U.S. Military Says Its Force in Afghanistan Is Insufficient

[tekisui]

Source: NYT

BAGRAM, Afghanistan — American military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Obama’s chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operate across borders.

The commanders emphasized problems in southern Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents continue to bombard towns and villages with rockets despite a new influx of American troops, and in eastern Afghanistan, where the father-and-son-led Haqqani network of militants has become the main source of attacks against American troops and their Afghan allies.

The possibility that more troops will be needed in Afghanistan presents the Obama administration with another problem in dealing with a nearly eight-year war that has lost popularity at home, compounded by new questions over the credibility of the Afghan government, which has just held an as-yet inconclusive presidential election beset by complaints of fraud.

The assessments come as the top American commander in the country, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has been working to complete a major war strategy review, and as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, described a worsening situation in Afghanistan despite the recent addition of 17,000 American troops ordered by the Obama administration and the extra security efforts surrounding the presidential election.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/asia/24military.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[Joanne98]

1. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO SEND MORE TROOPS!

[tj2001]

2. Seen that movie before

[customerserviceguy]

3. When we told President Obama to be more like LBJ

we didn't mean this.

[tekisui]

4. There could be around 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan after the

next escalation:

US media reports say he is going to offer three different options for extra troop deployment, a 'low risk', 'medium risk' and 'high risk' strategy.

The 'low risk' strategy would be to deploy an extra 45,000 troops, with the 'high risk' option involving just 15,000 soldiers being sent into Afghanistan.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Chair-Of-Joint-Chiefs-Of-Staff-Says-Al-Qaeda-Very-Capable-Of-Terror-Attack-On-US/Article/200908415367702

[gratuitous]

5. The force is "insufficient" - Insufficient for what, exactly?

Gosh, I hate to question the dogma of the High Church of Redemptive Violence, but what exactly are we in Afghanistan for? Sure, it's a marketing bonanza for arms manufacturers, but what are we spending all this time, treasure and talent to accomplish? I mean, we knocked off the Axis powers of World War II in about half the time it's taken us to dick around in Afghanistan, killing locals and getting our own people killed. To what purpose?

[tekisui]

6. We are trying to break the record for longest US war.

Vietnam lasted 16 years. We are charging into year 9 of Afghanistan with an escalation of troops!