Pentagon To Extend Troops In Afghanistan

Largest Number Of Troops Since War Began, 26,000, To Remain Until At Least Spring Of 2008

(AP)  The Pentagon plans to extend its buildup of several thousand combat troops in Afghanistan, initially announced as lasting until late spring, well into next year, a senior U.S. military official said Friday.

The move comes as U.S. and allied commanders anticipate a renewed offensive this spring by the Taliban, and as they seek additional reinforcements from NATO countries. The effort to bolster forces there so far has brought only limited success, with a few nations promising handfuls of additional troops and equipment.

The extension of the U.S. buildup means American troop levels in Afghanistan, which increased this month to about 26,000 — the highest of the war — will remain roughly the same until at least spring 2008. Until now, a level of 22,000 to 23,000 had prevailed through much of last year.

The decision, expected to be announced in Washington as early as next week, entails sending an Army combat brigade to replace the 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division when it leaves this spring.

Without replacing that brigade, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan would have receded to the lower level. That is because the U.S. has had extra troops in the country since earlier this month, when a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division arrived.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced, declined to identify the replacement brigade. There are about 3,500 soldiers in a brigade.

The move comes as the United States is also adding 21,500 troops to its forces in Iraq, which totaled around 130,000 before that buildup started.

While President Bush's troop increase in Iraq has aroused widespread public and congressional opposition, there has been little dissent over efforts to intensify U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Both conflicts, however, are continuing to put severe strains on a military that is constantly scrambling to find fresh troops and equipment to send to the war zones.

The increase in the U.S. force in Afghanistan comes as NATO's new top commander, Gen. John Craddock, is seeking 1,500 to 2,000 extra combat troops for the campaign, plus about 800 more from the British.

Decisions about adjusting U.S. troop levels next year will depend in part on whether the United States' NATO partners send all the combat and support forces they have promised.

About 15,000 of the American troops in Afghanistan are serving in the NATO-led force, which now totals about 36,000. The other 12,000 are special operations forces or are training Afghan troops.

The 3rd Brigade originally was to go home this month, as it turned over command to the brigade of the 82nd Airborne, but the Pentagon announced in January that it instead will be kept in place four extra months.

Until now, it was not clear whether the Pentagon would replace the 3rd Brigade when it went home.

The senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision to extend the buildup has not been announced, said the unit that replaces the 3rd Brigade in late spring will remain for a year.

Thus the number of brigades in Afghanistan, which increased from one to two this month with the 82nd Airborne's arrival, will remain at that level until the spring of 2008 and possibly beyond, he said.

[feelfree1]

WogerWabbit,

Very well stated.

[wogerwabbit]

War is good. War is great. It makes us a better people to be killing other people all over the world. We will rule the planet and turn our enemies to dust. We will steal their oil but let them kill each other if they are black and have no oil. This is the new America.

It matters not that our leaders are criminals, they are our criminals and we will lie, cheat, steal and kill right along with them. truth is relative. This is the new America.

[bluestardad]

Hey Congress, We know you cannot protect innocent high school pages in the Halls of Congress nor put Pedophiles in Jail like Mark Foley, how about thieves of billions of dollars, and Liars that cause the deaths and Maiming of Thousands of American Soldiers and sends our country to a war on a lie? The Middle East is not in American Interest, we have invested 50 years of blood, and money is enough is enough! Did the Israeli or Saudi Arabian Neocons slip you some money how about thirty pieces of silver for your vote or compliancy in this war?
Write your congressman and let them know how you feel! firststatehttp://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[bluestardad]

get bin laden or go home!

[bluestardad]

Pull troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan!

[bluestardad]

The middle east is not in Americas interest! Pull out 50 years of investment in blood, money, and effort has proven no results!

Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors (unfounded as it turned out) that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed [AIPAC]." [SPIEGEL, p. 52].[citation needed] Today, AIPAC has over 100,000 members.[1]
Activities and stated goals
AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace".[2] It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. It also provides analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East."

[formrusmcsgt]

patriotic9-

While I personally subscribe to science, not dogma, I still respect the rights of the believers to subscribe to what they wish.

What I do not condone is religious zealotry such as shaping our foreign or deomstic policies on a basis of dogma.

Religion is a spiritual relationship with a deity, not a basis for government policy.

[patriotic9]

formrusmcsgt
I highly appreciate you taking out the concept of "ORIGINAL SIN"from Christianity.Only an Atheist could do that.If a Christian did that,he wouldn't be a Christian anymore.
One of the seven core Army values I had learned in my Military career is "SELFLESS SERVICE".If I become selfish today and care only about myself,it'd not be a problem at all for me to have Kool_aid and let the enitre humanity suffer by the hand of PSYCHOSIS called Christianity.
Enough is enough.We've lost thousands of our citizens on 9/11 and I don't want to see million more to die in the next terrorist attack.
We can convince an African American Christian man dying in New Orleans after Katrina that he deserves to die because of not getting support from the govt on time as he is born in a GOD-NEGLECTED BLACK RACE not chosen by GOD whereas a NON AMERICAN EUROPEAN INVADER in Palestine deserves more then $3 Billion a year from our tax money because of being born in a RACE CHOSEN by GOD.Unfortunately,we can't convince those Arabs who give us Oil in cheaper prices that why should we take OIL in cheaper prices from them and in return support their those enemies who were brought into Palestine from different European countries to occupy the land of those Palestinians who had nothing to do with the actions of HITLER.

[formrusmcsgt]

A new born child incapable of comiting adultery,unjust killing,rape,etc is born in sins he or she has never comited...

Posted by patriotic9 at 11:13 PM : Feb 09, 2007


Being an atheist, I would be the last one to defend religious zealotry. But to be fair, Christian dogma does not hold children guilty of their "sin of birth" until what they call the "age of accountability".

Sure it's a ruse, otherwise there would be no need to buy the Kool-aid.

[formrusmcsgt]

only 28% polled support Bush's tirade over there, the larger MAJORITY DO NOT, the Nov elections clearly said NO MORE, bring the troops HOME.

Posted by newster1 at 09:29 PM : Feb 09, 2007

That 28% figure is a recent one. In March, 2003, the numbers were reversesed and Bush/Cheney/Rice had 72% BUYING his boondoggle instead of being opposed to it.

I remember distinctly as I was in the 28% saying it was lunacy.