The Next US Troop Escalation in Afghanistan Could Bring the Total to 113,000

[tekisui]

We are just getting started with the Imperialistic blunder that is the Afghanistan War. The next call for additional troops will be 15,000 to 45,000, depending on what 'risk' level the Obama Administration decides to go with. If they choose the 'low risk' call, there will be a total of 113,000 US troops in Afghanistan. We now have estimates that the Afghanistan war will cost MORE than the Iraq War money drain. We have been told our involvement will last decades. We are building a $1 Billion dollar city/embassy in Pakistan that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year to staff and operate.

This is madness. Does anyone really think that 100,000+ troops and trillions of dollars are worth pouring into a losing war? Does this make sense to anyone? With all of the problems that need funding in this country, why do we continue to export War? The military-industrial complex has our government enslaved.

[bluestateguy]

1. We are in this mess only because the Bush Administration tried to fight the war on the cheap

and now the bill is coming due because he and Rumsfeld took their eye off the ball by going into Iraq, and neglecting resources for this war. Obama now has to do what, belatedly, the past Administration failed to do.

This remains Bush's war as far as I am concerned, and it always will be.

[tekisui]

2. Bullshit.

Obama has no more define a win or success in Afghanistan. This his baby now. Obama has changed the policy there, added troops and expanded. He owns the escalation and the war. Just as he owns the current policy in Iraq, he owns the policy in Afghanistan.

[bluestateguy]

3. So you are defending Bush

Got it.

[ixion]

4. No, he's not

of course the Bush cabal started it. There is no 'winning' in a hostile occupation. The best thing to do, in order to start cleaning up the mess, is to stop the hostile occupation, not accelerate it.

By not pulling out of Afghanistan, Obama has effectively 'bought' it from Bush, and enters the group of those responsible.

[Curtland1015]

6. To be fair, us pulling out won't really clean up that mess.

It will just end our involvement in it.

Which I'm FOR, don't get me wrong... but their problems run WAY deeper than the fact that we have troops there.

[tekisui]

17. Their problems are our problems as long as we are there.

AND we make their problems worse.

[tekisui]

5. That doesn't even make any sense.

Bush fucked up, but escalating is also a BIG mistake. If you give Obama credit for pulling troops out of Iraqi cities, you have to give him blame for escalating a failed war.

Defending bush? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I guess that is the kind of bullshit straw man you have to pull to defend an unnecessary war. I understand, though. You are in the uncomfortable position of supporting the killing of innocent men women and children because you are incapable of admitting that Obama is fallible. You are forced to ignore facts and deflect to absurd positions. Got it.


ETA: If anyone is defending Bush when it comes to Afghanistan, it's Obama. Obama says it is the right war, bush did it wrong, but by god we'll do it right!

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. +1

:applause:

[billyoc]

9. Bullshit.

[bluestateguy]

13. Abusive language always wins the argument

That sure put me in my place.

[billyoc]

14. Everyone who read your post already knows where your place is.

[Tim01]

7. We have "Wounded Warrior" events at my place sometimes.

It is really really hard to see. It makes me kind of sick.

113,000? Holy crap! I didn't know it was that many. I guess I just haven't been adding it up each time they commit another 20,000.

Sun Tzu said a country can't afford a protracted war. Smart guy.

[redqueen]

10. On BBC World News this morning they said generals were asking for 10K more.

I guess they're ratcheting up the number already... *sigh*

Enough. Our military won't solve their problems.

[jaxx]

11. Where do you get the figures?

[tekisui]

16. It's all over. The range of 15,000 to 45,000 will be requested.

By the end of this year, we will have 68,000. I just did the addition.

A couple of sources:

The situation in Afghanistan is "serious and deteriorating", according to the United States' top military officer Admiral Mike Mullen.

The bleak assessment is shared by the US commander in Afghanistan, Army General Stanley McChrystal, who is expected to ask President Barack Obama for between 15,000 and 45,000 more troops to help fight the Taliban.

Admiral Mullen's remarks underscore the difficulties facing the almost 100,000 American, British, Australian and other Coalition troops arrayed against the Taliban and their international terrorist allies.

The situation has eroded public support in the US for the war.

According to the most recent polling, just over 50 per cent of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, and Americans are against sending more troops by a ratio of two to one.

Admiral Mullen says he is aware of that flagging support.

"Certainly the numbers are of concern. That said, the President has given me and the American military a mission and that focuses on a new strategy, new leadership," he said.

Within the next fortnight General McChrystal will deliver his on-the-ground assessment to Mr Obama.

Members of Congress who have just visited Afghanistan and been briefed by the General say they are in no doubt he will ask for thousands of more troops.

The only question, they say, is will General McChrystal ask for the low-risk option of 15,000 or the high-risk option of 45,000 extra troops.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2664412.htm?section=world

Much of the politicking on the military side appears to be aimed at legitimising a potential request from General McChrystal to Mr Obama for troops at the maximum range of 45,000.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint chief of Staff, made candid admissions about conditions in Afghanistan yesterday. "It is serious and it is deteriorating," Admiral Mullen said. "And as I've said over the last couple of years, the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated."

Admiral Mullen said that General McChrystal, who is believed to have delayed his recommendations on the Afghan conflict until after the country's presidential elections, had yet to make any decisions about asking for extra troops.

In a separate interview, Admiral Mullen admitted that falling public support for the Afghanistan war effort was worrying, and said he was aware US public support was critical.

From a security standpoint, he said, the US-led mission needed to "turn this thing around" within 18 months.

The US ambassador to Afghanistan, retired general Karl Eikenberry, who joined Admiral Mullen in two political talkshows to discuss the conflict, admitted he was not optimistic.

"I'm giving a candid assessment that, as Admiral Mullen said, we have a very difficult situation in parts of Afghanistan today," he said.

Former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has toured Afghanistan during the August congress recess, said yesterday that he supported Mr Obama's position on maintaining the war effort, but believed General McChrystal was coming under great pressure from within the White House, though possibly not from the President himself, not to recommend a larger number of additional troops.

"There are great pressures on General McChrystal to reduce those estimates," Senator McCain said. "I don't think it's necessarily from the President, I think it's from the people around him and others."

Senator McCain said progress was possible within 18 months and acknowledged the fall in public support.

"You need to see a reversal of these very alarming and disturbing trends on attacks, casualties, areas of the country that the Taliban has increased control of," he said.

As part of the surge in Afghanistan, US troop numbers will increase to 68,000 in the next few months, in addition to 35,000 troops from other nations including Australia.

As the war turns sour after eight years of battle, General McChrystal will almost certainly ask for a further boost, which is expected to be in the range of 15,000 to 45,000 troops.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25975165-2703,00.html

[jaxx]

18. I see guesses.

What a shame Afghanistan was left alone all those Iraq years. While dubya fiddled the taliban danced.

[tekisui]

Not really guesses. They have been priming the pump for

months about the next troop increase. This is how the military operates. They throw out low and high end estimates to get us comfortable with the idea, then make the formal request. There will be an escalation. I would bet money it will be greater than 15,000.

Afghanistan was not 'left alone'. It was botched, but we made it worse, are making it worse and will make it worse as long as we are there. We are radicalizing a new generation. Why does the Taliban have the ability to recruit and grow? We give the people of Afghanistan daily reminders of what is at stake.

[Echo In Light]

12. Well that definitely sucks

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Kick and Recommend. This needs to stay at the top of the page.

I wanna see every defender of the policy check in and give their own version of how * fucked it up and how President Obama is going to somehow make it right.

I never was right, it ain't ever going to BE right, and thinking that President Obama somehow has an answer for the Taliban in Afghanistan is absolute stupidity. Absolute.

[Fumesucker]

19. I've thought Afganistan was a major mistake right from the beginning..

I recall taking a great deal of abuse (not here on DU) when I stated that position.

Why is it that our leaders never seem to learn the lessons of history?

Afganistan violates every tenet of the Powell doctrine, even Colin Powell seems to have forgotten the doctrine named after him.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

[robdogbucky]

20. What Fumesucker said

and more.

I know my post count indicates I am a newbie, but I guarantee I have been reading DU since 2001. It was a lifeline during the dark Bush years. I know that newbies' opinions don't mean much to many, but hear me out. I am not deliberately trashing our only hope, Obama, by what I relate here. I am just concerned. Concerned that nothing important will change. I voted for change, but some of the campaing rhetoric disturbed me. I am concerned that what Chavez said may have a ring of truth to it, that Obama is a captive of the American right. More importantly, no one can get elected pres in this country if they buck the intentions of the Pentagon and the MIC.

Way back when, in December, while Obama was waiting to assume office, I was 'discussing,' the new pres and his campaign promises w/denizens of another board, mostly right-winger white middle aged males, on a college sports board w/a political page. It came up that all during Obama's campaign I would tear my hair out and jump up and down every time Obama stated his Afghan intentions. It was infuriating to hear him mouth the scare of the 'Taliban threatening us,' just as the Bush cabal had done. I could not square it up that Obama had apparently decided that the Iraq misadventure was bad, a waste, not the way to fight the 'War on Terrorism,' etc.

I was met with the 'We are fighting them there so we don't have them here,' etc. and the illusion that Afghanistan and the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. Remember 9/11? The official story for that lies that it was a group of 'al ciada,' operatives financed and trained by a Saudi, OBL, and that they got away with it because we are soft on terrorism, etc. It was further related that we needed to interfere in these radical muslim nations that threatened to kill us all.

I looked up the donations by Big Oil to the various presidential candidates. Guess what? Romney was No.1. McCain was No.2. Obama was No. 3 with over $600,000 coming into his campaign coffers via Big Oil. Karzai was a Unocal employee before we appointed him puppet. Now we have this little sham election where the Taliban is discouraging turnout and Karzai's forces are stuffing the ballot boxes. Now there are rumblings of further escalation. I must admit this is what Obama's campaign talk stated. I do not like it and I wanted him to be questioned more rigorously during the campaign, but alas I was not able to make to one of those staged debates for the Q/A session. Otherwise I would have asked why he was thinking that way, what was different about Afghan from Iraq? What a clusterf*ck.

Question: If that troop escalation means +113,000 GIs, how many more are 'contractors.' We already know that there are almost as many of these in Iraq as there are GIs, so what is the amount in Afghan? We know they don't count them on the books, they don't count their fatalaties as American fatalities, etc. Bush made those forces immune to prosecution and we know their ranks are swelled by veterans that complete their tours and then plan to make a killing earning like $1,000/day over there. There are then the civilian contractors that feed at the trough of the War Machine over there, establishing bases, embassies, etc. How many of those have been inserted into Afghanistan? I hate to say it but I have a distant family member working for State that is over there 'working,' on the election.

If anyone wants to read a very well researched fictional account of 'contractors,' and their involvement in Iraq, as well as the role played by our National Guard recruits over there, they should read "Betrayal," by John Lescroat. Excellent contemporary up to date account of all that is transpiring in Iraq.

Where do we go from here? Can we change thousands of years of tribal history in that part of the world?

Why has Obama chosen this escalation route when it did not produce the alleged stated results in Iraq? When will we be out of Iraq? The poster up thread that cited the rhetoric in advance of a buildup was absolutely spot on. It all has a familiar ring going all the way back to Korea and Viet Nam, whenever US wanted to sell increased military involvement in some far off locale.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. kick

[unhappycamper]

22. When can we declare Victory and get out?

When 1,000 American soldiers are dead?

When 5,000 American soldiers are dead?

10,000?

58,264?

When we run out of money?

These sorry fucks (including the White House) haven't learned a damn thing about history. We were in Vietnam for over 14 years and lost 58,264 Americans at the end of the war.

In the last 35 years, I'd wager that at least 58,264 more Vietnam vets were killed by stupid with drugs and/or alcohol, crime, PTSD and homelessness.

War is bad for humans and other living things.

(BTW, we have at least as many contractors are we do boots on the ground over there.)