[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Democrats Signal Resistance to Increase of Troops in Afghanistan WASHINGTON -- Increasing congressional discord over the next U.S. steps in Afghanistan, coupled with a spike in violence there, is deepening the political divide on the war and how many troops are needed to fight it. Key Senate Democrats signaled Friday that any push by the White House to send more troops to Afghanistan is likely to hit resistance. And their unease was fueled by another bombing, that left as many as 70 dead, including civilians who were killed when the U.S. blew up tanker trucks hijacked by the Taliban. That deadly U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan Friday complicates the debate over the need for more U.S. troops, bolstering arguments that Afghan leaders must increasingly fend for themselves. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said the United States must focus more on building Afghanistan's security forces. His cautionary stance was echoed by Sen. Jack Reed, who is also on the committee and spent two days in Afghanistan this week with Levin. The senators will return to Washington next week, just as President Barack Obama receives a new military review of Afghanistan strategy that officials expect will be followed up by a request for at least a modest increase in U.S. troops battling insurgents in the 8-year-old war. Obama came into office pledging to shift U.S. focus from the war in Iraq to the Afghan fight, which had long been a secondary priority. But as war-weary Americans have watched another 21,000 troops go to Afghanistan this year, and U.S. casualties rise, support for the war has waned. As a result, lawmakers say they want the U.S. to more quickly train and equip the Afghan Army and police so the embattled country can take over its own security needs. "There are a lot of ways to speed up the numbers and capabilities of the Afghan army and police. They are strongly motivated," Levin said from Kuwait. "I think that we should pursue that course ... before we consider a further increase in combat forces beyond what's already been planned to be sent in the months ahead." Levin said there is a growing consensus on the need to expedite training and equipping the Afghan army to improve security in Afghanistan, where 51 U.S. troops died in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001. Still, the airstrike comes just as U.S. defense leaders insisted this week that troops were making great progress in stemming civilian deaths. "All I can really do is assure you that they recognize the gravity of these events when they happen and it has the full attention of the leadership," Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said of forces in Afghanistan that were investigating the Friday attack. Afghan and German officials said a total of 50 to 70 people died early Friday morning after German forces called in an American airstrike on Taliban insurgents who had hijacked two fuel tankers in northern Kunduz province. There were reports that some of the dead were civilians who swarmed around the trucks to siphon fuel. Under new orders put in place by top commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal in July to reduce civilian casualties, U.S. and NATO forces were directed to limit air support to ground troops when civilians might be present. And Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, told Pentagon reporters this week that Afghan civilian casualties were being greatly reduced. In a separate call with reporters Friday, Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said the U.S. must use a multi-pronged approach to win the war in Afghanistan. The U.S., he said, must build up the Afghan Army, send more civilians to Afghanistan to provide economic and political assistance, and reach out to Taliban supporters who are willing to recognize the Kabul government. The hesitancy to boost troops levels comes just days after Obama's defense chief suggested a willingness to consider an increase. Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week urged patience with the war effort, and said he would be comfortable with a larger U.S. military presence in Afghanistan as long as the increase reassured the country's citizens that the Americans were there for the benefit of Afghans. Gates has declined to talk about any specific recommendations contained in a new review of Afghanistan strategy presented this week by McChrystal.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: christine (#0)
All on here who want to see the "EPIC FAIL" of Obama are going to be richly rewarded as time goes on. On both this issue and the health care issue (where he is carrying the private health insurance racket's water at this point), the 'O'ster is determined to go against his own party and destroy it from within. As I predicted once Rahm was selected as his "Cheney," Chimp II is the Jimmy Carter of 2009-2013 (should he finish his term).
You underestimate many people. Many Americans realize that if Obama fails, that most likely the country will descend into chaos. Of course, these same people understand that Obama is just the front man, as would be any replacement. Wishing for nationwide misery is not in the blood of most people.
I specified the people on the 4um wishing for his "EPIC FAIL" and I would guess that it is the vast majority on here. My own view is that the empire's EPIC FAIL is upon us and would have occurred regardless of the individual who replaced Chimp I. But it wasn't wise to want to be President from 2009 to 2013. McCain is fortunate that he lost, but I'm almost certain he knew he wasn't "fated" to win anyhow.
#6. To: Sam Houston (#4)
You are in fine fettle writing wise this morning. Agreed. With the appearance of Chimp and Chump, there appeared the first hints of bad things to come. As their time went on, the bad things began happening, and now we are on a wild ride to somewhere, a place we will not like.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||