More U.S. Troops For Afghanistan?

Gates Says Commanders Want Troop Increase To Fight Resurgent Taliban

(CBS/AP)  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have recommended an increase in U.S. force levels, in part to deal with an expected upsurge in Taliban violence this year.

Gates would not say how many more troops were recommended to him.

"It depends on different scenarios," he told reporters. "Those are the kinds of decisions we're going to have to look at."

Gates said U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan this year would depend in part on troop contributions from other NATO countries who are part of a U.S.-led coalition attempting to stabilize the country and prevent the Taliban from regaining power.

Noting a recent increase in Taliban attacks against U.S. and allied forces, Gates said the United States should "keep the initiative" and not allow the radical Taliban movement to regroup.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not mention any specific troop increase, but said it might make sense for "a short-term plus-up" if that would head off the potential need for even more in the years ahead.

Gates said the commanders' recommendation for a troop increase would be considered first by the joint chiefs and he would then decide what to recommend to President Bush.

A troop increase for Afghanistan would have the support of at least one likely Democratic presidential contender.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told CBS News' The Early Show Wednesday that while she is opposed to the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq, "I am for putting more troops in Afghanistan." (Watch the video)

Clinton recently returned from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan where she held talks with U.S. military leaders.

Earlier, Gates had stood on a rocky dirt track ringed by 6,000-foot, snow-dappled ridges at Forward Operating Base Tillman as he came almost eye-to-eye with the source of the administration's worry about losing years of costly gains against the Taliban.

Gates, bareheaded and wearing a brown bomber jacket against the winter's chill at the bleak outpost, looked east into a part of Pakistan just a few miles away that has become an infiltration route for a growing number of Taliban fighters. U.S. military officials say they have evidence the Pakistani military has turned a blind eye to the border incursions.

Later, at a news conference, Gates acknowledged the border security problem and said something would have to be done about it. Only one month into his tenure at the Pentagon, Gates said he had not yet studied the issue in detail.

"The border area is a problem," Gates told reporters Tuesday after meeting with President Hamid Karzai. "There are more attacks coming across the border, there are al Qaeda networks operating on the Pakistani side of the border. And these are issues that we clearly will have to pursue with the Pakistani government."

Karzai acknowledged the upswing in Taliban attacks and vowed to deal them a heavy blow in the months ahead.

At Tillman, Sgt. 1st Class Ronald Locklear, who has spent five months there, said the problem is well-known.

"They cross the border on a regular basis," he said.

Gates noted that the Bush administration considers Pakistan an important ally in the global war on terrorism. U.S. military officials, however, stressed the impact of the Taliban's ability to find sanctuary in tribal areas on the Pakistan side of the border.

They said that allowed the Taliban to vastly increase the number of its attacks against U.S., NATO and Afghan army troops, particularly in the southern and eastern parts of the country where Osama bin Laden once operated.

The number of insurgent attacks is up 300 percent since September, when the Pakistani government put into effect a peace arrangement with tribal leaders in the north Waziristan area, along Afghanistan's eastern border, a U.S. military intelligence officer told reporters traveling with Gates. The officer discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, the top American commander in Afghanistan said he has asked to extend the combat tour of about 1,200 soldiers, amid rising insurgent violence, and Gates said he was "strongly inclined" to recommend a troop increase to President Bush if commanders believe it is needed to succeed.

The prospect of a troop increase, at the same time Mr. Bush is ordering 21,500 more troops into Iraq, raises new questions about the military's ability to sustain its pace of war-fighting on two major fronts. There now are about 24,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry said is the highest since the war began in October 2001.

It also raises questions about the future course of the war in Afghanistan, which the United States is increasingly handing off to NATO forces. Of the 31,000 troops here under NATO command, about 11,000 are American. The United States has another 12,000 or 13,000 under U.S. command to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists and train the Afghan army.

Eikenberry, the senior American commander here, told reporters he has recommended to the Pentagon that 1,200 soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division — which is about halfway through a scheduled four-month tour in eastern Afghanistan — be ordered to stay through year's end. Eikenberry is due to leave his post Jan. 21.

That battalion is already scheduled to deploy to Iraq later this year, an illustration of how stretched U.S. forces are by the two wars.

Eikenberry said it appears the Taliban is readying a spring offensive to focus mainly on southern Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kandahar and other urban centers. He also said he believed the Taliban would make renewed efforts to "get inside Kabul" and to attack border posts held by NATO and Afghan national forces.

He asserted that despite the Taliban's resurgence, "The enemy is not strong militarily. A lot of this has to do with the attempt to get psychological effects" to persuade ordinary Afghans the U.S.-backed government cannot deliver necessary services, Eikenberry said.

[j-whitman]

Cbg31 --- Start paying closer attention,,, Replace your hearing aid batteries.

[cbgb31]

The Democrats say no more troops regardless of need.

[drinuk]

Funny story this! it was reported on BBC Wednesday, that Gates had asked Britian for more troops, the Bush camp are really trying to escalate both these wars.....Beware !
BBC also reported that Bush has ignored peace offerings from Iran, the offer to help quell the situation in Iraq was refused because he did'nt like the terms. God help us.

[mh4cbs1]

Get a load of the new CBS "Interactive" that they call:

THE BUSH PLAN
A New Way Forward

What is this, some CBS state propaganda site? Are they back to being their lazy, complicit Bush War Cheerleads of 2002?

There is Nothing New of any substance. This is just more of the same. More death, More destruction. More NeoCon fascist wanna-be-world-rulers sick fantasie.

[southpaw65]

"And the reason why Repubs would never impeach Bubba is because the only support they have is from Repub voters who would view their doing so as high treason and vote their a$$es out for a new batch of Repubs.

Politics is, above all else, about political survival.
Posted by exusmcsgt at 12:03 PM : Jan 17, 2007"

I suppose you're right.... slowly but surely, the defections on the war support are coming... but probably not fast enough to dwindle GB's support down to impeachable levels before it's too late to mess with it anymore (2008).

But it sure is a happy thought, huh?

[inventagod]

Da Bu$h is cooked.

[Syndicate]

The Taliban should surge violence into Afganistan. Its working in Iraq.

[condumism]

Bush's lies to war all for profit are the only reason the USA needs to bump itself up in Afghanistan. Had this worthless US president not taken his sights off of Afghanistan in the first place, the real war on Al-Queda would have been finished at least 3 years ago.

[feelfree1]

Our "leaders" have been asked to choose the size of their humiliation.

They have apparently opted to SUPERSIZE it.

Who cares what this Gates terrorist thinks? He should save it for the Hague!

[j-whitman]

Go Hillary,, Get Er Done,,, Bush's plan takes troops away from Afaganistan where the real war on terror is.... And she gets bi-partisan support.

[sheila1346]

I am very concerned about the rise of troops in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. We have no where near enough troops to actually "win" this type of war((urban warfare),just enough to get more of our service men and women killed as well as to lead to the deaths of many more innocent and some not so innocent citizens of these two countries. Having lived through both Korea and Vietnam military actions I see far far to many similarities that really have me worried. I will not get into any of the very suspect motives for being in these countries in the first place but I will say I really do feel that not only will all this increase in troops lead to many more heartaches and deaths but to the reemergence of the military draft which will come with its own set of very real problems. I believe this course of action will take us down a road that the American people are not only not prepared for but will really regret in the future.

[sheila1346]

I am very concerned about the rise of troops in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. We have no where near enough troops to actually "win" this type of war((urban warfare),just enough to get more of our service men and women killed as well as to lead to the deaths of many more innocent and some not so innocent citizens of these two countries. Having lived through both Korea and Vietnam military actions I see far far to many similarities that really have me worried. I will not get into any of the very suspect motives for being in these countries in the first place but I will say I really do feel that not only will all this increase in troops lead to many more heartaches and deaths but to the reemergence of the military draft which will come with its own set of very real problems. I believe this course of action will take us down a road that the American people are not only not prepared for but will really regret in the future.

[valendug]

Can you spell draft?

[inventagod]

"By the way, sorry inventagod, but that garbage is invent-a-conspiracy and is just laughable watching you guys try to twist the real facts and suedo-science to fit your timeline. Taking the smallest discepencies in 9-11 (every event has things that you can't always explain 100%)and hanging an entire conspiracy on it. Hilarious. You are all right up there with the Roswell guys. I hate Bush and company as much as anyone, but even they are incapable of that level of treachery.

So, unlike Iraq, they did attack us, even if indirectly. We should take all those Iraqi troops and send them to Afghanistan to try and settle that place because the Taliban are winning over there, something a lot of people don't realize.

Posted by Rafterman1 at 12:37 PM : Jan 17, 2007"

You, like I, have opinions. Bu$hCo was offering the Taliban tons of gold or tons of bombs just before 9/11, hoping to get an oil pipeline installed. OIL. Connect the dots.

[exusmcsgt]

SharnCedar-

Another thought on the subject:

Bin Laden has proven himself to be a very intelligent individual. After all, he has successfully evaded the largest manhunt in the world's history brought by the most powerful nation in the worlds history. You can believe that he was not so foolish as to fund the Taliban fwith no return on his investment.

What do you propose he bought with the millions he gave the Taliban if not cover?

[bratbutt]

any group whose policy is join us or die needs to go. in this case it's you die and I get my 7 virgins..

[exusmcsgt]

itsthemeds-

You are correct. I would submit "War OF Terror".

[exusmcsgt]

SharnCedar-

I disagree with your statement "Afganistan was a disorganized country, the Taliban didn't know what Bin Laden was up to".

Considering that Bin Laden provided the Taliban with millions of dollars in financial support, one must believe that he did so for a purpose. The Taliban gave him cover for his operations alright.

If they were not doing so, why would they risk invasion by the US instead of turning Bin Laden over? Just think about it, friend.

[itsthemeds]

First of all, you are playing into the neocon script with the category of "War on Terror." This is not a war, and as long as the MSM keeps parroting that line, the administration will continue to use the "war" as an excuse to chip away at the bill of rights and the constitution. Stop being an enabler, and try something like:

Mission Anti-terror.

I would say "Homeland Defense," but the whole Homeland thing is kind of creepy, like Fatherland. I'm hoping the next President expands the FBI a bit and kills off Homeland security, but I digress. Please login with your alternative slogan for *** on Terror!

[exusmcsgt]

SharnCedar-

The Bin Ladens never were nor are they now members of the royal Saudi family of al Saud.

Osama Bin Laden's father, the founder of Bin Laden Construction, won several huge contracts from the royal family providing the source of his considerable wealth.