Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan

[Are_grits_groceries]

Source: Washington Post

Additional Deployments Not Announced and Rarely Noted

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office. Still, it suggests that a significant number of support troops, in addition to combat forces, would be needed to meet commanders' demands. It also underscores the growing strain on U.S. ground troops, raising practical questions about how the Army and Marine Corps would meet a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html?hpid=topnews

---

This cannot continue. Any soldiers sent have to be accompanied by enough manpower and material to make the mission work effectively.

We would be digging in even deeper than some people realize at a huge cost.

[unhappycamper]

1. 1,000 boots on the ground = $1 billion a month.

So much for that Peace prize. :(

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I don't think people understand what

even the deployment of 1000 additional troops would mean. The additional people and the logistics aren't easy to work out. A country like Afghanistan with it's diverse and inhospitable terrain makes it even harder.

[excess_3]

3. feel the peace .nt

[No Elephants]

4. These are troops, replacing, almost person for person, troops going elsewhere bc of a change in

strategy.

As I type, I am hearing this on from Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent who is in Afghanistan right now. (Show is "Way Too Early" or "Morning Buzz" on MSNBC, which is a Republican stronghold every weekday, until about 3 p.m.) Only he said "man for man" instead of "person for person."

He says, though the WAPO story claims Obama approved this, it is really the kind of routine deployment (or re-deployment) order Gates signs every Thursday.

In other words, according to Jim Miklaszewski, WAPO sensationalized the headline and the event. Not saying I believe him, just saying he said it on TV this morning. Not saying I believe WAPO, either.

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. That may be true.

However, Mik may being rolled by his sources. I'm not sure I believe anybody has given the whole story.

There is a very nasty game being played between various groups in order to position themselves in a positive light. That isn't new. However, the intensity of the message framing is extremely high.

[saigon68]

6. Perpetual War against a race of stone age cave dwelling voodooists

[Mari333]

7. sigh. knr

[ixion]

8. This just makes me ill.

Seriously. :(

[placton]

9. aha

once again, evil DUers who doubt Obama, are not seeing the truthiness of his peace-iness! War means Peace

[happyslug]

10. Winter is starting in Afghanistan

This is both good news and bad news. The Taliban is most active in the Summer, they tend to hole up in the winter. This provides our troops the ability to retake areas the Taliban hold at the present time (but this will reverse next spring, reminds me of Laos during the Vietnam War, during the dry season, we would move our allied troops by helicopter and re-take huge areas, then come the wet season when our air power was shut out by the weather, the North Vietnamese would re-take most of the same area). Thus, the fact that winter is coming is good news for it shuts down the Taliban offensive is at best a minor plus point.

The bad news is that Winter in Afghanistan is harsh with heavy snow falls. Thus flights into Afghanistan will be fewer and more difficult as will be getting supplied from Pakistan by truck (and the convoys will be more predictable given the need to remove any snow before the truck convoy even starts).

I foresee a huge increase in US Military actions in the next six months, more film of US taking out Taliban soldiers, mostly on missions that, as far as holding onto Afghanistan is concern, is of limited or no military significance. We have to remember that this is a war of the people of Afghanistan. Any killing of the Taliban soldiers is meaningless UNLESS it somehow relates to ending the support such troops get from the people of Afghanistan. Retaliation STRENGTHENS that support, what we have to be doing is showing the people of Afghanistan what they lose by supporting the Taliban. Thus we have to open up schools, provide medical care, pave roads, build housing, general improvements in the country. Thus when we have to leave an area, do to actions of the Taliban, the people see what they lose when we pull out. The problem is the Taliban is providing most of these services to the satisfaction of the local population (And remember we have to provide what the Local population want NOT what we want, thus if they want education for their boys only, that is what you provide, remember we are NOT trying to change or reform Afghanistan out military objective is to end the local support for the Taliban).

This battle for the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan the US has been losing since the US launched its invasion. We had an opportunity, but Bush ignored it and now it has festered to what it is now. Obama has a window of opportunity to "win" Afghanistan but he should have started on 1/20/2009 NOT now and that included massive spending on interior improvements in Afghanistan. The problem is neither Obama nor the Congress is willing to spend the money needed over the time needed (10-20 years) to win the war in Afghanistan. We would be better pulling out but Obama does not want to for he will be attacked politically for such a withdraw. Obama is in the same trap LBJ found himself in 1964 in regards to Vietnam, can't withdraw do to domestic political concern, can't win for that would require massive spending which he can NOT provide, but the opposition (The Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Taliban in Afghanistan) is to weak to push us out. It fester for the last four years of LBJ's administration (One of the good things about the TET offensive was only then did the majority of Americans started to look at Vietnam was a waste and LBJ started to with draw troops do to that change in sentiment, but Nixon won in 1968 and he faced the same problem and continued the withdraw but Nixon went much slower then LBJ or Humphrey would have but that is getting off topic).

My point is Obama is trapped, like LBJ was trapped. Is Obama a good a politician as LBJ was? That is to be seen (So far, LBJ is looking the better politician of the Two) will Obama jump at a chance to withdraw IF IT APPEARS? (LBJ did in 1968, he started to pull troops out AFTER the Majority of Americans no longer supported the war, but close to 50% of the Voters still supported the war in 1968). In my opinion Obama should have taken the political hit in January, released all of the prisoners in Guantanamo, and start pulling troops out. Leave whoever take over in charge and del with him. By the time of the 2010 election, both would have been in the distant past and forgotten by most voters (and those voters who cared about either situation would Vote GOP anyway so who cares). Sometime you take the Political hit. LBJ was NOT willing to do that in 1968 (LBJ did NOT say he was pulling out of Vietnam) but had he done so, the election of 1968 would have been close, but Humphrey might have been able to pull it off. Politics is the art of doing the possible, Obama has to decide what is possible and a win in Afghanistan is NOT in the cards. OBama would be better off taking the heat and making the hard and unpopular decisions today, then leaver them fester, like Afghanistan today (and Vietnam under LBJ).