'Sustained' Push Seen in Afghanistan - U.S. Commander Says Troop Level of 60,000

[slipslidingaway]

Is Needed for at Least Three to Four Years

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2009; A11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021803373_pf.html

"The United States will have to keep about 60,000 troops in Afghanistan for at least the next three to four years to combat an increasingly violent insurgency, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said yesterday, warning that 2009 will be "a tough year."

At least 10,000 additional U.S. troops are required in Afghanistan beyond the 17,000 that President Obama announced Tuesday would go to Afghanistan this spring or summer, with decisions on two additional brigades -- one focused on training and one on combat -- expected later this year, said Gen. David D. McKiernan, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan.

"This is not a temporary force uplift," McKiernan said at a Pentagon news conference. "For the next three to four years, I think we're going to need to stay heavily committed and sustain in a sustained manner in Afghanistan." McKiernan said violence is likely to escalate in Afghanistan as fresh troops expand into insurgent-held areas where the military has little or no presence. "When we do put additional security forces, I would expect to see a temporary time where the level of violence might go up," he said...

The additional ground forces, including a brigade of about 8,000 Marines and an Army Stryker brigade combat team, will work with Afghan forces to drive insurgents out of towns and rural areas and increase security for the local people, he said. In addition, they will arrive prepared to train Afghan police, he said...

Despite a somber near-term outlook, McKiernan stressed that he believes the insurgency in Afghanistan will eventually be defeated. "The vast majority of the people that live in Afghanistan reject the Taliban or other militant insurgent groups. . . . The insurgency will not win in Afghanistan."

[bdamomma]

1. look what happened to Russia , we are aiming to see full collapse

of our country.

[AzDar]

3. Yep. They had as many as 160,000 troops in Afghanistan and they still got

their asses handed to them. I fully understand that a portion of the Afghani population is supportive of the U.S. endeavor there, but I don't think that's going to make much of a difference.:(

[FarCenter]

5. Maybe, maybe not....

The Russians were defeated partly by the supply of anti-armor weapons and anti-aircraft missiles from the CIA to the ISI to the mujahadeen (aka Taliban and AlQaeda). They also had problems keeping the suppy route from Northern Afghanistan to the Kabul and southeastern areas open.

So long as the Taliban don't have a good supply of anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons, they can pretty much be attacked from the air at will. Ground operations can also be partly successful, but 60,000 troops is not nearly enough in a country that large.

So the outcome will depend first on whether the Taliban can secure a good supply of weapons, and second whether they can cut off the US supply lines via Pakistan. Supplying the forces in Afghanistan by air is hugely expensive.

It may be possible to work a deal with the Iranians for a second supply route to the southern part of Afghanistan.

[slipslidingaway]

6. As FarCenter noted below we could be lucky if another country

does not arm our enemies.

Unfortunately the innocent in Afghanistan will pay the price one way or another.

:(

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Apparently McKiernan is calling all the shots on what we do.

A revolt looks like the only alternative to the direction we are headed.

[slipslidingaway]

7. It will be Obama's call, not sure who would revolt??? n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Clearly you wouldn't.

Most likely you would be lining up to go there on Obama's good word.

[slipslidingaway]

10. One point in posing that question was to highlight the fact that too

many people will go along and not question, because it comes from the Obama administration, but that would not include me.

Just the other day I was accused of a disinformation campaign against "our President"

"...I will hold you accountable for your disinformation campaign against our President..."


Guess I should be expecting a knock on the door.

:shrug:

[bluedawg12]

4. They need to create some stability, before they can exert soft power.

shrub left that most dangerous region spinning toward utter chaos.

[slipslidingaway]

8. We'll soon find out if thus creates stability and for how long. n/t

[spanone]

11. President Obama will need to stand up to the warmongers in this country

they will war us into perpetuity

[slipslidingaway]

12. Yes we can hope that he will...

glad a few people, such as Feingold, are asking questions.

[TwilightGardener]

13. We've had around 30,000 troops, for that vast mountainous region, for

what--7 years now? That was never enough, even with other NATO troops. This mission was woefully shortchanged for many years, and now we are going to play catch-up. That sucks. The blood of our soldiers and of the civilians who died because this war was needlessly prolonged is on Pres. Cheney's hands. I wish Obama didn't have to follow through, but I don't see an alternative for him.

[lovuian]

14. They FAILED

and they keep on FAILING

now the America is bankrupt and we can't keep the military up

its time for a reality check

if Cheney and Bush's point was to destroy the American Empire they sure did

[slipslidingaway]

16. Well I'm not sure another 30,000 troops and a few more years

will help stabilize the region and defeat the terrorists.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/holbrooke.afghanistan/

"...President Obama has called Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan the "central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism."

[leftofthedial]

15. What is the goal? What is the mission?

"Combatting the insurgency" is meaningless.

[Mari333]

17. sustained push

why do war terms always sound like boring sexual behaviour. I wish someone would write a thesis on terminology used in war and sports and how often it uses terms that sound like some guy having sex, and then connect it to the possibility that a lot of people who run the fucking wars ARENT FUCKING, which says it all.

[spanone]

18. i wonder if this 'top afghanistan commander' has spoken to his commander in chief???