US sending up to 45,000 more troops to afghanistan

President Barack Obama's administration is understood to have told the British government that it could announce, as early as next week, the substantial increase to its 65,000 troops already serving there

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The british are also sending another 500. So the newly won nobel peace prize president barack obama is more or less doubling the size of US forces in afghanistan.

reply to post by TheCoffinman

So the newly won nobel peace prize president barack obama is more or less doubling the size of US forces in afghanistan.

First of all I hope this is true and good ole Barak decided to man up.

Second, peace comes by 4 means.
1. One side giving in.
2. Both sides compromising
3. Both sides have equal power to annihilate each other, and so are afraid of the fight.
4. One side gets crushed by the other side in war.

I think only number 4 applies in Afghanistan.

reply to post by StinkyFeet


You forgot number 5....

5. THE NATION GOES BROKE and can no longer finance the war. Happened to the USSR.....in Afghanistan as well....

reply to post by David9176


Excellent point. I guess we coud call it 4a, because crushing financialy is still crushing.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

Up to 65,000, eh? I wonder whatever happened to his claims of pulling back the troops...

Thanks for this Coffinman. I admire how you can present the information while remaining emotionally detached in your words. Some day perhaps I will be able to achieve that as well.

McChrystal has come out today and said that 80 thousand more troops might not help.

The 'war' in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. I wish our troops the best, but wish they were never sent.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
McChrystal has come out today and said that 80 thousand more troops might not help.

The 'war' in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. I wish our troops the best, but wish they were never sent.

That's not what he said....



I don't know how you function sometimes. An optimist would see the glass as half full. A pessimist would see it as half empty while an engineer would say the glass is twice the size necessary...

You on the other hand would say it's a lost cause.

AP sources: Afghan corruption worries McChrystal

A still-secret document by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal that requests more troops is expected to be among the topics discussed Wednesday when President Barack Obama meets with his national security team to hash out a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even with additional troops, McChrystal concluded that corruption still could let terrorists turn Afghanistan back into a haven, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House.

His request outlines three options for additional troops — from as many as 80,000 to as few as 10,000 — but favors a compromise of 40,000 more forces, the officials said. They described it to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by KSPigpen


And then the alternative would have been that a nation would be over ran by a regime which the vast majority do not want, a regime that is one of the most brutal and repressive known in human history.

And the consequence of that?
The likelihood that Pakistan would follow suit and come under Taliban control, the subsequent decline in the already delicate India / Pakistan relationship with possible dire consequences for all of us.

As mentioned here, www.abovetopsecret.com... , only a fool wants war, but sometimes it is necessary.

We need to equip all of our troops correctly and then allow them to take whatever measures necessary to ensure victory.

[edit on 14/10/09 by Freeborn]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Time will tell. I hope I'm as wrong on this as I am on so many other things. This argument has been repeated countless times on here.

Afghanistan broke the Soviets. It's breaking the US as well. If the commander on the ground is not confident that 80,000 more troops will secure victory...what hope is there?

Rampant government corruption may derail the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops are sent to the war, the top military commander there has concluded, according to U.S. officials briefed on his recommendations.

cbs13.com...

looks like the same article, Slayer. Funny how we key in on different statements in the same thing. What I read is that the government in Afghanistan is corrupt and No amount of additional troops will guarantee us success.

What that SAYS to me is that we are involved in a futile effort. There is obviously no clear path to victory for us in Afghanistan. If there IS, the commander on the ground sure has no idea what it is.

Apparently throwing more troops at the problem, not even KNOWING if it is going to help is an acceptable strategy?

Oh, and I function well. Just not quite like you.

Does anyone but me ask if there is an ulterior motive for the war in Afghanistan?
I found this recently, any comments welcome.

In January 1984 a report was published by the chief engineer of the Afghan Geological Survey Department of Soviet uranium mining in Afghanistan. It revealed that uranium production was begun in the mountains of Khawaja Rawash north of Kabul after the discovery of deposits in 1983. Soviet engineers were also said to be mining uranium at Koh Mir Daoud, between Herat and Shindand, and also in the Khakriz area of Qandahar province. The uranium projects were restricted to Soviet personnel in order to maintain secrecy and security. All production was sent to the Soviet Union.
1 Mar 2006 - In Afghanistan, illegal mining of uranium and gold reserves in Kohistan district of the northern Faryab province continues unabated.
www.gl.iit.edu...

There are also deposits of high-grade chrome ore in the Logar valley, near Herat. Uranium mined in the Khwaja Rawash Mountains to the east of Kabul used to be exported to the Central Asian countries. The Kunar Valley has beryllium deposits and lapis lazuli in Badakshan.
www.mbendi.com...

