4000 extra troops fight war without end

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
4000 extra troops fight war without end
37
Fri, 03-27-2009 - 8:21pm

No exit strategy, a war we are losing, a war we can't win. Is this Iraq? No, President Bush won that war.

This is Afghanistan, and President Obama is determined to send troops in to fight this good war. You know, the war we can't win, the war with no exit strategy, the war Americans will die in, the war which will not install Democracy, and which will not stop drug trafficking. The good war!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/03/abc-news-luis-m.html

Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: As part of the Obama administration's Afghan strategy review to be unveiled on Friday, an additional 4,000 troops will be ordered to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan army and police, defense officials tell ABC News.

While the troop announcement may be it for this year, it's possible that even more troops will be headed to Afghanistan in 2010.

Last week, a senior administration official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz that by the end of August the total U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan will stand at 64,000. This official added that it was unlikely any more troops would be sent to Afghanistan this year beyond the additional trainers to be announced Friday. There are currently 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

However, it's possible that the troop strength in Afghanistan could rise even higher next year, possibly to as many as 70,000 U.S. troops, as the Pentagon meets additional troop requests from military commanders in Afghanistan, another defense official said today.

That includes an additional combat brigade that top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, would like to employ in southern Afghanistan and possibly more trainers needed to train a planned doubling of the Afghan army's size. Both the combat troops and trainers would require additional support troops known as "enablers."

The 4,000 trainers are in addition to the 17,000 troops that President Obama announced in February he was sending to Afghanistan this spring and summer. They will come from a combat brigade the Pentagon had slated in the original request for extra troops made by McKiernan. However, they were not included in February's announcement for additional troops. At the time, the White House said any further troop deployments would depend on the results of the Afghanistan strategy review.

The deployment of the training brigade meets a long-standing request for 4,000 trainers to help the Afghan army and police, that Pentagon officials had hoped would be met by NATO countries.

However, the need for more trainers may grow next year with the planned doubling of the Afghan army's size, so it's possible that more trainers might be needed beyond those to be announced Friday.

If that's the case, there will be a need for more enabler troops to support those extra trainers.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 7:39pm

Sunday afternoon update. Seems to have Gates support on the matter. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090329/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afghanistan
Obama rules out US troop raids into Pakistan


Sun


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 8:14pm

Well at least one Sunday morning political talk show gave a bit more insight:


Obama On Afghanistan: I Will Not ‘Simply Assume That More Troops Always Result In An Improved Situation’


Since President Obama announced his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan last week, he and his administration have been careful to distinguish it from President Bush’s surge in Iraq. Today on Fox News Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed that the focus of the mission in Afghanistan has been “narrowed”: “I think what we need to focus on…is making headway and reversing the Taliban’s momentum and strengthening the Afghan army and police, and really going after Al Qaeda.”


Today in an interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, Obama underscored this point. He pointed out that the reason he has increased troops in Afghanistan is because levels there are “greatly underresourced.” However, he is not going to “simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation”:



OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation.


But just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.


There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels.
We’ve got to also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts are just as robustly encouraged.


Obama added that it this strategy doesn’t work, the answer won’t necessarily be more troops. “It’s not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources,” he said. Watch it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8sdmWHrYU






The 17,000 additional U.S. troops will be focused on fighting the Taliban in the south and east, allowing the U.S. to “partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.” Later this spring, Obama will also be sending another 4,000 U.S. troops to help train Afghan security forces.


While the increase in U.S. forces has received the majority of media attention, Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy is actually a “comprehensive civil-political effort to improve basic services, accountability, and overall governance in order to defeat the hard-core Taliban and al Qaeda fighters at the heart of the insurgency,” as CAP’s Peter Juul has written. The President has also ordered an increase in humanitarian aid and civilian support, recognizing that the effort there cannot be won solely by military means.


Transcript:



SCHIEFFER: Are you concerned at all — because some people say the more troops you put in, it’s just going to inflame the situation; it’s going to make it worse. What do you say to them?


OBAMA: I’m very mindful of that. Look, I — I’m enough of a student of history to know that the United States, in Vietnam and other countries, other epochs of history have overextended to the point where they were severely weakened.


And the history in Afghanistan obviously shows that that country has not been very favorably disposed towards foreign intervention. And that’s why a central part of our strategy is to train the Afghan National Army so that they are taking the lead, increasingly, to deal with extremists in their area.


That’s been one of the few success stories we’ve seen over the last several years, is the Afghan National Army actually has great credibility. They’re effective fighters. We need to grow that. And that’s part of the reason why we want to make sure that there are trainers there.


But the last point I would make, you know, a request was made for increased troop levels in Afghanistan. I have already authorized 17,000. We’re now adding 4,000 trainers, specifically designed to train Afghan security forces.


But what I’ve also said to the Department of Defense and what I will say to the American public is that, you know, we now have resourced properly this strategy. It’s not going to be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources. We’ve just got to make sure that we are focused on achieving what we need to achieve with the resources we have.


SCHIEFFER: What you seem to be saying is we have to win; there’s no choice here. So does that mean, if more is needed; if the commanders come back to you and say, we may need more troops, Mr. President, to do this, you’re going to be ready to do that?


OBAMA: What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation.


I think there was a good argument, after us scrubbing this very hard and talking to a lot of our allies in the region, including the Pakistan and Afghanistan governments, the Europeans and our other NATO allies, that this was the best strategy.


But just because we needed to ramp up from the greatly underresourced levels that we had doesn’t automatically mean that, if this strategy doesn’t work, that what’s needed is even more troops.


There may be a point of diminishing returns in terms of troop levels. We’ve got to also make sure that our civilian efforts, our diplomatic efforts and our development efforts are just as robustly encouraged.


And, so for example, in the budget that I’ve presented to Congress, I’ve said we’ve got to increase foreign aid in Afghanistan and we’ve got to increase foreign aid in Pakistan. And I’m going to be really pushing Congress, because sometimes foreign aid is a, you know, juicy target, particularly during tough times.


I’m going to tell them, this is central to our strategy. And it can save lives and troops if we properly execute it.>>>


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 8:09am

I had never considered the football analogy!

Thank you for starting my early Monday morning with a good laugh!

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 1:27pm

Life under the "leadership" of Saddam Hussein was no picnic but that was due in large part to the economic impact of sanctions.


Very very true.


Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 1:31pm
You know, maybe Bush knew he couldn't get Bin Laden, as much as he threatened to ("dead or alive"? what happened to that one?), and attacked Iraq to get Americans to forget about getting Al Qaeda for 9/11. It's why he and Cheney kept talking about avenging 9/11 when he went into Iraq.





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 1:50pm

All were wrong. After years of liberal harping, Iraq is won. Iraq is liberated. Iraq is free. Women in Iraq have vested civil rights and vested representation in their government.


HAD rights.


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 4:47pm

rollmops2009 - "Iraqi women had civil rights before we stuck our noses in there"

No, Iraq was a dictatorship. Saddam's suns raped women with impunity. Women had no rights unless the dictator gave them. He could take civil rights at whim. Rights were also limited to women in the correct clan.

Currently ALL Iraqi women have vested civil rights, ALL Iraqi women have representation in government guaranteed, ALL Iraqi women have true freedom under a democracy. Thanks to President Bush!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 5:05pm

Segment from......


http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/23490.html


>"Women were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally.
According to Houzan Mahmoud from the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, "Under the previous dictator regime, the basic rights for women were enshrined in the constitution. Women could go out to work, university, and get married or divorced in civil courts. But at the moment women have lost almost all their rights and are being pushed back into the corner of their house."

Islamists are imposing the traditional Islamic dress code on women, and the general climate of lawlessness causes many women to adopt it for self-protection. "Dalal Jabbar, 19, a resident of Sadr City, a poor Shiite Muslim neighborhood in Baghdad, said Iraqi women are more afraid today than ever before. 'There is no law to rule the country,' she said. 'I see the scarves as the best way to protect ourselves in Iraq now. When I walk in the street, I know I'll have no trouble, because men prefer to look at others without a scarf, more than me.'"

Christians were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally. According to Simon Calwell of The Times, "in the Shia-dominated south of the countryll women, including Christians---who under Saddam could wear the latest fashions and make-up, and go to work---are under pressure to wear the hijab." Churches have been bombed by Islamists, priests have been abducted for ransom, liquor shops owned by Christians have been targeted.

Baathist Iraq was a basically secular state. The current Iraqi constitution composed under occupation declares, "Islam is the official religion of the state," "a source of legislation," and "No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" may be enacted. Thousands of families have fled across the border to secular, Baathist Syria---another country targeted by the U.S. for regime change.

Gays were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally. According to Ali Hili, a gay Iraqi man recently interviewed by Amy Goodman on MPR's Democracy Now! Program, "Iraq, at the time of Saddam, was---I mean, I'm talking about as a gay Iraqi---it was not as bad as we can see now... There no homophobic attitudes toward gay and lesbians. Most of them welcomed in the community and the society It's a very dark age for gays and lesbians and transsexuals and bisexuals in Iraq right now. And the fact that Iraq has been shifted from a secular state into a religious state was completely, completely horrific. We were very modern. We were very, very Western culturalized -- Iraq -- comparing to the rest of the Middle East. Why it's been shifted to this Islamic dark ages country? the worst thing that ever happened to Iraq, maybe, until we saw these religious mullahs who were brought to the government to lead this country. We were much better off in the Saddam time, although he a tyrant."

Intellectuals were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally. The Times Higher Education Supplement noted in September 2004 "a widespread feeling among the Iraqi academics that they are witnessing a deliberate attempt to destroy intellectual life in Iraq." According to the Monitoring Net for Human Rights in Iraq, over 1,000 Iraqi academics and scientists had been shot to death between the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion and late 2005.

According to Dr. Saad Jawad, a prominent political scientist at Baghdad University, " because of the chaos, the systematized assassinations of Iraqi intellectuals have gone largely unnoticed in the outside world. Iraq is being drained of its most able thinkers, thus an important component to any true Iraqi independence is being eliminated."

People in general were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally.
According to John Pace, former director of the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, "Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo your basic right to freedom of expression and thought, you were physically more or less OK. But now, no. Here, you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to anyone." Under Saddam the scale of abuse was "daunting," but now, "It extends over a much wider section of the population than it did under Saddam."

I doubt it was the intention of the Bush administration, once it decided to conquer Iraq and humiliate its former ally, to empower the religious fundamentalists who've launched their reign of terror on all these communities. But the administration does include some extreme Islamophobes who may delight in the general chaos they've inflicted on a mostly Muslim society, and who may see in the worsening situation a launch pad for more chaos in Iran. All this Islamic badness in Iraq, they'll say, is encouraged by next door Iran. Things will only improve, "democracy" will only prevail, when Iran too enjoys a violent encounter with American goodness. As the bloody "creative chaos" they've unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan spreads, they'll depict it as the necessary cure for religious fanaticism---the very fundamentalist fanaticism which secular Baathism was designed from its inception to prevent, but which in its fundamentalist Christian variety (as manipulated by secularist neocons) helps drive Bush's apocalyptic provocation of the Islamic world."<


Women had more rights under Saddam


IRAQ: Women were more respected under Saddam, say women’s groups

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/04/iraq-060413-irin01.htm



 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 5:44pm
Do you have links to this, and not from biased conservative websites, and if we won, why can't we LEAVE?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 5:45pm
Sort of like giving the FLDS and Quiverfull movement the power to run the US. Shudder.