See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Obama faces decision on how to deploy troops in Afghanistan
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/printed ... han13-2009jan13,0,477314.story
Published: Jan 18, 2009
Author: Julian E. Barnes
Post Date: 2009-01-18 20:11:46 by Disgusted
Keywords: None
Views: 605
Comments: 26
Obama faces decision on how to deploy troops in Afghanistan With 20,000 more to be sent this year, officials differ over how best to use them: to secure the population, as was done in Iraq, or to focus on sealing the border to curb flow of militants and drugs. By Julian E. Barnes January 13, 2009 Reporting from Washington -- Soon after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, he will face a crucial decision about the future of the war in Afghanistan: what to do with thousands of new U.S. troops that will flow into the country over the course of the year. Within the Pentagon, a vigorous debate has emerged about what the top priority should be for those forces. Some Defense officials argue that the bulk of the build-up should be arrayed along the border with Pakistan, focusing on the fight with militants who move easily back and forth across the rugged terrain. But others, including Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is now the top commander of those troops, want to see the U.S. take a page out of the Iraq playbook, making Afghan cities and towns their top priority to help protect civilians from Taliban extremists and other militants. The strategic choices made in Obama's first months could determine whether U.S. forces are able to curb the rising number of attacks there. The new administration is planning an in-depth Afghanistan review as soon as it takes office; Obama has made clear his intention to focus on Afghan security, and his advisors say they are open to hearing from advocates on both sides. But Obama is going to have to act fast to improve the situation in Afghanistan, military experts say. The Afghan public is growing more frustrated in the face of rising violence, and increasing numbers of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is going badly. Officers agree that any strategy will have to include a mix of population security and border control, in addition to training the Afghan police and army. But the question for the new administration will be: What should get top priority? There are about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with an additional 20,000 scheduled to deploy this year. Current plans call for sending some of the additional forces to the border, but to use the majority of the new troops to safeguard villages and cities. "There is a primacy on securing the population," said Army Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, director of operations for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. "The approach is to reach out to the population, get into the villages, and separate them from the insurgency." But behind the scenes, not everyone agrees. Experts with opposing views spoke on condition of anonymity, citing their lack of authority to publicly address an internal debate. Obama advisors also spoke on condition of anonymity because he doesn't take office until Jan. 20. Some of those skeptical of the focus on securing towns and villages note that even with the planned buildup, there will be far fewer U.S. and local forces in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq during the 2007 troop surge, covering a much larger territory. Afghanistan's population is more rural and dispersed, making local security improvements more challenging. Most crucial, Afghanistan's army is a fraction of the size of Iraq's security forces. With relatively few Afghan and allied forces, a strategy focused on securing the population is likely to fail, argue the critics, who would like the U.S. to pursue a more modest war plan: securing the border. The ill-defined border with Pakistan has some of the world's most difficult terrain. There are a limited number of mountain passes along the entire border, the officials argue, saying more could be done to prevent trafficking in drugs and weapons and the movement of fighters. Afghan officials have warned the U.S. that the Soviet military effort in the country foundered precisely because of an inability to control the border -- allowing militants to escape to sanctuaries in Pakistan. With more troops along the border, and with a variety of surveillance tools at their disposal, including spy satellites, drone aircraft and balloon-mounted cameras, some officials believe U.S. forces could dramatically reduce the flow of weapons and militants into Afghanistan and perhaps interrupt the flow of drugs out. "If the border were completely shut down, the Afghan government and security forces could, in some period of time, get things under control," a senior Defense official said. Concentrating troops on the border also makes for less contact with Afghans, reducing perceptions of Americans as occupiers, these officials say. "Pushing troops to the border, you remove those guys from the ever-present view of the Afghans, many of whom look at the Americans as just another invader," the senior Defense official said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Disgusted (#0)
Deploy them right on the Chinese border, scare hell out of the 2,000,000 Chinese man army.
Obama's human wave of Afghanistan cannon fodder will be on display in DC on Tuesday. All will be eager to volunteer, war is what they wanted.
Can you imagine if China had 20,000 troops across the bridge from Laredo????
China Military Strength Military Manpower: 667,657,509 Personnel Fit for Military Service: 550,265,789 Available Yearly Military Manpower: 25,848,582
Thanks for jolting us back to reality!!!
Obama's minions will offset these numbers by sending their children into combat. They have promised the nation change with their vote and support. I intend to hold them to their word.
And we are sitting on their doorstep with 20,000???? You do recall what happened in Korea when they walked across the line???
The Chinese can walk to war anywhere in Eurasia.
Why you think I gave you thanks for bringing us back to reality?
Bah! We're the invincible Uhh-Merkkins. We'll just brush them-there Chinkernees aside like we did to the rice-eaters in the 'Nam and the towelheads in Eye-Rak & Afgookistan. BRING 'EM ON!!!!!!
Stalemate on nukes with China. That leaves humans, we have not a chance in their backyard.
It is 7000 miles from Washington to Afghan. The Chinese are already there.
The very first thing that should be done is send all these troop to Hawaii and get the copy of this half-breeds' true Certificate of Birth.
Isn't it amazing that although he has never produced it - and we only have some Hawaiian bureaucrats word that it exists and is in order - the coronation goes on. Meanwhile, the leftists insist the question isn't legitimate simply b/c Obingo is a member of their political belief system. They're no better than FReepers.
It just shows how controlled is our fed gov. To put forth a fucking half-breed negro (with all due respect to native-born half-or less, breeds here) as potus with no certificate of live birth is just criminal.
Could be he is a member of Mossad in drag, who baked in the sun too long.
Aaaaaaaaahhh - I don't know about that one...we'll wait and see.
Obama; it's all unicorns and rainbows for we the sheeple!
Military Manpower: 667,657,509 Personnel Fit for Military Service: 550,265,789 Available Yearly Military Manpower: 25,848,582 So, I take it that it's not a swift idea to antagonize China by sending a bunch of GI's to the hell hole called Afghanistan. Also Pakistan might not to be too happy either and we don't have Mooshie in charge of the nukes anymore. Pakistan has the rather unstable husband of whatsherface as Head of State. Obama is such a putz. AQ has moved operations to Kosovo and African nations long ago. Afghanistan is yesterday's news.
Hell yes, war is what they wanted. Ignorant monkeys. I despise every one of their sorry white guilter simian asses because they voted, in essence, to make cannon fodder out of all of our kids and grandkids. Nobody who voted for omessiah can say they didn't know where he stood on this.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Countries Without a Draft circa 2001 (You'll need this soon if you have kids) RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP They will send other kids, but like the Bush neocons, their own will be urged to stay home.
They will.
Remember what happened when we got too close to China during the Korean thing? They came pouring over the border by the hundreds of thousands, blowing bugles in frontal charges. Americans that did NOT want to be there could not kill them fast enough. The typical Chinese soldier had a padded cotton uniform, a rifle, ammo and a bag of rice. They walked to that war as they will to the next one.
And from what I hear, could stop a .30 carbine round. And can someone tell me the last country that defeated Afghanistan? .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Nehemiah 4:14 And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”
The Asian hordes (Chinese) of olde? I had a friend in the army artillery during Korea. He told me of the horrible waste of mens lives by the Chinese. By their own admission, thousands of them froze to death because of lack of concern by the military. They have humans to expend. Always been that way.
AQ is not and never was the reason for the deployment to Afghanistan. There are a number of theories as to why NATO wants to run that area of the world, but the mythical Al Qaeda is only a cover story.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Reporting from Washington -- Soon after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, he will face a crucial decision about the future of the war in Afghanistan: what to do with thousands of new U.S. troops that will flow into the country over the course of the yea
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
#3. To: Disgusted (#2)
#4. To: Disgusted, Phant2000 (#2)
#5. To: Cynicom (#4)
#6. To: Cynicom (#4)
#7. To: Phant2000 (#5)
#8. To: Yellow Cake (#6)
#9. To: Cynicom (#7)
#10. To: Cynicom (#4)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#11. To: Esso (#10)
#12. To: Esso, Phant2000 (#10)
#13. To: Disgusted (#0)
#14. To: lodwick (#13)
The very first thing that should be done is send all these troop to Hawaii and get the copy of this half-breeds' true Certificate of Birth.
#15. To: Jethro Tull (#14)
Isn't it amazing that although he has never produced it - and we only have some Hawaiian bureaucrats word that it exists and is in order - the coronation goes on. Meanwhile, the leftists insist the question isn't legitimate simply b/c Obingo is a member of their political belief system. They're no better than FReepers.
#16. To: lodwick (#15)
To put forth a fucking half-breed negro (with all due respect to native-born half-or less, breeds here) as potus with no certificate of live birth is just criminal.
#17. To: Phant2000 (#16)
#18. To: lodwick (#15)
#19. To: Cynicom (#4)
China Military Strength
#20. To: Disgusted, PSUSA, ROTARA, JETHRO TULL, LODWICK, OBAMAPHILES SUCK (#2)
Obama's human wave of Afghanistan cannon fodder will be on display in DC on Tuesday. All will be eager to volunteer, war is what they wanted.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#21. To: IndieTX (#20)
#22. To: IndieTX (#20)
Nobody who voted for omessiah can say they didn't know where he stood on this.
#23. To: scrapper2 (#19)
So, I take it that it's not a swift idea to antagonize China by sending a bunch of GI's to the hell hole called Afghanistan.
#24. To: Cynicom, IndieTX, All (#23)
The typical Chinese soldier had a padded cotton uniform,
#25. To: PSUSA (#24)
And can someone tell me the last country that defeated Afghanistan?
#26. To: scrapper2 (#19)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest