US likely to dispatch 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The US administration is likely announce the dispatch of at least 30,000 troops to Afghanistan – while in Britain there are increasing calls for a withdrawal from the war in the face of a rising death toll.
The announcement that the 200th member of the British forces has been killed in combat in the conflict – the seventh to die in four days – came on Remembrance Sunday with public figures in the UK questioning the further involvement and yet another opinion poll showing a majority want troops to be pulled out.
However Barack Obama, due to start a tour of the region later this week, is expected to announce his decision on future strategy based on three options offered by his advisors all of which call for more troops to be sent.
According to defence and diplomatic sources the President is considering the request by General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 troops, a lower figures of 30,000 and 20,000 to be deployed. The influential US defence secretary, Robert Gates, is said to favour the sending of 30,000 and President Obama is “strongly veering towards the same option and certainly not a lower figure” according to a senior official.
Britain has already agreed to send 500 more troops to Afghanistan. But the deployment is being held up while President Obama makes up his mind.
The latest British fatality, a member of the 2nd Battalion, the Rifles, was killed in an explosion in Sangin, central Helmand, where another soldier, from the 3rd Battalion of the regiment had died on Friday. Five men, from the Grenadier Guards and the Royal Military Police were shot down by a renegade Afghan policeman last Wednesday at Nad-e-Ali.
Meanwhile an investigation has been ordered into a Nato rocket strike in the Babaji area in UK-controlled Helmand in which nine people were killed. Western forces at first insisted that they were insurgents laying mines. However Gulab Mangal, the provincial governor, has produced information that the victims were actually civilians and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has agreed to pay compensation to the bereaved families.
The deaths caused widespread anger with demonstrators parading dead bodies outside the UK base at the Helmand provincial capital, Lashkar Gar. The British commander in Helmand, Brigadier James Cowan, has instructed the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police to carry out an investigation.
In a statement, the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said: “The decision to fire was made in the honest belief that it was targeted against a team of insurgents digging in two mines. However new evidence has been brought to our attention by Governor Mangal which has caused us to question our belief that the strike was against insurgents and instead that innocent civilians may have been the victims.
“ISAF deplores the deaths of any civilians and will ensure that the investigation is full and thorough... ISAF wishes to make assistance payments to the families of the deceased.”
Brigadier Cowan said soldiers under fire are being told to exercise “courageous restraint” so as not to put civilians at risk: “Consider whether it is even worth firing back, consider whether there are civilians in between you and them, consider whether you can move to a position of advantage. Certainly if you can kill the enemy, do that, but show that courageous restraint.”
Meanwhile in London the head of the armed forces, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup acknowledged that the public are not convinced that the British mission in Afghanistan can succeed. He said: “I do think it is incredibly important that we do better at describing to people the success that we are having, to demonstrate that over the long term that this is do-able.
“I don’t think we have been nearly good enough. What we see is the downside and it is a very, very painful downside, tragic losses, bereaved families back home that are having to cope with that loss, people who are injured and having to deal with a complete change in their life.”
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth insisted that the policy in Afghanistan cannot be swayed by opinion polls: “It is difficult to explain to people that this faraway country is directly connected with their own safety back here in the United Kingdom. We say that, we believe that, we can prove that, we can show that – and yet people still have their doubts.”
The shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said that the Conservatives were “very worried” about the prospect of taking over such a difficult situation if they won the next general election.
He warned that public support for the war could not be maintained unless there was greater military success on the ground. “It is a very difficult situation. I would be kidding if I said to you that we weren’t very worried about it in the Conservative Party,” he said. This level of public dissatisfaction that we see in opinion surveys is not a very good basis on which to fight a war.”
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
It is obvious that Obama is the first intellectual US President for many decades (according to Gore Vidal), so why is he allowing some neo-con, hawks aka 'advisors' to intensify the disaster that is Afghanistan? He reads (history) books for a start and he knows where Afghanistan is, which immediately puts him above his predecessor.
It is either weak or stupid leadership, I tend favour the former. He is merely intensifying Bush foreign policy, which he so rightly condemned during his campaign, because he is being pressurised into doing so. It is something of a betrayal to those who voted for him if he continues like this.
Does Obama have a choice or are the neo-con tentacles around his neck so tight, that he doesnt have a choice!
It seemed at the time a serious mistake to keep Bush's neo-con mate Robert Gates in as Defence Secretary and so it has proved to be. We didn't need any remnants of the disastrous Bush reign of terror which Gates was a big part of and is now scandlaously one of Obama's advisors (or arm twisters).
The first thing Obama should do is boot Gates out of his administration.
The best solution is for the American public to realise whats happening under the covers. They are being manipulated into supporting these invasions on the basis of "the fear factor". Create a suitable enemy, blow up some suitable land mark, then get your license to do as you please, any time, any where.
However, as certain groups with an external agenda own 60% of law, media and finance in the USA, they hold the steering wheel of the USA. What the American public dont realise is that they have been conned at many levels.
Thats the big question - how can the US public see beyond the lies they are fed by their managed media?
The economic crisis in combination with Obama is probably the best conceivable medicine. It will enable sensible people to reform certain parts of the infrastructure/economy of the US and wed out some of the worst pests. Will it be enough? Who knows, time will tell.
I don't think Obama really listens to any neo-con advisors. He is basically stuck between a rock and a hard place. Showing signs of weakness would backfire. Showing off power demonstratably doesn't work anymore.
My best guess is that Pakistan is the hot potato. The US cannot have a 50-100.000 troops inside Pakistan, but very well have them in Afghanistan.
The very moment things go wrong in Pakistan, it's easy to intervene and make sure no nukes come into the hands of extremists.
The challenge for the US in the future is to be honest about intentions. I see no victory in Afghanistan, regardless of how many troops they would send. You can send a million soldiers and still loose because of the size of the country, because of religious and cultural differences, because of international pressure not to slaughter too much etc.
Let's assume Afghanistan is only a play. Doesn't it make sense?
What has that got to do with a jet droping bombs?
Was the jet under fire?
Or is he just talking rubbish?
Eight years is a long term already, how long is your piece of string?
You don't even have a plan.
I doubt your sencerity too.
The mention of moving British troops out of harms way, is consistant with a surge.
So are the new US troops being sent out, to cover for the nations that will be pulling back from harms way.
How can you fight a war away from the front, so why bother being there.
After the Canadians and Dutch leave it will be hard for the others to justify being there, so it would be wise for the US to start sending troops to start replacing them now.
Like I said just a tought.
Even if they'd sent 300.000 more troops they are destined to fail.
On the other hand, Obama has to consider the lesser evil. Withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously would give a signal of severe weakness to any potential enemy of the US.
They kill a few Taliban, occassionally a few civilisians which is less popular, but all in all they don't do too much damage. They have sufficient troops in the area to intervene if Pakistan would go down the drain, which seems to be more likely for every suicide bomber killing a few innocent citizens.
I don't think Obama intends to win Afghanistan. He just doesn't want to loose Pakistan. Sending an additional 30.000 troops is a clear message. We are nearby, if you f... up we WILL intervene and secure those nukes.
place .
Obama is caught between the neocons and the Israeli's and we can now see him dithering but not that it will make any difference because America would need 1 million soldiers on the ground for a halfway decent amount of success but even then he would find that Afghanistan just cannot be garrisoned.
My thoughts are that suddenly Karzai and Co will suddenly step down, expire or disappear and prior to a hasty western withdrawal we will see the US set up some sloppy deals with the Taleban.
The terrain of Afghanistan is unsuitable for central governance, democracy or occupation, even if you had a million US soldiers.
An Army chaplain, Col. Fran k Jackson, expressed at the mourning camp's Sunday service frustration, exhorted soldiers to pray for meaning in the worst massacre ever on a US military facilityand include even Major Hasan. who surprisingly went berserk, in their prayers.
Born on American soil to legal immigrants from Palestine Hasan attended public schools, worshipped routinely at a local mosque, joined tha Armed Forces to fund medical education and psychiatric training his family couldn't afford and advanced through the ranks as a single, unable to find a bride sharing his religious belief. Comrades not drinking beer with the boys much less carousing with girls, are considered odd. 9-11 unfortunately made Moslim suspicious to averaga Americans.
By chance an Iman woho influenced 9-11plotters preached at a mosque Hasan attended 8 years ago. Nothing real supports speculation that Al Quaida exerted sci-fi mind control over an Islamic Hamlet fate assigned to counsel troops returning with combat fatigue and fortify with psychatric advice youngsters about to be deployed for mental strains 0of killing for no good reason but survive a n ultimate risk game reasonable Americans may simply avoid. To Major Hasan's credit is mentioned that no Antisemitic remarks by this soin af Palestinian expatriates was reported tt the best of my knowledge.
Luckily he survived, may be able to stand trial after recovery and explain his thoroughly confused motivation. Had he perished on the spot 1 billion of contemporarie allo over the globe might venerate him as male a Muslim Jeanne d'Arc . However, if the best known would-be Moslim martyr regret his misdeed even though each of his victims' life saved more than a thousand lives, spared Afghanistan years of midery, Major Hasan might deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Don't think so.
Major Hasan is just another example of a political and social system in the middle of total desintegration.
Adding any other significance to such events is mere speculation.
But I guess the US will recover. They will need to make adjustments, weed out the garbage and do more to promote the interests of good people.
Obama has a most difficult job. The poison inside the system has grown roots. Neo-cons and other desperately corrupted imbeciles rule large sections of the infrastructure/economy. You cannot just remove all these parasites in a matter of months. It will takes decades.
My best guess is that the US are no longer interested in Afghanistan as such, but consider a significant representation of military forces close to Pakistan necessary in order to be able to intervene in case Moslim extremists get too close to the nukes.
If that would be true, he is welcome to send even more than 30.000 troops to Afghanistan as far as I am concerned.
By definition the conditional I used is speculative, Response with an unconditional HAHa lacks credibility, Please tell us at your earliest convenience why a Moslem recognizing that shooting innocent people in cold blood can't be permitted even if it saves thousandfold lives is less deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than wellmeaning campaign promise of a US President who couldn't fullfill them, unless a mentally disturbed psychiatrist, promoted to mojor, compelled him.
Frankly, I consider your speculation a nightmare, but mine a dream. Rather than offer you a wager I humbly ask our sisters and brothers in Christ, Jehowa. Allah, eveb agnosics for spirital support . Amen
of the volunteer force is under strain due to the fact that the majority of fighting soldiers and marines have served multiple combat tours in either Iraq or Afghanistan . The only way General McChrystal's request for 40,000 plus soldiers could be met would be to extend tours of duty or reducing time at home between tours, which would further strain the forces.Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the Army, has said that extending tours or shorting the time between combat tours as the military did during the 2007 surge in Iraq, could break the forces. General McChrystal might
believe that the Afghan war might be worth breaking the Army and Marine Corps, but President Obama and Secretary Gates do not agree it is worth it. Especially now with the possibility of armed conflict with Iran .
TTP?