IRAQ = Bush's War --- AFGHANISTAN = Obama's War (and it will never end)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ritehook
    SBR MVP
    • 08-12-06
    • 2244

    #1
    IRAQ = Bush's War --- AFGHANISTAN = Obama's War (and it will never end)
    U.S. aims for more troops in Afghanistan, Gates says


    Afghanistan (Reuters) – Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he hoped a U.S. troop increase for Afghanistan would be mostly done by late spring, as his commander warned Afghan forces were three or four years from leading the fight.

    Gates, visiting a dusty NATO base near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, criticized the United Nations and the European Union for not doing more to help stabilize the country.

    There are some 65,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including more than 30,000 from the United States, struggling to combat worsening insurgent violence which has sparked alarm in Washington and other Western capitals.

    U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, commander of NATO forces and most U.S. troops in Afghanistan, has requested four more combat brigades and support units -- a total of more than 20,000 troops.

    One of those brigades is scheduled to deploy in January.

    "Beyond January, we are hopeful that we will be able to send an additional two brigade combat teams by late spring," Gates, who will stay in his post after Barack Obama becomes U.S. president next month, told reporters at the NATO base.

    Most of the extra troops are expected to go to southern Afghanistan, the scene of the fiercest insurgent violence.

    Washington's ability to send more forces to Afghanistan depends largely on being able to pull some of its 150,000 troops out of Iraq, where security has improved dramatically but commanders caution the situation remains fragile.

    Obama has pledged to make Afghanistan one of his top priorities and to send more troops there.

    Seven years after U.S.-led forces ended Taliban rule in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, both Gates and McKiernan said a sustained commitment to Afghanistan by Washington and its allies was still needed for years to come.

    "It's going to take us another three or four years to develop the army and continue to work on reforming and developing the police to have less reliance on international forces," McKiernan told reporters traveling with Gates.

    Both Gates and McKiernan declined to say whether that meant 50,000 U.S. troops -- the likely total after the planned buildup is complete -- would need to stay in Afghanistan that long.

    "DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN"

    At a town hall-style meeting with U.S. troops in a large tent on the base, Gates renewed criticism of other NATO nations for not providing more troops and other resources to Afghanistan.

    He said that, without the United States, the alliance had some 2.5 million men and women under arms, yet had only about 30,000 of them in Afghanistan, which NATO leaders have declared their top operational priority.

    "I think it's a real concern that the United States is having to bear a disproportionate part of the burden," he said.

    Gates said other NATO nations should be able to supply many badly needed trainers for the Afghan police but he described as "trivial" the number provided by the European Union, which accounts for a large proportion of NATO members.

    He also said international aid projects in Afghanistan remained poorly coordinated and the United Nations had not given its top official in the country, a former Norwegian foreign minister, enough support to tackle the problem.

    "Unfortunately, in my opinion, the United Nations has not provided ambassador Kai Eide with the resources -- both people and money -- that he needs to do the job," he said.

    Asked at the meeting how long the broader war with Islamist militants would last, Gates noted that America's last ideological struggle -- the Cold War -- went on for 45 years.

    "How long this will go on is an unknown but I think it will be protracted," said Gates, who was a Soviet analyst at the CIA during the Cold War and later became head of the spy agency.

    (Editing by Andrew Roche)
  • ritehook
    SBR MVP
    • 08-12-06
    • 2244

    #2
    All those folks, many young, many new voters, who sent him money from their sparse paychecks and dreamed of "change" --- looks like they're getting shortchanged.

    What bro' Barack knows about Afghanistan that ol' Alex the Great didn't, that the Brits didn't 170 years ago, and that the Soviets didin't 30-40 years ago -- it's all a mystery.

    The next president is a great talker - but has not yet let us in on his little secret.,

    And, oh yeah, he has not made one, not one, major appointment of anyone who, like himself, was an early opponent of the Iraq scam.

    Change? Look around in the lint of your pocket. Buy a beer with it and cry in it . . .
    Comment
    • ritehook
      SBR MVP
      • 08-12-06
      • 2244

      #3
      Military Industrial Complex still rules - a change of the face on top, same old same old through the middle and on bottom.

      All you folks who supported this guy - go demand your money back
      Comment
      • ryanXL977
        SBR Posting Legend
        • 02-24-08
        • 20615

        #4
        both wars are illegal and should never be fought
        what will they ever accomplish?
        Comment
        • ritehook
          SBR MVP
          • 08-12-06
          • 2244

          #5
          More important, both are contrary to basic U.S. interests.

          IE, they don't make any sense, from a national perspective.

          Some wars do, even wars of conquest.

          The Mexican/American war - which was America's imperialistic war on Mexico (with much the same propandandist BS that accompanies every American war) was a moral travesty --- but in the national interest of the nation. We increased our territory at minimal cost. (Tho Mexico, with the connivance of uncontrolled American capitalism, is now engaged in a "reconquista!")

          These two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, are against the basic interests of the nation. They are putting us into bankruptcy. Just like Afghanistan was key to bankrupting the old Soviet Union.

          In the 1870s, the British, after earlier failing with "regime change" in Afghanistan, came up with a workable strategy: short punitive expeditions.

          Didn't try to change that ageless tribal landmass. Just sent in an expeditionary force the thump the warlords who opposed Brit intrests.

          Exactly what the US should do in Afghanistan. Let the Taliban come to power (tho even they had control over only a part of Afghanistan in their power years), and let it be known if they start training troops or hiding AlQueda, we'll bomb and blockade them.

          I understand that Obama seems like a salutary change from the pathetic moron/traitor who occupied the WH for 8 years. But he made some serious promises - where is the delivery?

          I mean, warhawking Hillary as S of S?
          Comment
          • ryanXL977
            SBR Posting Legend
            • 02-24-08
            • 20615

            #6
            he isnt even pres yet
            at least wait till he is
            Comment
            Search
            Collapse
            SBR Contests
            Collapse
            Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
            Collapse
            Working...