

And everyone else that's tried to have a go at these people. They're still there. The invaders, they left in defeat.

And then what? I mean, how long does anyone think we can sustain a hold on the country IF we ever get one?

Sheesh. I have to admit, I don't have the faintest clue what to do with Afganistan. But I am damn sure that the country will be a drain on our military, cause more resentment against us, and we won't get any further than we have after how many years? Six is it? I'm bad with time I admit, but even I know that this has gone on far too long.

[Turborama]

5. What Afghanistan needs is infrastructure

There was a good article about this earlier this year in the Telegraph:

By Christopher Booker

What connects the row between France's President Sarkozy and the EU's trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, with the recent upsurge in the deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan?

Mr Mandelson, representing the EU in the Doha world trade talks, calls for an end to that EU and US protectionism which, through tariff barriers and the dumping of subsidised exports, is inflicting immense damage on the Third World.

Mr Sarkozy, representing French farmers, claims that this will cost European agriculture 20 per cent of its production and 100,000 jobs.

The problem with the outside world's intervention in Afghanistan, as informed observers point out, is not that Nato forces are unable to defeat militarily the various insurgents lumped together as the Taliban.

Rather, it is that almost nothing is done to encourage the Afghans to stand on their own feet economically, and to eliminate the poverty and hopelessness which the Taliban exploit to win support against both the foreigners and the corrupt and ineffectual Kabul regime.

Eighty five per cent of Afghans live by agriculture, in which their country has far more potential than much of its bleak terrain might suggest. The fertile parts are ideal for a wide range of crops, from apricots and pomegranates to almonds and tomatoes.

The trouble is that the infrastructure does not exist to make this profitable, which is why Afghanistan produces 90 per cent of the world's opium, as the only crop which can be profitably, if illegally, exported.

The only real hope for Afghanistan, as my colleague Richard North argues in a lengthy analysis on his Defence of the Realm website, would be to enable it to build up an export trade in the produce its climate fits it for.

If the vast majority of the Afghan people felt they had a stake in seeing their country peaceful and capable of making a good living in the world, the general despair and disaffection on which the insurgency thrives would melt away.

At the moment, however, virtually nothing is being done to unleash that potential. Of the $25 billion which has been poured into Afghanistan in aid, 70 per cent goes to the cities, most to be wasted in corruption or on luxuries such as a new terminal building for Kabul airport.

Scandalously little is done for the infrastructure to transport and market crops other than opium. But above all the greatest obstacles to encouraging an export trade are those erected by the very people who pretend to be helping, the US and the EU.

Almonds from California are cheaper in Kabul than those grown locally, because they are subsidised. The US is not allowed by law to assist the Afghans to grow any crop, such as cotton, which might compete with US farmers. The barriers set up by the EU against imports, from tariffs to red tape, are so high that last year the EU exported more than three times as much agricultural produce to Afghanistan than it imported in return.

More:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3560238/What-Afghanistan-needs-is-infrastructure.html

[humus]

9. widening gyrant

(quote)The US is not allowed by law to assist the Afghans to grow any crop, such as cotton, which might compete with US farmers. The barriers set up by the EU against imports, from tariffs to red tape, are so high that last year the EU exported more than three times as much agricultural produce to Afghanistan than it imported in return.(quote)


illegal for U.S. to interfere in foreign crop production ?

NEWS RELEASE For immediate release
http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=253


When the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) celebrates biodiversity on World Food Day on October 16, Iraqi farmers will be mourning its loss.

A new report <1> by GRAIN and Focus on the Global South has found that new legislation in Iraq has been carefully put in place by the US that prevents farmers from saving their seeds and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations. This is a disastrous turn of events for Iraqi farmers, biodiversity and the country's food security. While political sovereignty remains an illusion, food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has been made near impossible by these new regulations.

"The US has been imposing patents on life around the world through trade deals. In this case, they invaded the country first, then imposed their patents. This is both immoral and unacceptable", said Shalini Bhutani, one of the report's authors.

The new law in question <2> heralds the entry into Iraqi law of patents on life forms - this first one affecting plants and seeds. This law fits in neatly into the US vision of Iraqi agriculture in the future - that of an industrial agricultural system dependent on large corporations providing inputs and seeds.

In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers used saved seed from their own stocks from last year's harvest or purchased from local markets. When the new law - on plant variety protection (PVP) - is put into effect, seed saving will be illegal and the market will only offer proprietary "PVP-protected" planting material "invented" by transnational agribusiness corporations. The new law totally ignores all the contributions Iraqi farmers have made to development of important crops like wheat, barley, date and pulses. Its consequences are the loss of farmers' freedoms and a grave threat to food sovereignty in Iraq. In this way, the US has declared a new war against the Iraqi farmer.

[Robbien]

10. A Russian article said don't send in more troops, send in the Peace Corp

Afghanistan needs help, not bombs and guns.

[acmavm]

20. Crap, it's never been tried. It can't be any worse than countries periodically

trying to conquer and occupy Afganistan and finding out, much to their international chagrin, that sometimes all the sophisticated weaponry in the world won't do it. Not unless you turn the whole country into a nuclear wasteland.

[ohio2007]

25. Pakistan sent in members of their own" Department of Peace" to discuss matters with the Taliban

they got their throats slit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3366273#3368458


oh

but the Taliban of Afghanistan are not as hostile according to Putin
:eyes:

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Pak-Taliban-publicly-execute-two-alleged-US-spies/328242/

[mbperrin]

4. Interesting background here.

http://afghanistanonline.blogspot.com/

It seems unusual that conquerors as prominent as Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan suffered greatly to invade and control this small nation. It is also interesting to note that invading Afghanistan has caused many great empires to collapse.

The British in the 1800s and the Soviets in the late 1900s paid harsh prices for Afghanistan’s occupation. The British suffered three humiliating defeats, while the Russians were forced to withdraw and their empire collapsed right afterwards. The US-led coalition are therefore pursuing a battle of “hearts and minds” to prove themselves as peacekeepers, not occupiers, in order to avoid a similarly fatal fate.

Afghanistan is where Tsarist Russia and British Empire played the Great Game – but neither side succeeded. To prevent Russian influence, the British India East Company invaded Afghanistan in 1838 to oust King Dost Muhammad and install its own satellite regime in Kabul. But the occupation marked the beginning of a disastrous chapter in British military history. Only one out of the 16,000 British troops survived in retreat in the first Anglo-Afghan war. Afghanistan was then nicknamed “graveyard for foreign invaders”.

The lesson learned from all foreign invasion of Afghanistan is that it is easy to conquer the country, but rather difficult, and sometimes impossible, to control it, or get out of it with success.


Lots more....

[ryanmuegge]

6. This is completely idiotic, but that's no surprise with our government.

[rocktivity]

7. Via Iraq?

or a draft?

:mad:
rocknation

[lib2DaBone]

8. Pakistan supports the Taliban. U.S. gives $8 Billion to Pakistan.

Don't know if anyone saw Bill Moyer's Journal last night. His guest, Sarah Chayes, lives in Afghanistan, and she has proof that Pakistan is funding the Tali ban's fight against the U.S.

In the meantime.. Bush gave $8 Billion dollars of our hard earned money to Pakistan. So.. we are funding both sides of a war.

Obama is going to send 30,000 more troops over there, while here at home, we have no jobs. I would say.. WTF? But that would be an understatement.



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12192008/profile.html

[StarryNite]

11. I hope this isn't going to wind up being a case of

same circus, different clowns running the country. :-(

[Phred42]

12. Stupid - that's is a No Win situation.

Hell, Obama won't even break even on this nonsense.

But - what do you expect with the Hawks and Chicken Hawks he's collected around him.

[saigon68]

14. And indeed they are hawks and chIcken hawks

Apparently we can afford it too.

Too bad we have unemployed hungry and disabled seniors in homeless shelters

AND THE BAND PLAYED ON.

[shadowknows69]

15. Nobody's coming home

Just being redeployed. Same as it ever was. We can't be a country without war.

[chucktaylor]

18. What is P.E. Obama's plan for the 50-60K troops in Afghanistan?

I know during the election he stated that this increase was part of his plan. What I am asking is how will, where and why are they being deployed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Sunday Times claims British defence chiefs plan to deploy 3,000 more troops in Helmand

Defence chiefs are making contingency plans to send 3,000 extra troops to southern Afghanistan next year as part of a US-led surge.

The troops, a mixture of regular infantry, engineers, artillery and special forces are needed to counter growing Taliban activity across Helmand province.

The plans for an increase – expected to be temporary – have not been given the go-ahead by Gordon Brown. However, the Ministry of Defence has prepared them in anticipation of an American request for more troops when Barack Obama, the president-elect, speaks to Brown after his inauguration in January.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375669.ece

[Acadia Blue]

21. No one has ever won in Afghanistan. The Russians toppled in

part because of their expensive war there. Obama should be very careful.

[ohio2007]

22. Officials: Aviation brigade going to Afghanistan (3,000 additional U.S. forces )

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of a combat aviation brigade to Afghanistan early next year, as the military begins a substantial buildup of forces there.

snip
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan

Obama's surge isn't feared and is even being laughed at by the Taliban in Pakistan
yet
they can't drive out the NATO forces without a steady supply of stinger missiles.....

Extra U.S. Troops Aim For Afghan "Tipping Point"

snip

"When we put Marines out there earlier this year ... they found themselves in a pretty tough fight pretty quickly," Mullen said. Fierce clashes ensued for more than a month and hundreds of Taliban were killed before the Marines pulled out and handed security to British forces and the Afghan National Army (ANA).

"As the Marines left down there, there was concern about whether or not we would hold. The Brits and the ANA have held Garmsir," Mullen said.

Garmsir bazaar is now open again, life is returning to the dusty, battle-scarred town and more than $3 million has been earmarked for development.

The operation illustrates the "clear, hold and build" strategy employed by U.S. General David Petraeus with success in Iraq.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2008/12/21/world/international-us-afghan-usa.html?_r=1

winning hearts and minds is secondary to the iron fist rule of sharia law taliban overlords.

The Taliban has destroyed 2 schools in Helmand Province in the last month.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/pressreleases/2008/12-december/pr081220-726.html

Taliban are systematically killing off the "reliable intelligence" that BHO plans to use on his watch.

[tuckessee]

23. That's the "change" we were promised. n/t

[suston96]

24. Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam? Barack Obama's Afghanistan? nt