U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan

[IndianaGreen]

Source: LA Times

U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan

Support units will be replaced by up to 14,000 'trigger-pullers,' and noncombat posts will be contracted out, Defense officials say. The swap will allow the U.S. to keep its troop level unchanged.

By Julian E. Barnes

September 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington - U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with "trigger-pullers," Defense officials say.

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.

The plan represents a key step in the Obama administration's drive to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress in the war nearly eight years after it began.

Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to noncombat duty, such as guards or lookouts, or those on clerical and support squads.

"It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers," said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Officials have spoken in recent days about aspects of the plan.

The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, officials said.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-afghan-troops2-2009sep02,0,6170770.story

[Cant trust em]

1. Military thinking does not change.

"Maybe if we just add a few more troops, we can win this time!"

[Dr Fate]

7. Plus, I'm told by many politicians that we can't afford a public option.

Unless somebody is lying to me, that means we can't afford this war either...

[joeycola]

15. bingo

[dflprincess]

10. Apparently thinking in the executive branch doesn't change much either

that's where the final decision comes from.

[IndianaGreen]

12. May I point out that it was civilian leaders that couldn't bring themselves to accept war was lost

It happened in Vietnam when 30,000 more GIs died so that Nixon wouldn't lose face, and will happen in Afghanistan.

[Cant trust em]

13. Yes. Military thinking has influenced the civilian leadership.

What is it with this country that we think we can shoot our way out of all of our problems?

[Thothmes]

14. Nixon's numbers are about 20,863

Over half that number, 11,616 occured in 1969, the year he took over the war from Johnson.

[maxsolomon]

2. cash money works too

the british raj wouldn't have pulled the clerks out - someone needs to write the cheques that pay them not to fight. carrots, too, not just sticks.

[Phx_Dem]

3. That headline is misleading. It sounds like they are increasing troops

when they are not. They replacing 14,000 support troops with 14,000 combat troops.

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops,

[IndianaGreen]

5. Bottom line: More dead GIs. Is that what you want?

Enough people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indiana National Guard is in Afghanistan. Let's bring them all home!

[Phx_Dem]

9. And 14,000 less support troops. Would you rather they stay?

[IndianaGreen]

11. No, I rather they all come home now from this foolish escalation

We won't win in Afghanistan with the military.

[Brother Buzz]

4. Johnson and McNamara visited this same crossroad 45 years ago.

[IndianaGreen]

6. It is always the 'Best and the Brightest' that get us into quagmires

then they go off and write their books and go on speaking tours while the rest of us have to bury our dead, and nurse our wounded.

[Autumn]

8. Nothing new under the sun

and some people think they can make it work, when it hasn't worked before.:shrug: