U.S. Troop Buildup Planned For Afghanistan

Heavy Spring Fighting Expected As Taliban Stages A Comeback

(CBS/AP)  This was a day families at Fort Drum in New York had been waiting for — soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division home after a year in Afghanistan, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

"We're just so excited that we survived our first year," said Jennifer McIver, wife of soldier Nicholas McIver. "And I'm sure we'll have many more to go, but it's nice to know that there was an end of it. There was an end."

But these families had not yet been told.

A brigade of the division — about 3,500 soldiers — is having its one year tour of duty extended, and some of these soldiers will have to go back to Afghanistan.

The Taliban is staging a comeback and more troops are needed for what is expected to be a spring of heavy fighting.

Meanwhile, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan said Thursday that troops battling the resurgent Taliban will shortly be reinforced with another combat brigade.

Gen. David Richards said the brigade will consist of members of different nations participating in NATO's International Security Assistance Force. A brigade is typically 1,500 to 3,500 soldiers; Richards did not specify how many additional troops were expected.

It was unclear whether the increase announced by Richardson included the soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division. The U.S. military is a major contributor to the International Security Assistance Force.

But more troops in Afghanistan will not solve what U.S. officials say is the larger problem: the ability of the Taliban and al Qaeda to operate in the tribal areas of Pakistan, recruiting, training and planning cross- border operations.

"The attacks at this time of the year are up about 200 percent," says Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces Command in Afghanistan.

Former CIA analyst Lisa Curtis says there is a growing frustration on Washington over the failure of Pakistan's President Musharraf to crack down on the tribal areas.

"If his own troops are incapable of dealing with this problem, then we need to see how we can help because it's too important of a problem to not address head on," Curtis tells Martin.

Last week a CIA drone and Pakistani helicopter gunships launched a missile strike on one suspected training camp, but every such attack triggers backlash against Musharraf.

One intelligence official tells CBS News that Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al Qaeda believed to be hiding in the Pakistani border area are now safer than they were a year ago.

[orlandoeasterling]

It is as simple as this.Everything that is going on in the UNITED STATES, THE MIDDLE EAST and abroad. Was all started hundreds of years ago. Todays activities that are in our face are only the latter parts of a multiple part plan. If you are not awre of these things i feel for how you are waisting your time trying to figure out a solution. Things that will happen in six months one year 18 months and two years from now are already in place.There is not a RIGHT WINGER OR LEFTWINGER THAT CAN ALTER THIS. THIS WAS AND IS WRITTEN.rEAD YOUR HISTORY CHOOSE A SIDE DO YOUR PART AS YOU THINK YOU SHOULD ON THAT SIDE SHUT UP AND CARRY ON!

[feelfree1]

I would like to point out that Taliban leaders offered to deliver Bin Laden to the U.S., following the 9/11/1 attacks. Their only requirement was that U.S. officials preovide evidence that Osama was involved in these events.

If such evidence existed, it seems that we could have saved ourselves a whole lot of blood and treasure by providing it.

[armywife10]

sigh. i wish we could make it mandatory for politicians children to enlist. perhaps some politicians or their spouses, too. i understand my husband's commitment- i dont appreciate it abused. i think if they experienced an extension like this, coming when i had my son's "welcome home daddy" outfit laid out in his room- it would never happen again.

of course, they will never get that close to the situation. gates was the first to ever go to a real fob in afghanistan- one on the border, a dangerous one. my husband shook his hand 2 weeks ago and was promised he wouldnt be affected by the extension. politicians like to go to the middle east and hang out at the bases with the burger kings and the hotels.

or id love to have them have lead the meeting the other night when they had to explain to a room full of families why our soldiers were not coming home. let them field the questions, instead of the innocent rear d commander.

most jobs, when you're treated unfairly, you go to your manager, or your human resources office. this job... you shut up or you husband might feel the repurcussions.

[egghead12-2009]

In Response To Octavianus-

Well, I'm only trying to apply commom-sense to the known problem of US indebtness. Its similar to a person or corporation who is over-extended financaily. Do you believe people or companies who are in debt can make the same decisions that out-of-debt people make? No. Why should it be any different for country? If the Saudis or Chinese finance us to the extent they do they hold some influence over us much like a bank would would over a person or a company. I'm just putting two and two together. It seems to me these days the US is nothing more thwn a bankrupt "beat cop".

