Pentagon planning to send up to 15,000 troops to Afghanistan.
By on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Pentagon planning to send up to 15,000 troops to Afghanistan.
U.S. News reports that the Pentagon “will be sending 12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further force buildup in 2009.” In light of the soaring violence in the country, Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that he has even requested “some additional forces on top of that for the current fight.” The Bush administration has consistently resisted talking about the deteriorating situation there, insisting that there is nothing “urgent or precarious” in Afghanistan. The Center for American Progress has put together a comprehensive counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
42 Responses to “Pentagon planning to send up to 15,000 troops to Afghanistan.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
McCain would rather win an election than admit that Obama was right about Afghanistan.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pmMcNumbNuts would rather do anything than admit that Obama was right about anything.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pmCan you spell draft? How about riots?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pmShayne, agreed. With all McStain's ongoing claims that Obama just won't admit that "his" surge was a huge success, Obama needs to hit back and HARD with the situation that has developed in Afghanistan under McStain's nose.
Questions of judgement should be leveled at McStain. He claims to be ready to be CiC, but he'd rather continue "his" surge and then attack Russia than deal with the very real crisis in Afghanistan.
I'm sick of hearing Senator Obama appauding McStain's service and patriotism. Isn't allowing yet another country fall into chaos, thus putting thousands of our brave troops in harm's way again, as unpatriotic as it gets?
PEACE
August 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pmSince McStain has promised to follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, I say
On your mark
Get set
GO!
PEACE
August 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pmAbout dammed time!
August 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pmI am going to assume that this move will be welcomed by the Left. The addition of troops in Iraq was successful in lowering violence there. Rail against that all you will, throw in your provisios, but it is a fact. And if the mantra has been, "we took our eye off the ball" in Iraq, surely troop increases in Afghanistan is putting our eye back on it.
A Surge in Afghanistan will also help improve security. Everyone can agree that more US troops bring more security.
Even Obama has said so. Well, he did after it worked, anyway. Kinda.
The trick will be to reduce troops in Iraq, increase them in Afghanistan, and do it in such a way that the Army and Marines get a breather while the foe does not. Petraeus is the man for that job, which is good, since he is getting it.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:12 pmI thought NATO had taken over the Afghan occupation. Are any other member nations going to be sacrificing more of their soldiers or is it just the working class Americans who will die?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:28 pmAnd, as Bin Laden is killed on election eve, Flippy McSpin says: "My friends. I got him".
August 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pmjb Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought NATO had taken over the Afghan occupation. Are any other member nations going to be sacrificing more of their soldiers or is it just the working class Americans who will die?
France lost nine men yesterday. Don't know their class.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:35 pmKeltoi at Night said:
I am going to assume that this move will be welcomed by the Left. The addition of troops in Iraq was successful in lowering violence there. Rail against that all you will, throw in your provisios, but it is a fact.
The reduction of violence had far more to do with the "awakening," where Sunni insurgents turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, than the surge. The awakening began before the surge. The other factor in reducing the violence was the fact that the ethnic cleansing had already been mostly completed. Those are the facts.
The trick will be to reduce troops in Iraq, increase them in Afghanistan, and do it in such a way that the Army and Marines get a breather while the foe does not. Petraeus is the man for that job, which is good, since he is getting it.
That'll be a neat trick. Our forces have already been overextended in Iraq. Where exactly is Petraeus going to find fresh troops?
None of this changes the fact that the war in Iraq was completely unnecessary and counter productive to the cause of combatting terrorism. No surge in Iraq or Afghanistan will ever change that.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
August 19th, 2008 at 10:36 pmAnd, of course, this decision has nothing to do with Musshy getting ousted. And it's not a crisis or emergency. Sigh.
If there is a mission beside getting Bin Laden and getting out? We lose. Again.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:43 pmOh my bad, I thought the French were cheese eating surrender monkeys. Freedom Fries forever. snark.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pmPlus, if one wants to argue that "the surge led to eventual victory in Iraq" one must also acknowledge that the escalation led to increased violence. And each day with a large force of U.S. troops in Iraq begs a return to '06.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pmThe deaths of the French soldiers is tragic, but at least they have a President that is willing to make some gestures of concern. And I'd guess they knew full well what their class was.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:05 pmjb Says:
The deaths of the French soldiers is tragic, but at least they have a President that is willing to make some gestures of concern. And I’d guess they knew full well what their class was.
Sarkozy is indeed a welcome change from Chiraq.
As to the class of the soldiers, I'd say the very highest. However much money they had.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:12 pmI believe the toll is now 10 more deaths on Bushco's hands. Vive le France and R.I.P.
What are the chances that your average Reichwinger had any idea that there are French troops in Afghanistan? Will Flippy McSpin call them heroes? Will Bill0 lift his ridiculous "boycott"? Maybe Chimpy will argue it wouldn't have happened if France had more troops in harm's way?
The sad fact is that we became a rogue nation when we declared war on "men without countries". There is a very good reason why international law favors criminal proceedings against criminals.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:18 pmUm. Is that the same Sarkozy who got elected and, almost, recalled because he's as reckless as an American Reichwinger?
Is this the same Sarkozy who flaunted his "stable marriage" to get elected while carrying on an affair with a woman he married weeks after he got divorced weeks after he got elected?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:03 amDang! I forgot, "Sarkozy sounds like a True McCain Conservative".
August 20th, 2008 at 12:05 amYou know what? I'm just sick and tired of all this shit. Everything happening in the world is not just happenstance. It is orchestrated. Why do you think our "representatives" in Washington do nothing? Because of money. The super-rich elite call all the shots. Bush follows his script. If Dick(head) Cheney stopped suddenly George's head would go straight up his ass! These people only care about money. Swindling for it, outright stealing it, killing for it, starting wars for it under whatever auspices they choose, manipulating the markets (oil speculators, thanks Phil Gramm) and so on. Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren? We are capable of so much more, greater and better than this perpetual manufactured chaos. The neocons care nothing about family, values or family values. They don't give a damn about life or this planet. They only know how to destroy and take. They are desperate to try to goad Iran into doing something stupid so Israel can feign paranoia and attack them. Of course the U.S. would have to come to their rescue. It didn't work too well in Georgia last week. Georgia with our arms and military advisers launched a midnight attack on South Ossetia's unsuspecting people. For more informative information read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20556.htm.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:27 amHow many more of these false flag debacles are we going to stand for? We're spending at least $10 Billion in Iraq every month. We already know where most of that money is going and we do virtually nothing. Congress certainly is doing nothing to stop this madness because they are either lazy, stupid or complicit. Using the military to satisfy a demented plan from sick, delusional, sadistic self-serving people is an abomination. But, to the neocons, they are only implements to be replaced when broken or expended. Why do you think they could care less about abhorrent conditions at VA hospitals. Because those veterans are no longer of any use to them. Its just plain sick what Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocons have gotten away with. This insanity has to and must stop!
.
Four more WARS!!!
For more WARS!!!
Four more SURGES!!!
For more SURGES!!!
Four more THOUSAND(troops sent to their death)!!!
For more THOUSANDS(civilians condemned to die)!!!
Four more TRILLION(US dollars to spend)!!!
For more TRILLIONS(corporate profits had)!!!
Just for what???
Four more years???
.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:31 amObviously TP doesn't like Information Clearing House as the link I provided in my last post doesn't work. Just copy it and paste it in a new tab or browser and go directly to the article. It is very informative reading.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:35 amOsama Bin Laden passed of natural causes away six and a half years ago, in early December 2001. He is not riding in a wheel-chair, over mountain passes, dragging his dialysis machine behind him... He is buried in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com.
It is hard to believe that John McNuttyWars talks about "getting Bin Laden." Pray tell, sir, are you going to dig him up out of his grave? I guess that folks, especially Americans, hate to give up on their mythology of foreign evil... Actually, imperial America is the main source of misery in this world.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:49 amhttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHicyTVu-VNypN7fAb9LoZqKes-w
move along
August 20th, 2008 at 12:57 amk Says:
After reading that article I had a disturbing thought that Bill O'Reilly would erupt with glee that his boycott of France has worked. Nicolas Sarkozy, the new Tony Blair.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:16 amFRE IRAQ! FREE AFEGAHNISTAN!!! HAGUE 2009 FOR THE WAR CRIMINALS OF WASHINGTON!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:27 amFREE IRAQ!!! FREE AFEGAHNISTAN! HAGUE 2009 FOR THE WAR CRIMINALS OF WASHINGTON!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:30 amSo how soon till some are sent to Pakistan as well...
August 20th, 2008 at 1:31 amFor what?
chimpy isn't thinking about bin Laden. Didn't chimpy proclaimed this?
USSR tried to win Afghanistan in vain.
Why in hell do we want in Afghanistan 6 freakin yrs later?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:01 am"Wouldn't call it a surge..." because it's technically an escalation.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:47 amAfghanistan: Another black hole for US lives and treasure.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:24 amcabbinbagger Says:
Americans love war for profit and democrats have been guilty of it in the past too. This however is the first time that a president has turned our entire economy and future of America over to military and war.
We must decide if this is how we want to live.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:44 amBesides, you just don't want to admit that Afganistan is where we should have been for the last 6 years instead of Iraq. Now we are inevitably left to clean up the mess that all of America and the entire world were on board for before your guy decided to make a little money since the opportunity was there in Iraq.
I don't think Obama will try to make a career out of Afganistan and he will engage other countries sucessfully in the effort.....something bush was unable to do and it has cost us in the long run.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:54 amOkay Keltoi, I'll bite and respond to your rant.
No, it is not a fact. In addition to the awakening and other reasons mentioned above, Sadr had something to do with the reduction of violence. The "surge" was announced in January of 2007. It was built up slowly from 01/07 - 07/07. That period was the deadliest part of the war. If more troops equal stability, then as troops rose, violence would decrease. Then, at the end of August 2007, Sadr announced his cease fire. Magically, the next month, casualties decreased. We can discuss what affect the surge did have (specific evidence would be nice), but it no more a fact that the surge lowered violence than my headache caused it to rain.
Does it really matter if the ball is in the catcher's mitt? Over simplifications are nice aren't they? You comment is the equivalent of a doctor saying that he will now disinfect your gangrenous leg...that may have worked when the wound was new, but if he doesn't adapt to the changed situation, you should probably find a new doctor.
That is true, most have been calling for this for a while, however, if we don't provide humanitarian assistance, we will have the same problem we had in Iraq. Sadr and many of our enemies gain support by giving food, water, and medical care. Maybe we should use our whole toolbox instead of trying to build a house with only a hammer. We cannot defeat our enemies if we are unwilling to understand them.
Maybe you should be looking for the magic wand that Bush is always talking about. Yes, it would be nice, but like everything else in these two wars, the burden will be placed SOLELY on the military and their families. Especially if McCain is elected. He has voted AGAINST the military at almost every turn in the recent years (Webb amendment and GI bill to name a few). If any other Americans were asked to sacrifice, they may not stay as silent as they have all these years...move along, nothing to see here.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:07 amdbadass Says:
So how soon till some are sent to Pakistan as well…
August 20th, 2008 at 1:31 am
_______
They're already there. We have special forces working alongside the ISI in the NWFP right now.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:22 amGame of Life Says:
For what?
chimpy isn’t thinking about bin Laden. Didn’t chimpy proclaimed this?
USSR tried to win Afghanistan in vain.
Why in hell do we want in Afghanistan 6 freakin yrs later?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:01 am
______
Stability in a precarious narco-state. Bin Laden or not, we have an obligation to leave Afghanistan better than we found it in 2001, with a rural infrastructure and security force that can prevent the Taliban and related groups from resurging. Just as it was in Iraq, a "surge" will be useless by itself - our troops and other NATO forces must be integrated with NGOs and local tribal and provincial leaders to provide some tangible and visible improvements in the daily lives of rural Afghans. This will keep them from growing poppy and keep out the Taliban. And the better integrated we are with local Afghans, the less chance we'll be bombing innocent civilians.
And no it's not hypocritical to support withdrawal from Iraq and redeployment to Afghanistan. They're two different countries with different needs. Iraq's stability depends on us leaving. Afghanistan's stability depends on us staying a bit longer (and not bombing any more weddings).
August 20th, 2008 at 8:37 amYou and mccain, bush and halliburton are the only people on the planet that think Iraq has been a sucess.
It will be historically known as a blunder under republican disfunctional management.
Just because things have settled down does not indicate sucess....time will tell. In addition it was a horendous mistake in the first place so how can it be called a sucess?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:46 amGame of Life Says:
For what?
chimpy isn’t thinking about bin Laden. Didn’t chimpy proclaimed this?
USSR tried to win Afghanistan in vain.
Why in hell do we want in Afghanistan 6 freakin yrs later?
Whether or not Chimpy gives a damn about getting the real Al Qaeda and bin Lauden, Al Qaeda is still a threat, they are reponsible for the Embassy Bombings and The Cole attack, if not for 9/11 as some believe.
We helped create Al Qaeda by training them to fight the russians. We released that monster on the world and it is our responsibility to clean up our own mess.
Iraq was a travesty we should have avoided, Saddam did not have WDMs and was not even building them, the UN sanctions were working and Iraq was under control. Bush and Co LIED to us and took their eye off the problem of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, os that now the Taliban is in control of about 50 % of Afghanistan again and Al Qaeda is hiding at the border.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:30 amThis is a consequence of pulling the troops out as early as Tora Bora. Just think how different things would be today had an extra 2,000 troops been sent to Tora Bora. They were available but shifted to become part of the build-up for the Iraq invasion. Those early mistakes were huge. This Afghanistan surge is to shore up those huge early mistakes. Somehow I don't think the Taliban will stand down like al Sadr did so the high expectations of being able to quickly bring Afghanistan under control is not likely to happen.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:31 amIt is more complicated in Afghanistan than we think it is. Our mission is to find Bin Laden, or is it to hold him up as our icon of evil. Since our Marines went on a feminist mission to free the poor women of the Burqua their lives have deteriorated, the country now holds top spot for opium and the parliament if full of corrupt leaders that caused so much destruction and pain in the past. The billions that have been sent there have not done much of anything but make crooks richer. For a view of a political activist in Afghanistan you can read this article. I prefer listineing to the Afghani people as opposed to the Pentagon. Just my hang-up
http://www.killingtrain.com/node/643
August 20th, 2008 at 10:47 amIt has nothing to do with Bin Laden or the Taliban , it's about the Trillion dollars of CASPIAN OIL , that will flow through Afghanistan from the Caspian .
August 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pmCIA operative KARZAI signs a pipeline deal just WEEKS , after taking office w/ Pakistan and Turkmenistan . Also keep in mind the Taliban were business partners until around 2000 .
Remember the Taliban going to UNOCAL HQ , in Houston Texas , for oil forum and actual oil industry training ? No most people have forgot or are too lazy to do some basic research and after UNOCAL refusing access to the oil flowing through land , deal fell through .
9-11 happens , invasion and occupation and now the HUGE OIL PIPELINE WILL BE BUILT and if you want to believe U.S. propaganda , that the billions being spent on huge mega bases, secret prisons, torture and the killing of over 6000 civilians and climbing is for ..a bunch of guys riding in the back of Toyota pick up trucks w ak-47s ...your one of the kool-aid drinking sheeple .
And the troops are gonna come from where ?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm