"...a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in...Afghanistan..." is being redeployed to IRAQ!

[Up2Late]

Here's a bit of news that seems to have flown under the DU RADAR, or as Harry Shearer calls it "The buried lead" from the Baltimore Sun:

Afghan war needs troops

Taliban expected to push against thin U.S., NATO forces
By David Wood
Sun Reporter
Originally published January 7, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan // Radical Islamist Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the U.S. military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against U.S. troops and undermanned NATO forces, prompting American commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions....

(clip)

...As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.

Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata....

(more at link) <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.afghanistan07jan07,0,3288686.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines>

<http://www.harryshearer.com/leshow/index.html>

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. GOGOGO SuperSurge!

[elehhhhna]

24. I prefer to properly refer to it as Bush's Splurge.

carry on.

[LynnTheDem]

2. WHAT "US Army"?

The US army we USED to have before George W. bUsh destroyed it?

THAT "US army"?

[Bozita]

3. INFUCKINGSANITY!

numb here.

[sanskritwarrior]

4. Now

that's frakked up........

[MADem]

5. K and friggin' R....no rest for the weary. Disgraceful. NT

[walldude]

6. So basically this means that the soldiers in Afghanistan

are fucked and that the Chimp already has the surge in motion. There is going to be no debate, no questioning, no listening to the generals, no nothing, the decider wants more troops and thats that. Welcome to a Dictatorship.

[Up2Late]

11. You got it! Look for very heavy casualties come spring in Afghanistan.

I hate to be so pessimistic, but I'm really beginning to think they (the Neo-Cons and the WH) don't really want to win in Afghanistan, they just want a never ending war there as a gift to the weapons industry.:argh:

[Bozita]

13. never-ending war -- the ULTIMATE neo-con wet dream

[Porcupine]

18. Losing two (2) wars at once!

The worst president ever is so much an understatement.

A thousand years from now little kids in Himalayan villages will hear stories about "George W. Bush: the man who destroyed the world." I swear this fool will be like Nero or Caligula except without the honor or moral strength.

[leesa]

22. That would be correct. And they already HAVE all the money in our treasury

plus the heroin profits from Afghanistan, so I don't think it will matter if we withhold funding.

[magellan]

7. A battalion is anywhere from 300-1200 personnel

Anyone know how many US troops are in Afghanistan currently?

[sanskritwarrior]

10. 17,000 I think

A battalion in this case one of a light division is more like 300-500........

[Up2Late]

14. Oh, why worry, it's just troops from "...along the border with Pakistan...."

Not a critical area to leave un-guarded. :sarcasm:

And if I'm reading this correctly, it's only the 10th Mountain Division, the troops who are best trained to patrol that area, being redeployed to either the Urban environment of Baghdad or one of the flat, Iraqi Desert areas, were they will be completely out of their element.

This is so F*cked Up, I don't know which bit of jargon to use. Is it another FUBAR or just another SNAFU?

[krispos42]

8. Afghanistan to Iraq via the land route... IRAN! n/t

[BeHereNow]

9. Surge? Surge? The only "surge" I see on the horizon is the death count of more cannon fodder...

This is going to be so tragic.
They have sat back, let Bush and his rat infested White House
exhaust and destroy our men and women in service, many
of whom are just kids, let's get real about that fact-
and now, they are going in for the slaughter.

Those kids are fish in a barrel, trapped there by the feckless
sociopath who was put in power by the coporate money changers,
not we, the people.

I believe this situation will, in time, prove far worse than Vietnam-
If that is possible.


BHN

[Clarkie1]

12. It's an absolute outrage. nt

[Erika]

15. W could care less about American deaths

This is insanity.

[Up2Late]

16. kick n/t

:kick:

[ninkasi]

17. This whole "surge" thing is so misleading

To me, adding a surge of troops implies a fresh number of troops, just now going to Iraq. This is not the case, however. Bush, who ran away from serving his country when we were sending men to Viet Nam, is really talking about extending current deployments, and sending back forces that are back from serving God knows how many tours in that hell already.

He is content to pound into the ground those Americans who, from a sense of duty, perhaps, or desperate to learn a skill, as shown on the ads to lure our young ones in, all for his sense of entitlement. He thinks of nothing but his legacy. Well, his legacy has already been written, in blood instead of ink. It has been written not on paper, but on the living flesh of the maimed and wounded, on both sides.

There are only so many troops to go around. Waging war on the cheap, an obsession of the neocons, has been an abysmal failure. Now, in a frantic attempt to appear to be in charge of SOMETHING, anything, Bush will give a speech about resolve, and staying the course, even though that phrase has been retired. His words will mean the same thing. More death, more carnage, more suffering, for those who must fight and die. That does not include our elite, or their children.

I can't see anything that will stop this madman but impeachment. It needs, in the worst way possible, to be placed back on the table. This can not continue, if we hope to preserve our country.

[Up2Late]

19. Kick n/t

:kick:

[madokie]

20. they are going to run dick and w ass out of the mid east sure as I am typing

I see all the people uniting against us and I'm not sure I blame them now.

[democrank]

21. Forget the Taliban.

Bush needs more troops in Iraq to try to save his legacy.

[Spazito]

23. Disgusting but not surprising....

Afghanistan is nowhere on the bush cabal radar, it is ALL Iraq and, as in Iraq, the numbers of dead, both US/NATO troops and Afghanis, will continue to rise while the media ignores it.

Thanks, Up2Date, for finding this. Canada's primary territory in Afghanistan is Kandahar and, therefore, will be the primary targets when the Taliban try to take control of that area.

[Up2Late]

25. That's not good, I didn't know that about the Canadian Troops=Kandahar connection.

It sure would be nice if the Canadian press would pick up this story, last time I checked, the count of papers was only about seven (if you include the original link) in the U.S.

Here's a link to bookmark: <http://icasualties.org/oef/>

It looks like the Canadian Troops are about to pass the British for second most Dead Troopers. :(

It's from the same people who run the site "Iraqi Coalition Casualty Count"

<http://icasualties.org/oif/>

Again, a MAJOR "Bad" News story NOT picked up by the our bogus "newswire," the AP! Just one more piece of evidence that the AP is controlled by the Bush Cabal.

Here are the other links:

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003514407_afghan08.html>

<http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16408840.htm>

<http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/01/08/commanders_seek_more_forces_in_afghanistan/>

<http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/world/article/0,1406,KNS_351_5263656,00.html>

<http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/01/08/8afghan.html>

And here, already locked behind the "pay to read" wall at the Austin-American Statesman:
<https://www.statesman.com/news/userreg/ursignup/signup.jsp?UrUsecase=800100&SendBackURL=%2Fnews%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fstories%2Fworld%2F01%2F08%2F8afghan.html>

Hey, :hi: it finally made a Canadian News Paper now! Looks like the Canadian Government are censoring the "bad" news in Canada too!

<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/world/story/3834768p-4437278c.html>

And it just made the "On-line International News" in Pakistan now too:
<http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=107035>

And for ALL the "...There's no RW Media Conspiracy between the AP and the WH..." people who I'm about to hear from, just Google the title of the original article (Afghan war needs troops) and then click the Google News tab yourself. Count the links yourself if you don't believe me, and count all the Afghan distraction stories that you get too (about not letting Afghan children play with Toy Guns around the troops or Snipers lighting up cigars after a kill) and compare the results with stories about the "surge". Maybe one day the RW Media Conspiracy nay sayers will wake up.

[Spazito]

27. Unfortunately, some of national media seem to depend on

AP way too much when it comes to international news, one might call them lazy at times. It looks like the Winnipeg Free Press ( a good paper, imo) picked it up via AP so, hopefully, others will now see that it is a key article given our phony conservative government is already in hot water over Afghanistan.

It is good to see this news is finally starting to spread given your added news links, that's good news.

[coco77]

26. These people are determined...

to claim victory, no matter what the cost.