Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US Should Send 45,000 More Troops(100,000 Total) to Afghanistan: Adviser

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:54 PM
Original message
US Should Send 45,000 More Troops(100,000 Total) to Afghanistan: Adviser
Source: The Australian/Times Online

THE United States should send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a senior adviser to the American commander in Kabul says.
Anthony Cordesman, an influential American academic who is a member of a team that has been advising General Stanley McChrystal, now in charge of Nato forces in Afghanistan, also said that to deal with the threat from the Taliban, the size of the Afghan National Army might have to increase to 240,000.


If Mr Cordesman's recommendation reflects the view of General McChrystal, who recently presented the findings of a 60-day review of Afghanistan strategy to Washington, it would mean sending another nine combat brigades, comprising 45,000 US troops, in addition to the 21,000 already approved by President Obama.

This would bring the total American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000, considerably closer to the force deployed for the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq.

If General McChrystal believes that America should send nine more brigades - Mr Cordesman suggested it should be between three and nine brigades - there is bound to be pressure on Britain to send reinforcements as well. The British strength now is 9000.

more: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25907642-2703,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Reform Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. yeah and theyll probably get em
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 08:03 PM by Reform
im not surprised by anything no more.
Yay lets keep expanding wars, more money for the military industrial complex and more young men to get slaughtered and for what? Oh yeah nation building and imperialism.
Funny Osama is still a free man is he not?
sigh......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Cordesman has an unimpeacheable record of error. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Never Ending War You Can Believe In.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolphindance Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Just cause some "advisor" said so, it doesn't mean Obama will send them.
So, STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. If and when McChrystal requests them, Obama will send them,
and Congress will support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vadawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. my wife kinda pointed out to me yesterday that she hadnt seen any anti war protests this summer
when visiting her friends in DC, got me to thinking as well, has the anti war movement just dropped of the map or is the m$m just not reporting it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. A bit of both
My local anti-war group is still doing its thing, however I've noticed a drop off in participants once Obama got into office.

But yes, anti-war protests simply aren't being covered anymore. Which means we need to get a large march on DC going, force the media to cover us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vadawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. yeah, it seems it was more anti bush than anti war, will be interesting if the wars escalate
what groups like answer etc do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. The true anti-war protesters are still vigilant.
The numbers shriveled, though, after the election. Too many either got complacent, aren't paying attention, or just followed like sheep to the next thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. We have a nephew scheduled to go. He has already completed
two tours in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolphindance Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. You continue to post these stories to take jabs at Obama.
No more troops have been sent. And that is that. So please go somewhere else with your agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dolphindance Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Obama said he would refocus on Afg. during election.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 09:54 PM by dolphindance
He sent 21,000 more troops. Less than what they asked for, and 4,000 of those are "civilian"/humanitarian-type troops.

There is no evidence that he is not going to give his original plan a chance before pulling the trigger on more troops (or not).

So don't try and make up these stories about Obama being a warmonger.

He is the first black President. He needs to get everything right or race relations are doomed. He could really use your support, but I guess that's too much to ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. No, you just don't want to HEAR whatever evidence there is.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 10:17 PM by TheWatcher
He changed his stance on Iraq at least four times, and recently the Army Chief said we were prepared to be there for 10 years "if need be." We are not leaving Iraq, and we will continue to EXAPND in Afghanistan.

I am sorry you can't deal with this or handle it.

As for this childish ridiculous assertion (I mean really, what are you, 12?):

"So don't try and make up these stories about Obama being a warmonger."

There is absolutely NOTHING in my posting history you could EVER find if you searched all the way back to the beginning of his term where I have EVER accused him of being one.

And since you have only been here a month, you don't know enough about ANYONE here to make such accusations.

You bring nothing to the table but personal attacks, and a false paradigm you are invested in so deeply that you will only pay attention to anything that reaffirms and supports it, and ignore everything that says otherwise, regardless of how verified and vetted it is.

"He is the first black President."

So The Fuck WHAT? This is such a tired meme and line of argument, and it's so beyond pathetic. The Color Of His Skin has NO bearing on his performance, and quite frankly, it is NOT AN ISSUE. What matters is, has he delivered? Is he doing what he promised.

For the most part, in his first seven months, the answer is mostly NO. I am not happy about it, I do not want it to be true, but unlike you, I am not willing to blindly believe and fall in line, just because he is on our "Football Team."

Not after the last dictatorship. At the very least, he is going to get even MORE scrutiny from me, because of what we have been through 8 years prior. And not only does he refuse to hold ANY of the criminals from the previous administration accountable for their crimes, he is CONTINUING some of their more draconian policies.

Unlike you, I am not willing to overlook this. People like you seem to think everything he does is part of some complex, intricate Chess Game that we cannot comprehend, and we just need to have blind faith, vote, and go to sleep and let him take care of everything.

"He needs to get everything right or race relations are doomed. He could really use your support, but I guess that's too much to ask."

He will get my support when he starts to deliver on his promises.

Until then, I will continue to scrutinize him the same way I would any other President.

You of course, will Keep On Grazing In Blind Faith.

Trust me, it won't change reality, whether you can deal with it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolphindance Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. You really think Obama wants to stay in Iraq for 10 years?
It doesn't matter what the Army Chief says about potential readiness. The buck stops with Obama. If he wants out of Iraq, then we're getting out.

I see no evidence that he wants to stay past the deadlines agreed upon. But since you want to see the first black President fail, you'll always see the worst.

Thanks a bunch.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Except that the Deadlines just keep changing don't they?
Edited on Mon Aug-10-09 08:17 PM by TheWatcher
First it was 6 Months, then 9, then 16, then 23.

What are they up to now, 2011?

And again, this childish little Race meme, and putting words and ideas in my mouth that I never spoke, insinuated or uttered. No one has said they want the President to fail. This is just a silly little notion that people like you trot out whenever your Mainstream Propaganda you are so invested in being conned and scammed by doesn't hold water.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. I support Obama when I think he is right. When I think he is wrong,
like I think he is with his Afghanistan/Pakistan policy, I will say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Does the truth bother you?
I have no agenda, other than not letting the escalation in Afghanistan slip by without notice. More troops have already been sent. NATO has requested more troops. McCrystal is likely going to request more and get them. Senators are already talking about it.

I'm sorry that you are so bothered by the reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolphindance Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Reality is, if we don't kick at least SOME ass, people will walk all over us.
We let Afg. slip while wasting time in Iraq. We need some time to at least see if we can make some gains there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. How I wish we would just say we won
and leave. Why do we have to pay for the sins of the Bush administration? More people killed on all sides. Two completely unnecessary wars! The longer we stay the more worse off we will be. And the media will be the death of all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. The Ruskies
The Russians had 500,000 and look what happened to them. Even Alexander the Great only held the place temporarily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. But it's what he said he would do during the primaries...
:puke:

Hang on, some fuckwit is going to say that and actually mean it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Look upthread.
It already happened.

It's all so childlike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
21. And the war for empire continues apace
Change? Change? Anybody seen some change around here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. More and more our escalation in Afghanistan seems to be
a transfer of business for the war machine's profiteers. Just a transfer of funds from Iraq to Afghanistan with no end in sight.

Of course, we still have the troops in Iraq. I'll believe they are coming home when I see them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
24. Invisible History Afghanistan's Untold Story
MP3 of an informative interview with Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors of http://www.invisiblehistory.com/">Invisible History Afghanistan's Untold Story can be downloaded here: http://www.monksmedia.com/tvnewslies/7-8-09.mp3


Invisible History Afghanistan's Untold Story
The Real Story Behind the Propaganda

* How an invasion of Afghanistan by the American-backed Shah of Iran was being prepared years before the Soviets invaded.
* How Afghanistan was used as a calculated pretext for the Reagan administration's unprecedented arms buildup.
* How Afghanistan became a covert launch-pad for the greatest heroin smuggling racket in history as the CIA looked away.
* How Afghanistan is being used as a vehicle for Saudi Arabian colonization and control of Central Asia - blessed by the United States.

http://www.invisiblehistory.com/



An Open Letter to Rachel Maddow about Afghanistan

June 24, 2009 By Paul Fitzgerald
and Elizabeth Gould

It was when Dan Rather told Rachel Maddow on her January 27th show, "We are not seeking to colonize Afghanistan. The Soviets made no bones about it. They were coming in to take over the country. They wanted to run the country. They wanted to be there 100 or 1,000 years from now. That is not the case with what we‘re trying to do,.." we held our breath. There has been a controversy over the authenticity of Rather's coverage of Afghanistan going back to 1980. Now in 2009 Rather was building on the his own Cold War disinformation campaign from the 1980's and taking it to an absurd new level. We had hoped that Maddow was up to the challenge. Unfortunately, she allowed Rather's disinformation to go unchallenged. We assumed that Maddow must not have known that Rather's views of Soviet motives in Afghanistan and the American role were propaganda from another era. We assumed that Maddow, along with most Americans, must not have known that Rather's reports on Afghanistan were tainted and have been challenged by many journalists.

So in response we sent a letter to Rachel Maddow regarding her January 27th interview with Dan Rather on Afghanistan summarized here.
________________________________

Dear Rachel Maddow;

Our personal involvement with Afghanistan and the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather began in 1981. We were the first journalists to gain access to Kabul through diplomatic channels at the United Nations following the expulsion of 1135 western journalists one month after the Soviet invasion. Contracted to CBS what we found in 1981 was in stark contrast to the picture that Rather was playing on the evening news.

The war in Afghanistan was a civil war between progressive modernists who advocated women's rights and a secular state versus extremist Islamists backed by the United States, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who wanted to turn back the clock to the medieval era. Women's rights had been a spark in that war.

Since then we have pieced together the complete story of how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was miscast in the US media in order to intentionally reflect the political position of the new right and the neoconservatives who were just then coming into power through the Carter and Reagan years. There are now reams of first hand material available that we have incorporated into our book Invisible History Afghanistan's Untold Story, that contradict the child-like Reagan era/good vs. evil approach to the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan promoted by CBS and Rather at the time. The Soviets tried to avoid invading Afghanistan for months prior to December of 1979. They warned the Marxist party in Kabul in no uncertain terms that they were not a broad enough political party to govern Afghanistan. The KGB recommended that they step aside and help in the formation of a broad based coalition government including conservative Islamists. Moscow wanted to return the King to the throne in the summer and fall of 1979 and informed the United States of it. Even secretary of defense Robert Gates and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski have both publicly boasted that they intentionally set out to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam quagmire. According to Gates in his 1997 book From the Shadows, there was no downside to having the Soviets trapped in Afghanistan.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21781


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC