Senators, Advisers Urge Obama to Double Afghan Forces

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama and top U.S. military commanders are under pressure from senators and civilian advisers to double the size of Afghan security forces, a commitment that would cost billions of dollars.

In private letters and face-to-face meetings, these supporters of mounting a stronger effort against the Taliban seek to boost the Afghan National Army and police to at least 400,000 personnel from the current 175,000.

“Any further postponement” of a decision to support a surge in Afghan forces will hamper U.S. efforts to quell an insurgency in its eighth year, Senators Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote to the White House in a July 21 letter obtained by Bloomberg News.

General Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, will recommend a speedier expansion of Afghan forces beyond current targets in an assessment he will give Defense Secretary Robert Gates and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen by Aug. 14, according to a military official familiar with the review.

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

Senators, Advisers Urge Obama to Double Afghan Forces (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Ok, folks can haggle endless over whether we should or should not expect nitty gritty details from Washington on health care, but here's a question where the details absolutely matter.

What is the plan for Afghanistan? We went in there to take the Taliban out for sheltering Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but that was years ago now....what is Dear Leader's goal for Afghanistan now? Why is Dear Leader hesitant about committing to the plan, if there is one?

Of a certainty a native Afghan army is cheaper and expends fewer American lives than having US forces take on the Taliban all the time, but training those additional forces requires additional units sent to act as instructors, et cetera.

Funding an Afghan Army of some 400,000 in size sounds great....can the Afghan nation sustain that army on its own?

How does Dear Leader plan to bring the Taliban to heel so American troops can come home?

Click to expand...

apdst said:

The plan is to retreat as soon as it's politically expedient. That way, the Libbos can exclaim that we, "lost the war", and blame it all on Bush.

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

While it would not surprise me, I was sorta hoping for something a little more concrete.

After all, this is the war Dear Leader said was the "right war". What's his plan to win it?

Click to expand...

apdst said:

I don't believe that he ever planned on winning it. I think his primary mission to get out and not look anymore like an asshole that neccessary.

One of his sidekicks has already told the theater commander not to expect more troops. Purdy much tells the tale for me.

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

I missed that bit of news....have you a link?

Click to expand...

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan -- National security adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.


The message seems designed to cap expectations that more troops might be coming, though the administration has not ruled out additional deployments in the future. Jones was carrying out directions from President Obama, who said recently, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops."

"This will not be won by the military alone," Jones said in an interview during his trip. "We tried that for six years." He also said: "The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed."

U.S. Says Key to Success in Afghanistan Is Economy, Not Military - washingtonpost.com

Click to expand...

apdst said:

The plan is to retreat as soon as it's politically expedient. That way, the Libbos can exclaim that we, "lost the war", and blame it all on Bush.

Click to expand...

Singularity said:

Blaming everything on Bush is SO 2008! The 2009 Liberal Handbook says that we should instead blame any loss on Rush Limbaugh.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

That would even more diabolocally stupid than blaming everything on Bush.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

The plan is to retreat as soon as it's politically expedient. That way, the Libbos can exclaim that we, "lost the war", and blame it all on Bush.

Click to expand...

WillRockwell said:

You are full of crap as usual, and ignoring the fact that Bush disbanded the team tasked to capture binLaden. The Taliban is a real threat to many nations, ours included. Eliminating their ability to manipulate governments and terrorize is a valid use of military force, and this president will prosecute that war, where Bush did not.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

You are asking someone to prove a negative. And in case you don't know what that phrase means, look it up.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I said that PBO isn't trying to win the war in Afghanistan. Will said I'm, "full of crap". I asked him to prove that I'm full of crap i.e. prove that PBO has an actual plan to win the war in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...