U.S. Troop Buildup Planned For Afghanistan

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