[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan signaled by Pentagon
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan
Published: Jul 16, 2008
Author: LOLITA C. BALDOR
Post Date: 2008-07-16 20:41:11 by angle
Keywords: None
Views: 214
Comments: 16

WASHINGTON - Pentagon leader on Wednesday signaled a surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later," a shift that could send some units there within weeks, as officials prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Senior military officials are looking across the services to identify smaller units and other equipment that could be sent to Afghanistan, according to a defense official.

Although there are no brigade-sized units that can be deployed quickly into Afghanistan, military leaders believe they can find a number of smaller units such as aviation, engineering and surveillance troops that can be moved more swiftly, said the official, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private.

The moves are expected to happen within weeks rather than months, the official said.

The decisions are being made against the backdrop of shifting priorities for the U.S. military, and were discussed during a meeting Wednesday of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Military leaders are weighing requests from commanders in Afghanistan for more troops, aircraft and other assistance. And they are trying to determine the right balance between the needs of the force in Iraq, versus troops in Afghanistan who are facing a Taliban resurgence.

To date, the fight in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to Iraq, which has been the strategic priority. While Iraq will remain the top goal, it now appears the military believes there should be a more urgent emphasis on Afghanistan than there has been.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Gates told Pentagon reporters. But, he added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.

His comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year. And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.

"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.

Mullen, who was in Iraq last week, told reporters that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions there this fall. He said he found that conditions in Iraq had improved more than he expected.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible — it has not, and it is not," Mullen told a Pentagon press conference.

"But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions," he said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended, now that the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year has left the country.

Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon called the "surge." And it starts the 45-day evaluation period that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress he would need to assess the security situation and determine how many more troops he could send home.

Neither Gates nor Mullen would detail how they intend to juggle the military requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they spoke more aggressively about meeting Afghan needs more quickly.

Gates said commanders are looking at moving forces around to take advantage of a small boost in French troops expected in Afghanistan. But he ruled out rolling back some of the promises the Pentagon made to soldiers limiting their deployments to 12 months.

"I think we're looking at a variety of options on how to respond here," Gates said. "I will tell you that I have sought assurances that there will be no return to longer-than-12-month deployments, so that's not something we're considering."

Also, he said he is not aware of any plans to extend the deployments of any U.S. troops currently there.

Gates and Mullen also has strong words for Pakistan, saying Islamabad must do a better job preventing Taliban and other insurgents from crossing the border into Afghanistan to wage attacks.

The absence of pressure from the Pakistanis, Gates said, is giving militants a greater opportunity to penetrate the porous mountain border. He said the key is to further convince the Pakistani government that their country is also at great risk from the insurgents.

Gates said it is an exaggeration to say that the border problems have escalated into a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he also dismissed as untrue suggestions that the U.S. is massing troops along the border preparing to launch attacks into Pakistan.

His comments came as U.S. troops abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine of their comrades this week in a large, coordinated attack. Elsewhere in the frontier region, NATO launched artillery and helicopter strikes in Pakistan after coming under insurgent rocket fire, officials said.

There are currently 36,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 17,500 with the NATO-led force, and 18,500 who are fighting insurgents and training Afghan forces.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: angle, Cynicom, all (#0)

why the sudden emphasis on Afghanistan? coincidentally, or not, since Obama mentioned Afghanistan and Pakistan as the countries he'd focus on.

christine  posted on  2008-07-16   21:07:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: angle (#0)

The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.

There's no other nation on this planet that gets itself into 2 wars at the same time, neither of them necessary or essential to national security.

If Gates and Mullen want more troops, shut down the Pentagon and send those desk jockeys to the front lines of the 2 useless wars they dreamed up for our nation.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-07-16   21:33:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: christine (#1)

Poppies. I can't think of any other reason to spend a nickle on that nation.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-07-16   21:36:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Jethro Tull (#3)

Poppies. I can't think of any other reason to spend a nickle on that nation.

Look over the horizon and you can.

Rather odd, Obummer three weeks ago spoke of need for military action in Afghan/Paki and all of a sudden here we go..

Almost as if he were programmed.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-07-16   21:37:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: angle, jethro tull, christine (#0)

Senior military officials are looking across the services to identify smaller units

The military is back to their old tricks again, taking individuals and very small Air force and Navy units and integrating them into the Army.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-07-16   21:43:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Cynicom (#4)

He's telegraphed this deployment for some time now, but never in such detail. IIRC, he'd being briefed, day to day, along w/McKooK on sensitive policy. I'll look for the source. Stand by and repel the PILES should they try a frontal assault.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-07-16   21:50:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Cynicom (#5)

The military is back to their old tricks again, taking individuals and very small Air force and Navy units and integrating them into the Army.

I did some research on the use of the National Guard recently. Considering they have set up compound 20 miles from here to practice the tactics of street to street guerilla warfare they expect to face in Afghanistan. They will be incorporating foreign 'forces' for training. In our skies, we are having war game practice. The NAG 'conference' is to take place in mid-late August. They will need to focus on securing and rounding citizens within hostile environs.

