U.S. to send 1,400 extra troops to Afghanistan: report

Article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States plans to send 1,400 additional Marines to Afghanistan to boost its combat forces ahead of the spring fighting season, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The United States, which led a 2001 invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban, has about 100,000 troops in the country, and President Barack Obama is under pressure to show results so he can begin a promised withdrawal this year.

The Taliban are at their strongest since they were ousted form power, although operations against the insurgency have intensified since 2008. More than 700 foreign troops were killed in Afghanistan last year, and civilian casualties were at record levels.

And we're supposed to begin withdrawls in July this year? I dont think we are going to be leaving anytime soon.1,400 isnt alot compared to how many the US has sent before. but its still alot.

I find this article a bit odd, for example in the second paragraph it says this - "which led a 2001 invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban"

then in the fourth paragraph it says this - "The Taliban are at their strongest since they were ousted form power."

Toppled them and now at their strongest....I dont really think we've toppled them from power. 2010 was the deadliest year for the US.

I don't get it. Genghis Khan couldn't keep Afghanistan. The British couldn't keep it. The Russians had a devil of a time while they were there. Let's face it, we're probably not going to succeed where others failed. It would be better to cut our losses and get out of there. Unfortunately the US government has other ideas. Where are all the historians?

The Russians would have owned Afghanistan if it weren't for US. Our motives are not apparent, and they are not geared toward any type of military victory. If they were, this would be over by now.

reply to post by DeltaChaos


Dear DeltaChaos,

I'm sorry to say the motives are very apparent. It is, like most wars, about money and control. In this case protecting pipelines.

As to your other comment, according to history this kind of fighting is not one where the US forces excel at. The US may be a very blunt and brutal fighting force, but they are not geared to this type of combat and conditions, much like there weren't in Vietnam and effectively learned the hard way when other forces had tried and lost. I'm sorry to say it is yet more American borish behaviour and arrogance that is sending your (if you're from the US) troops to their deaths.

The guy above you was right, other have tried and lost.. the sensible logical and common sense thing to do would be to not have even tried in the first place.

Regards,
T

The reason we were not successful in Vietnam, which is the same reason we are not successful now, is the problem of commitment. Our leadership is not committed to victory. That is because our leadership is a civilian one. If it just came down to firepower, Vietnam wouldn't be called Vietnam anymore. If it came down to firepower, speed, and violence of action, the Taliban would already only exist in history books.

If we ever entered wars to achieve decisive military victory, those wars would not last long. But alas, we do not enter wars with the intent of achieving decisive victory. There is always the back of the head diplomacy endeavors and the promise of political victories that only our civilian military leadership is concerned with.

Of course, I don't think in any case of war in since the Civil one, did American leadership have any intention of winning anything other than future profits, and the securing of funds for black budgets through the trafficking of illegal substances. So there ya go.

Originally posted by alonzo730
I don't get it. Genghis Khan couldn't keep Afghanistan. The British couldn't keep it. The Russians had a devil of a time while they were there. Let's face it, we're probably not going to succeed where others failed. It would be better to cut our losses and get out of there. Unfortunately the US government has other ideas. Where are all the historians?

what's your definition of success. if it's to drive out al qaeda, most reports say that america has succeeded.

but a military occupation will never succeed against afghanistan unless you employ nazi methods of mass executions and scare the population in accepting defeat.

that won't work because one thing, especially about afghani muslims, is that they don't have a normal fear of dying. they go into battle expecting to die, where america goes into battle expecting to win.

eventually america will realize that all they are doing is killing afghanis and not really accomplishing much else, decide to pack it up and leave.

Originally posted by randomname


...that won't work because one thing, especially about afghani muslims, is that they don't have a normal fear of dying. they go into battle expecting to die...

That's where the pig's blood artillery comes in. Slather them in that stuff, then just fire a couple of rounds over their heads, and they'll just quit.

reply to post by DeltaChaos


Dear DeltaChaos,
You make a good arguement there. I'm not sure I agree 100% though. The military machine in the US is very ingrained in the politics, are they truly separated? I'm not so sure. I know what you are implying, and that if it were a truly military based war then they would ignore civilian populations and "nuke" them to hell and back. The civilians would then not have a chance to voice their opinion of the atrocities caused etc.. Yes, you are right in that respect, I do agree. However that is a bit of a moot point my friend and not a valid one in this context in my opinion.

My point was based purely on the warfare mechanics. The US, much like all Western military type warfare is not based on guerrilla type tactics. They are geared towards "seeing" the enemy, being able to physically get to them with artillery etc. The problem in Vietnam were the exact type of issues seen in Afghanistan also, the "enemy" is better at hiding then the military expected, or know how to deal with. The loss of lives and actual ability to kill the enemy were massively reduced due to the simple fact they didn't know where to target. Hit and run tactics are very old types of confrontation, they are to date the hardest to deal with.

If this were an all out battlefield scenario like it was in Iraq and during the Gulf war I have no hesitation in saying the US or any of the allied nations would have no problems. This is simply not the case, the country is one of the harshest for deployment, troop movement and general frontal attack. That kind of war is one the US cannot win in the current climate. Sure if things suddenly became less "civil" then things would change, but they won't because public opinion and the right to democracy means public opinion and the visibility of body bags and constant negative publicity doesn't allow anything other.

Regards,
T