U.S. To Up Troop Levels In Afghanistan

Defense Secretary Offers No Specific Numbers For 2009 Increase

(AP)  The United States intends to send many more combat forces to Afghanistan next year, regardless of whether troop levels in Iraq are cut further this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

It is the first time the Bush administration has made such a commitment for 2009.

Gates, speaking to reporters on his way to Muscat, Oman, from a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, said President Bush made the pledge at the summit on Thursday.

Mr. Bush was not specific about the number of additional troops that would go to Afghanistan in 2009, Gates said. The United States now has about 31,000 troops there - the most since the war began in October 2001 - and has been pressing the allies to contribute more.

Until now, the heavy commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq has been a constraint on the ability to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. But Gates said he did not believe that would be the case in 2009.

Gates said he advised Mr. Bush to make the pledge to allied leaders in Bucharest even though the movement of the unspecified additional troops would ultimately be a decision for the next president, who will take office in January.

"The question arises, how can we say that about 2009?" Gates said. "All I would say is, I believe ... this is one area where there is very broad bipartisan support in the United States for being successful" in Afghanistan, where, by many accounts, progress against the Taliban resistance has stalled.

"I think that no matter who is elected president, they would want to be successful in Afghanistan. So I think this was a very safe thing for him to say," the Pentagon chief added.

Gates said he believed it was too early to decide how many additional combat forces the United States should plan on sending in 2009. He said it would depend on several things, including the extent of U.S. and NATO success on the battlefield this year, as well as the impact of a new senior U.S. commander taking over in coming months. Gen. David McKiernan is due to replace Gen. Dan McNeill this spring as the top overall commander in Afghanistan

McNeill has said he believes he needs another three brigades - two for combat and one for training. That translates to roughly 7,500 to 10,000 additional troops. The Bush administration has no realistic hope of getting the NATO allies to send such large numbers.

In remarks to reporters after Mr. Bush made the statement at the summit Thursday, the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said any extra U.S. combat troop deployments would be in southern Afghanistan, where fighting is heaviest.

Gates said he believed that was a logical possibility but that it was too early to say they would go to the south.

"I put this in front of the president as a possibility, as something that I thought we ought to be willing to say and do," Gates said. He added that part of his reasoning was that such a pledge by Mr. Bush would have extra effect at a summit meeting where France announced that it will send several hundred combat troops to Afghanistan this year - a decision that Mr. Bush explicitly praised.

It is widely agreed within the Bush administration and between the United States and its key allies in Afghanistan that they have too few troops on the ground to effectively fight the Taliban resistance - especially in the volatile south - and to accelerate the training of Afghan soldiers and police.

The question that has been contemplated for many months is how to find additional troops.

The administration initially pushed hard for other NATO countries to fill the gap. Having largely failed in that effort, the U.S. military now seems convinced that it will have to bear more of the load.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made clear his view that the enormous commitment of U.S. forces and resources in Iraq has made Afghanistan, by necessity an "economy-of-force campaign." In other words it has been a secondary priority amid fear of collapse in Iraq.

[lovegetpeace]

Folks,
Please be patience with the NeoCons. The Soviet Union quit after just 13 years if trying everything under the Sun against the Country Loving Talibans and then cease to exist.

America got 7 more years to go before quiting and cease to exist. Please be patience.

[ioweign]

j-whitman, the Taliban controlled the entire country before the we ousted them now they control 8 provinces out of 364. How on earth are you able to interpret those facts as the "taliban are stronger now"??????

Posted by notblue at 04:51 PM : Apr 04, 2008

How on earth are you able to interpret those facts as the "taliban are stronger now"??????

@@@@@@@

Then why send more troops...

[swwils]

They need to up the ante in Afghanistan SF has mainly been running that assault.They need the rest of the team to complete the mission.Quarter backs don''t win the game without the entire team functioning.Shortening the tours will help thee soldiers also we need control of that region also to keep an eye on Iran and Pakistan,untilit gets settled with its internal problems.

[prinzowhales]

Is this the same Taliban that was buying weapons and helping to finance Al Qaeda from the sale of Opium? Opium production is actually down since the Taliban was ousted. I think you have your facts twisted to suit your agenda. It soudns like conspiracy theory to me.
Posted by redbds at 03:27 PM : Apr 04, 2008
------------------------
Just use a search engine and you can find the truth...
Why don''t you show me some reference to justify your falsehood that opium production has declined since the Taliban were ousted?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/05_05_03un.cfm


http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/19/taliban.drugs.reut/

[ajmarine1]

1

[j-whitman]

notblue,,, There are many problems in Afhaganistan, & the Taliban is far from routed & There are other Taliban/Al Queda groups forming that are just as bad.

[notblue]

j-whitman, the Taliban controlled the entire country before the we ousted them now they control 8 provinces out of 364. How on earth are you able to interpret those facts as the "taliban are stronger now"??????

[j-whitman]

JERSupporter,,,, What is a JERSupporter anyway ? Another name for a jock strap ?????

[randynason]

This is the longest "six months" ever. Tell me again exactly how this war is paying for itself. I''m so stupid, I just cannot remember that silly little factoid!

[j-whitman]

JERSupporter,,,, Actually I retired from the Navy in 88, most of my career was in the Silent Service, Submarine Duty ---- How about you ?? Have you ever serve this country ??

[j-whitman]

redbds,,,,, No the Taliban wasn''t routed -- They are more of a threat than before, in more parts of the country & in their capital. ----- You couldn''t be more wrong.

[sistatee-2009]

Must be David Rockefeller called Bush and said he needs more troops to protect his oil and cocaine businesses.

[mcvet]

j-whitman served four years as a seaman and then supposedly left because he could not follow orders.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JERSupporter at 02:53 PM : Apr 04, 2008
+ report abuse

Can I ask what YOUR opinion of J whitman has to do with anything? It''s not like you have all the answers you pathetic nazi. You do know that''s what Nazi''s do when they can''t debate the issues don''t you? Yep swastika breath they attack the messenger!! LOL Now take that swastika you love so much off into a corner and suck on it, the adults here have serious ISSUES to discuss! Sieg Heil Bush

[talkingham]

Typical Bush move. Get the troops there 6 or 7 years after they could have captured Bin Laden.

The L''l Bush character on Comdey Central is pitifully accurate.

[displeased]

Hopefully when McCain gets into office he will increase it even more to help stable the countries violence.
Send us help soon GW !!
Posted by blackwater66

It is not our duty to stabilize other countries problems. We have our own issues to deal with.

[joyous88]

what a joke,

we have lost this so called war,

and now these morons are losing the occupations in

Iraq and Afganistan.

Thank goodness we have a chance to get a president

with a plan, and I do not mean McBushCain

[lovegetpeace]

Wonderful, we are winning the war on terrorism....right back where we started.

[redbds]

redbds--No conspiracy, just fact...WE removed the Taliban who had just about knocked out opium production...WE side with the drug lords who support the Kabul Regime...WE are standing by while opium production more than doubles...WE are sending more troops to fight the Taliban and support the narco-Regime... Its pretty straight forward...if you have a different set of facts...please put them forward.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Prinzowhales at 02:11 PM : Apr 04, 2008

Is this the same Taliban that was buying weapons and helping to finance Al Qaeda from the sale of Opium? Opium production is actually down since the Taliban was ousted. I think you have your facts twisted to suit your agenda. It soudns like conspiracy theory to me.

[grim56z]

Why not send U.S. Navy Seals and Marines into Afghanistan? Waziristan should be over run by Coalition Forces. The Taliban will go screaming out into the waiting machine guns of the Pakistani Army. There is no sense in wasting time. End it for Bin Laden now.

[jersupporter]

j-whitman served four years as a seaman and then supposedly left because he could not follow orders.