Reports of high uranium concentration in Afghani urine in 2003 fueled speculation that the coalition used depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan. However, further research in 2005 showed the isotope ratios to be more consistent with a natural (not depleted) uranium source.
en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)#U.S._plans_to_remove_the_Taliban_prior_to_September_11.2C_2001

reply to post by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!


And The Taliban get control of Uranium, gain knowledge how to use it and.....??

Now I know that TPTB will only profit out of this but wtf, that's a lesser evil than The Taliban getting control of it and doing heaven knows what with it!

reply to post by Freeborn


I don't really like that alternative either, but the truth of it, is it's not really any of our business. Are there Afghanis coming to the United States to 'save' US from the oppressive regime? If the Afghan people are satisfied to live under oppression, that is their business. They got along fine for a couple dozen years before America showed up.

I don't agree with the US BEING there in the first place, but I do agree with you about one thing. If we ARE going to be there, they need to untie the hands of the guys fighting, give them some better equipment and support an try their best to FINISH it. Yes, America should either crap, or get off the pot.

This little blip might help enlighten some of our less informed on the subject... Why their so egger to go back in


at an HASC hearing this morning: General Keane a member of the Department of Defense Policy Board and now retired Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. Had this to say

“A loss of Afghanistan is a win for the Taliban and the Al Qaeda in Pakistan with potential serious consequences for Paksitan…It is not about how many Al Qaeda fighters are in Afghanistan but how the Al Qaeda network enables, trains, and supports the Taliban. We cannot conveniently separate the two, if we lose in Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda will be right behind the Taliban as they take over....

“Why not make a political accommodation with the Taliban in exchange for stopping the violence and possibly ensuring that no Al Qaeda sanctuary returns to Afghanistan. This is the height of folly and naiveté. The Taliban are winning from their perspective, believe that the U.S. will be leaving, and they will be back in control of Afghanistan. Why should they settle for less, now, when they can get it all, later? In their minds, time is on their side. These leaders have been approached before and there’s no deal to be had and, “for the life of me,” what part of Afghanistan do we surrender to the Taliban, forcing the Afghan people, who we have supported for eight years, to live under the Taliban sadistic rule...

“Given the new COIN strategy and current force levels what can we do to turn around the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan in the meantime? How do we mitigate the 2 to 3 years as we wait for the appropriate growth of the ANSF? The only remaining answer to ‘stop the bleeding’ and turn around the situation is the introduction of U.S. troops…I will leave to Gen. McChrystal as to what the appropriate number is because only he and his staff have the fidelity to make that kind of analysis.”

Foot note the troop expansion plan is called the COIN strategy
the hope is it buy time to properly train the rightful governments police and army... they need two years to become fully operational

If we go on defense, it won't matter how many troops you introduce, as you will have conferred all the initiative to the Taliban.

"In military operations, first determine a winning strategy, and only then send forth the troops. If you do not plan first, hoping to rely on your strength, your victory is uncertain." H Yanxi

We've been in Afghanistan twice as long as WWII took to win. Looks like our strategy positively - sucks.

"Those on the defensive are so because they do not have enough to win; those on the offense are so because they have more than enough to win." Wang Xi

It doesn't take another 20,000 or 40,000 men. Wang Xi was talking about more than numbers. Numbers in combat mean very little.

Wang Xi was talking about leadership. Speed. Swifteness. Flexibility. Leadership. Mobility. Morale.

To hole up in defensive postures, you just reduced your effectiveness by half at least.

To hole up in defensive postures, you just doubled your casualty rates.

What was it tha Xenophone, leader of the 10,000 said? "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."

We don't need more troops in Afghanistan. We need to use the ones we have efficiently.

"Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity." Clausewitz

The leading general has surrounded himself with fools. Fools who are pushing to repeat the very same mistakes that have proven wrong over the millennia.

It's like, "I know it never, ever worked before, but I'm smarter and more intuitive than all others before me, and so this will work. This time."

No, it won't.

Can we not say to hell with the unknowing generals, and find a proven warrior Colonel, or if no fighting Colonels can be found, maybe a canny, combat leader who's personally taken scalps, knows how to fight, and is only a Captain?

What damned good are our generals?

More men just helps conceal poor generalship.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
reply to post by Freeborn

 

I don't really like that alternative either, but the truth of it, is it's not really any of our business. Are there Afghanis coming to the United States to 'save' US from the oppressive regime? If the Afghan people are satisfied to live under oppression, that is their business. They got along fine for a couple dozen years before America showed up.

Wrong again....

After the Soviets left we helped create a mess by not sticking around and helping the country rebuild it's self for that we are guilty. It created a situation in which the Taliban flourished. Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war between the Northern alliance and the Taliban also the Pashtun had issues with both.