[octavianus-2009]

IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT WHICH OPINED OUR OPTIONS ARE LIMITED DUE TO OUR INTER-DEPENDENCE BY EGGHEAD12:

So you're arguing that we have failed to deploy adequate troop levels, for example, because parties like the Saudi's own significant levels of our Treasury notes? I'm very familiar with the dollar hegemony argument, and theories that speculate it as one motivation for entering Iraq in the first place; but I've never heard the argument framed as yours is. Could you elaborate?

[octavianus-2009]

IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT WHICH OPINED OUR OPTIONS ARE LIMITED DUE TO OUR INTER-DEPENDENCE:

So you're arguing that we have failed to deploy adequate troop levels, for example, because parties like the Saudi's own significant levels of our Treasury notes? I'm very familiar with the dollar hegemony argument, and theories that speculate it as one motivation for entering Iraq in the first place; but I've never heard the argument framed as yours is. Could you elaborate?

[octavianus-2009]

sorry for the duplicate comment...first time user.

[octavianus-2009]

It%u2019s about time we are refocusing on Afghanistan; however, it's a shame we are forced to extend the already long tours of 10th Mountain soldiers to accomplish it?

My short comment on the War on Terror (which at this point Iraq must be included in) is that I envision this effort eventually requiring the deployment of many more troops. I believe if Bush is able to acquire reliable intel on where Iran is hiding its nuclear research program, we will attack. I do not suppose we would have many "boots on the ground" in Iran; however, I believe the bombing campaign will be comprehensive.

I think our invigorated focus on the Mahdi Army in Iraq serves both to stabilize Iraq and help set the stage for attacking Iran. I even posit that it's possible we dragged out the conflict in Iraq in order to remain engaged in the region and facilitate planning against Iran (this is of course speculative & I hold this out as one of many possibilities). If we attack Iran count on a fairly massive reserve and National Guard call up; and bolstering our troop levels in Iraq by 100,000 or so additional troops.

Whether this scenario is desirable is certainly subject to debate; however, if Iran is truly developing nuclear weapons, we have to deal with it. My biggest fear is that Bush has so damaged his credibility that no one may believe him when a real threat arises (like Iran).

[octavianus-2009]

It%u2019s about time we are refocusing on Afghanistan; however, it's a shame we are forced to extend the already long tours of 10th Mountain soldiers to accomplish it?

My short comment on the War on Terror (which at this point Iraq must be included in) is that I envision this effort eventually requiring the deployment of many more troops. I believe if Bush is able to acquire reliable intel on where Iran is hiding its nuclear research program, we will attack. I do not suppose we would have many "boots on the ground" in Iran; however, I believe the bombing campaign will be comprehensive.

I think our invigorated focus on the Mahdi Army in Iraq serves both to stabilize Iraq and help set the stage for attacking Iran. I even posit that it's possible we dragged out the conflict in Iraq in order to remain engaged in the region and facilitate planning against Iran (this is of course speculative & I hold this out as one of many possibilities). If we attack Iran count on a fairly massive reserve and National Guard call up; and bolstering our troop levels in Iraq by 100,000 or so additional troops.

Whether this scenario is desirable is certainly subject to debate; however, if Iran is truly developing nuclear weapons, we have to deal with it. My biggest fear is that Bush has so damaged his credibility that no one may believe him when a real threat arises (like Iran).

[mgkline1]

It is amazing that the Congress and US senate want to fight with the president over troop withdrawal. The insurgents and Sadam were right, inflict damage upon them and make the American people loose their stomachs for the war. The will leave like they did in Vietnam and then take back over.

They have won already. Our own flag waving congress and senate have betrayed the troops yet again. They should not openly talk about any type of withdrawal openly to encourage more bloodshed. Look at the increase of attacks and the magnitude of the attacks in the last week, was that a coincidence? No! They know that the more that they get the congress to discuss it fuels the insurgent will to fight. But then a politician that can keep his or her mouth shut when they talk to a reporter is also disappointing, treason comes to mind for some of them.

But yet again the democrats feel that they where voted in to bring us troops home, LOL. Fix the borders first and secure America by tracking down the illegal immigrants and prevent any future attacks on US soil. Fix the free trade policies and begin clamping down on china since they can blow satellites out of the sky now. Where should our priorities be? Iraq should be in 3rd and or lower, we can take care of ourselves and do our jobs.

MK

[egghead12-2009]

Okay...look, the reason why we are fighting innefficient police actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we are an interdependent country that no-longer fights wars like an independent country would. How can a nation like ours effectively deal with Iraq and Afghanistan when the surrounding countries "allies" hold so much US debt that if we did something unpopular they would call in our debts and ruin the value of the dollar, or worse yet base oil trade on the Euro? Trust me we are no longer the masters of our destiny. That's the real problem.

[madatbush]

One more thought and I'm going to be quiet on this issue. We are battling a society of people who have been at war among themselves for thousands of years and I don't think anything we do is ever going to make this any better. Nevertheless this war is creating another hate that is festering among OUR people that is not going to go away any time soon. I see children that hate the people in Afghanistan and Iraq that is taking their Daddy away from them. They vow to go "over there" and kill them all when they grow up. It tears my heart out to see what is happening to our childern as a result of this war. I blame our administration for taking their Daddy away, but the children don't understand politics, they only understand what they percieve as "war" and who might be wanting to hurt their Daddy. In a way the Taliban will win this war, they will have the souls of our children. That is the legacy that Bush should be remembered for. That is all I have to say on this subject.

[madatbush]

In response to "mjb1411" - I agree that I don't like to see Americans say negatives things either. I've never posted anything like this before but it is time someone said something about what it going one in the White House. The Taliban cannot fight this time of the year, so says my husband who is there, because of the harsh weather. Why then is the sudden rush for troop build up? Bush is throwing a tantrum in my opinion, pushing his weight around at the expense of others, without regard of its long term consequences to the welfare of the children and spouses. Don't you think the Taliban takes advantage of these long deployments and the low moral of our soldiers? Bush and his advisors underestimate them horribly and is making critical mistakes in their planning, much like this troop redeployment and extension. It is bad for moral and bad for the families back at home. It creates a division in our country that will be hard to mend.

[armywife10]

know what's wonderful about being a civilian?

i dont have to solve the problem. i do, however, expect my government to try to. they instead, have made it worse.

believe me, i know what the terrorists do. my husband tells me that they are the reason he is there, he doesn't ever want me to have to worry about them. but i dont feel safe and secure with the way our government is approaching the problem, nor with the way they entered it to begin with- and i do not think im wrong to say so.

[mjb1411]

I wonder how the terrorists feel about the negative statements that some americans make. I imagine they would feel emboldened. Those terrorists in that area will cut your head off if they catch you. How would you suggest dealing with those people? I dont think complaining about how we should never have been there in the first place is going to solve the current problem. Terrorists dont want to talk with you. They want you dead if you dont believe in the minority radical islam beliefs. They will kill your children and fill their stomachs with explosives just so they can kill the security forces that pick up the dead bodies. Its amazing what you find on foot patrols.

[armywife10]

its amazing for me to think that i have such a dramatic story about my 12 months so far, how much my husband has missed, and how much more he'll miss the next 4 months. how greatly this will affect our family... but 3200 families are going through the exact same thing.

a video of my son's first steps just wont cut it.

[armywife10]

amen, madatbush.

[down-ndirty]

"So you see, my friends, there is a reason Tom DeLay is one of the most popular men in Washington. He makes the president look slightly less stupid by comparison!" Source unknown.

[down-ndirty]

"Grow up America. Cut the whinning about the mistake of the conflict in Iraq. We are there because we have been threatened by the attack on Sept 11." Posted by mnip.

mnip, did you just wake up from a six-year sleep? You obviously have no clue why we are there. Go to page 15 and read all of the posts in the order they were posted before you contribute your two-cents worth.

[madatbush]

I think that being upset about seeing our husbands used as a pawn in a political war is not justified as "whining." When you have to look into the face of a child and explain that daddy won't be home again this year for Christmas or a birthday then we are very justified to be upset when Bush makes a sudden decision to keep our husbands in Afghanistan just days away from coming home, especially a decision with no justification or explanation behind it. Bush cannot even look us in the face and give us a reason! Replacement troops are there to replace these troops, let them do their jobs and give our guys a break. Their moral is low and they need to come home. We aren't whining, we want Bush to stop destroying families. Bin Laden destroyed approximately 3000 family's lives on 9/11/01. Bush just destroyed over 3,000 family's lives with this rash decision. With almost 400,000 people deployed look at how many families Bush is tearing apart. We've had enough!