Military Chief Says More Troops Needed for Afghan War

[laststeamtrain]

Source: NYT

September 16, 2009
Military Chief Says More Troops Needed for Afghan War
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told Congress on Tuesday that success in Afghanistan would probably require more troops and certainly much more time, a position seconded by a top Republican but challenged by a leading Democrat.

The intense dialogue, at a morning hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, previewed the sharp national debate expected over coming weeks as the White House considers how best to pursue its new strategy in Afghanistan in the face of growing skepticism from members of President Obama’s own party.

The committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, insisted that accelerated efforts to train and equip Afghan security forces should precede any deployment of American troops beyond those already committed by the Obama administration. Mr. Levin’s stance is expected to have great sway, as he is the most powerful Democrat in Congress on military matters.

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, his party’s most experienced voice on military affairs, countered by declaring that more troops were “vitally needed” in Afghanistan — and that any delay in ordering more combat forces to the fight put American lives at risk.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/asia/16mullen.html?_r=1

---

BUZZ!!! WRONG ANSWER.

Congress needs to be getting the 'great refusal' together. No More Money.

The plan we need from the military is the big drawdown.

I'm sick of this shit.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. What would one expect a military chief to say?

I mean, really?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Pretty pathetic situation. There's no convenient way out of that one.

[vinylsolution]

3. How much longer will ths insanity go on?

... and what exactly is the US military's mission in Afghanistan?

It's a great question for your local congressman.

[think]

4. Obama needs an exit strategy NOW

I don't want to be here next year looking over more American lives lost and talk about another 120 billion for another year of war.

[Hawkowl]

5. What would Lincoln do?

Lincoln repeatedly sacked generals who couldn't get the job done. Relieve him of command and put someone in charge who can plan an exit strategy that differs from the Russians in 1980's or the British in the 1840's.

Or maybe someone should remind him of McNamara and Johnson in the 1960's. Declare victory and get out. Or just get out and let the CIA play there to keep them away from others.

[Thothmes]

6. Lincoln did not look for a man that could plan an exit strategy

he put a man in charge that could and would destroy the Confederate states ability to resist Federal Law. Maybe that should be President Obama's goal?

[Hawkowl]

7. Probably wouldn't work in the 21st century

Sherman's march to the sea, torching Atlanta probably wouldn't translate to Kabul. Burning wide swathes of farmland and driving the natives out of their homes would simply solidify the Islamic world's opinion of the USA as 21st century Nazi's.

My point is that Obama needs to get a general that can plan an exit strategy, spin it as a victory, while helping the Afghans. And he needs to be cold and ruthless about it. As cold and as ruthless as the generals who order the 20 year old Marines to charge the machine guns and slaughter the defenders. Because it isn't a war, it's an occupation, or a civil war along the lines of Vietnam. It simply is un-winnable without destroying the country and its inhabitants.

[unkachuck]

8. tell mullen....

....to go pound sand....we need to stop pissing money away on useless friggin' wars and start taking better care of our sick people....

....why must this country make a science out of getting things ass-backwards?