Who with the aid of American Air power and Spec forces pushed the Taliban out? The Northern alliance! [Afghans]

Hows the functioning going?


[edit on 14-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by KSPigpen
reply to post by Freeborn

 

I don't really like that alternative either, but the truth of it, is it's not really any of our business. Are there Afghanis coming to the United States to 'save' US from the oppressive regime? If the Afghan people are satisfied to live under oppression, that is their business. They got along fine for a couple dozen years before America showed up.

Wrong again....

After the Soviets left we helped create a mess by not sticking around and helping the country rebuild it's self for that we are guilty. It created a medium in which the Taliban flourished. Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war between the Northern alliance and the Taliban also the Pashtun had issues with both.

Who with the aid of American Air power and Spec forces pushed the Taliban out? The Northern alliance! [Afghans]

Hows the functioning going?

[edit on 14-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Afghanistan has been around a little longer than the United States. Yeah, we messed up and should have stuck around after we helped them drive out the Soviets. I suppose fighting a war by proxy against the Soviets was our business too...look, I don't have a problem with patriotism. Let's kick some ass. The trouble is that we MADE the mess in Afghanistan. Our continued meddling isn't going to fix it.

If it were about principles and the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that would be great. You can believe it if you want. The 'oppressive regime' BS was made up after someone figured out Osama wasn't going to be a good excuse for as long as they wanted to stay there.

What silly crud that is. It's all about resources and raping a poor country for our empirical desires. It has nothing to Do with protecting afghan citizens. It sure SOUNDS good though, don't it?

The new weapons systems developed, the expense, the contracts, the kickbacks, the accumulation of wealth by a few rich guys is what it's about.

Your patriotism means as much as an Afghani's to them.

If the GOAL of this 'WAR' was to WIN it, it would have been won a long time ago. I hate war, but you can't convince me that the most powerful nation of the face of the earth can't control Afghanistan a lot SOONER than eight years, if they really WANTED to.

The goal is to drag it out. That's apparent. The goal is to sacrifice more American and coalition troops for the profits of death brokers. The goal is to prop up the economy of the US as long as it can. The fairy tale of 'protecting the world' from this force or that was lame when we used it in Viet Nam and it's lame now.

Functioning is going fine.

reply to post by KSPigpen


You're forgetting another player... China's making a big play for resources.

The Chinese workers – several hundred technicians – are part of a multibillion-dollar Chinese investment in Afghanistan’s largest-ever infrastructure project, the Aynak copper mine. Discovered in 1974 but virtually dormant since the start of the Soviet War in 1979, the Aynak mine is believed to contain the world’s second-largest untapped copper deposits and could propel Afghanistan into the ranks of the world’s top 15 copper producers.

After wooing Afghan officials from as early as 2001, a Chinese mainland joint venture finally won the rights in 2007 to develop the site over 30 years. So far, it has sunk more than $4 billion into the project. The joint venture – between majority partner China Metallurgical Group Corp. and Jiangxi Copper Corp. – expects production to begin by the end of 2011 with an initial annual output of 180,000 tons of copper that will eventually grow to 320,000 tons. China will have rights to half that output, which it needs to fuel its own massive economic growth.

China – of course, not being a member of NATO – has no troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

In making the case for converging U.S. and Chinese interests in Afghanistan, Robert Kaplan wrote last week in a New York Times opinion piece that, "The problem is that while America is sacrificing its blood and treasure, the Chinese will reap the benefits. The whole direction of America’s military and diplomatic effort is toward an exit strategy, whereas the Chinese hope to stay and profit."

Source

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Afghanistan has been around a little longer than the United States.

They got along fine for a couple dozen years before America showed up.

I'm simply just replying to the inconsistencies in your posts. Not just here but in regards to other posts. Whenever it suits you, you change the thrust of your stance.

This has nothing to do with with Patriotism. I'm sorry that is the extent of your views on these matters.

They can't even win the war with the troops they have in Afghanistan and now they want to send another 40,000? Give me a break.
Maybe they (US, Canada, UK and everyone else) should start using their brains to fight instead of using their technology. The Afghans are primitive by comparison and yet it appears that they are holding their own quite well.

Then again maybe the infusion of 40,000 more troops is for something else.....like maybe Iran.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by StinkyFeet

 

You forgot number 5....

5. THE NATION GOES BROKE and can no longer finance the war. Happened to the USSR.....in Afghanistan as well....

What are you talking about? We are already broke.

We are so broke that our entire national debt in a couple of years will outweigh our entire Gross Domestic Product. It has very little to do with the war in Afghanistan.

[edit on 14/10/09 by MikeboydUS]