Upon a search for the News video that was aired a few days ago, I bumped into a number of ANG sites discussing the federalizing and control of State forces. Apparently the 'modernization' of our military started more than a decade ago. The way I see it, they were being prepared for foreign deployment major combat action, as well as functioning when called to enforce a Police State. When a Sailor is lost in footed combat, it sends up flags. I expect our Postal Service Employees to find themselves wondering how delivering mail entitled them to a free trip to Afghanistan for life.

nikki  posted on  2008-07-16   22:00:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nikki (#7)

When a Sailor is lost in footed combat, it sends up flags.

They are taking lowest ranking enlisted kids and shipping them off to war, not quite what they signed up for.

This is an indication as to how the Army suffers from grunt shortage. Americans have voted for extending and widening the war and it will bring a draft.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-07-16   22:06:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Cynicom (#8)

Americans have voted for extending and widening the war and it will bring a draft.

Americans did not vote for that. The machines count did.

The outraged are outgunned, outspent, outlawed, silenced, spit upon, reviled, ridiculed, and crushed. There is no vote FOR left in anyone. And votes against are 'devined' as cultural enlightenment gained only by trusting the obvious worst offered.

The voice we hear is not that of the sane, but the exact opposite.

Seemingly we feel forced to choose what is offered. By doing so, we condone it.

I'm not playing.

nikki  posted on  2008-07-16   22:15:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Cynicom (#8) (Edited)

it will bring a draft.

What happens if they impleent a draft and no one comes? What do they do then? Throw all the draft resisters in jail? Yeah, like that will work.

There will be no draft. The critters know they'd be run out of their nice and cushy DC chairs if they tried to do a draft.

The only options that are left for the IsraelFirster chickenhawks is using nukes or mercenaries.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-07-16   23:53:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Cynicom (#8)

and it will bring a draft.

The 60's will look like a can of corn compared to what that will bring.

Not many want to fight for the NWO anymore I don't believe. Not as many anyway. ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-07-17   0:01:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: scrapper2 (#10)

What happens if they impleent a draft and no one comes? What do they do then? Throw all the draft resisters in jail? Yeah, like that will work.

There will be no draft. The critters know they'd be run out of their nice and cushy DC chairs if they tried to do a draft.

The only options that are left for the IsraelFirster chickenhawks is using nukes or mercenaries.

North Americans from the southern NAU zone (Mexico) will make good fodder for the globalists' wars. In fact, there's plenty of warm bodies in Central and South America that want in on the deal. The South American Union will have their own military and currency soon! ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-07-17   0:02:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: scrapper2 (#10)

There will be no draft.

Just to be safe Scrap, dont bet the farm on it.

In 1952 two FBI and a local cop showed up to take me forcibly by body for draft evasion. There was no multitude there to prevent it.

Consider the SWAT teams and black hooded assault crews now that ROUTINELY smash in doors and Americans have accepted it.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-07-17   6:00:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Rotara (#12)

North Americans from the southern NAU zone (Mexico) will make good fodder for the globalists' wars.

So have and so will Americans.

Americans should not delude themselves into thinking that somehow they in particular or we in general will be excluded. That is delusional thinking.

Some of us have seen deluded Americans taken off to war in chains and irons.

You see that time and again, reality sets in.

I have people here tell me that was a different time and a different people, I will tell you that is BS.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-07-17   6:10:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: christine (#1)

This might have something to do with it (dated 22 JUN 08):

www.aprodex.com/pipeline-...in-afghan-war-1028-n.aspx

"Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India - a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province - raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.

To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence."

snip

The pipeline proposal goes back to the 1990s, when the Taliban government held talks with California-based Unocal Corp. - and its U.S. government backer - while considering a competing bid by Argentina's Bridas Corp. Those U.S.- Taliban talks broke down in August, 2001. India, which desperately needs natural gas imports to fuel its growth, later joined the revived project.

Last week, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said the U.S. government has a "fundamental strategic interest" in Afghanistan that goes well beyond ensuring it is not used as a launching pad for terrorism, which was the original justification for the UN-sanctioned NATO mission of which Canada is a part.

That objective remains paramount, Mr. Boucher said, but he added that there is a "historic opportunity ... of having an open Afghanistan that can act as a conduit for energy, ideas, people, trade, goods from Central Asia and other places down to the Arabian Sea."

It's probably just a pure coincidence that most of our recent actions have taken place in approximately the area through which the pipeline will go. True, it does work both ways in a "chicken or egg" type of fashion, since most of the problem areas in the world seem to be places that also have a lot of oil. It's also probably purely coincindental that the Taliban had talked to Unocal about oil exploitation, and when we ousted them, we put a former Unocal employee in power in Afghanistan.

Note too Boucher's comment that finding bin Laden and keeping the Taliban isn't the only concern for the US in the country. Sometimes it still makes me wonder if those articles around June 2001 about India, Russia and the US attacking Afghanistan by August 2001 weren't on to something.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2008-07-17   6:53:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: historian1944 (#15)

"Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India - a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province - raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.

yep..which lends credence to me that Obama is the selected and was told to make Afghanistan the theater focus.

christine  posted on  2008-07-17   9:54:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]