U.S. Eyes More Troops In Afghanistan

(CBS/ AP)  Pentagon leaders on Wednesday signaled a surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later" - a shift that could come later this year as they prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, defense officials said sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters. But, he added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.

U.S. troops have beat a tactical retreat in Afghanistan, abandoning a remote border outpost that was almost overrun by insurgents over the weekend, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. Gates is scrambling to find reinforcements he can send right away.

The largest unit immediately available is a force of 2,200 Marines and their helicopters in the Persian Gulf, but they are on standby for Iraq. Another pressing need is for overhead reconnaissance aircraft that can detect fighters moving into Afghanistan from their safe havens in Pakistan.

Gates' comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year. And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.

"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.

Mullen, who was in Iraq last week, told reporters that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions there this fall. He said he found that conditions in Iraq had improved more than he expected.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible. It has not, and it is not," Mullen told a Pentagon press conference.

"But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions," he said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended, now that the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year has left the country.

Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon called the "surge." And it starts the 45-day evaluation period that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress he would need to assess the security situation and determine how many more troops he could send home.

Neither Gates nor Mullen would detail how they intend to juggle the military requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, they spoke more aggressively about meeting Afghan needs more quickly.

Gates said commanders are looking at moving forces around to take advantage of a small boost in French troops expected in Afghanistan. But he ruled out rolling back some of the promises the Pentagon made to soldiers limiting their deployments to 12 months.

"I think we're looking at a variety of options on how to respond here," Gates said. "I will tell you that I have sought assurances that there will be no return to longer-than-12-month deployments, so that's not something we're considering."

Also, he said he is not aware of any plans to extend the deployments of any U.S. troops currently there.

Gates and Mullen also has strong words for Pakistan, saying Islamabad must do a better job preventing Taliban and other insurgents from crossing the border into Afghanistan to wage attacks.

The absence of pressure from the Pakistanis, Gates said, is giving militants a greater opportunity to penetrate the porous mountain border. He said the key is to further convince the Pakistani government that their country is also at great risk from the insurgents.

Gates said it is an exaggeration to say that the border problems have escalated into a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he also dismissed as untrue suggestions that the U.S. is massing troops along the border preparing to launch attacks into Pakistan.

The large, coordinated attack on the outpost in eastern Afghanistan killed nine troops. Elsewhere in the frontier region, NATO launched artillery and helicopter strikes in Pakistan after coming under insurgent rocket fire, officials said.

There are currently 36,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 17,500 with the NATO-led force, and 18,500 who are fighting insurgents and training Afghan forces.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan currently operate under so-called "hot pursuit" rules which allow them to bomb or shell insurgents firing at them from across the border, reports Martin.

But now the U.S. military is working on plans to cross the border, not just in hot pursuit, but to clear out the safe havens in Pakistan.

[bustamcnutty]

more troops=more targets..they should let the special forces handle it..the lay of the land does not favor conventional forces.we need swift and constant moving troops to keep the taliban guessing.what good does it do to build a base in indian country to just be picked apart.plus the special forces allready have a good working relationship with the afghans and have shown they can get the job done.

[six-six-seis]

This is becoming like the old cocaine Cmmercial,
the one with the business guy in the bottle
walking in circles,

only this one should be with SHRUB walking in circles,
saying to himself,
we will draw down, take a few troops out of Iraq,
so we can put them in Afghanistan so we can take them to Iraq, so we can put them in Afghanistan, so we can take them back out to Iraq.
on and on and on...............

[samsel3]

There are no benefits for Americans in Afghanistan. Your tax dollars and cumulative borrowed debt to finance these operations only benefit the corporations who purchased the oil& gas rights in the Caspian Sea Basin, nothing more nothing less.

July 15, 2008 Bush morning news conf: Everything''''s going well so far in the Caspian Basin "....

And the extermination continues:...........


February 12, 1998 John J. Maresca vp of UNOCAL oil appeared before a House sub committee. The purpose of the meeting was to gain support for exploitation of oil & natural gas resources, for the rights purchased by BIG OIL in the Caspian Sea area.

In his testimony he stated, "The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets ".

The exploitation option stated : "One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed by American companies because of U.S. sanctions (with Iran ) . The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which of course has it''s own unique challenges. " He continued saying, " the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments,lenders (world monitary fund & world bank ) ,and our company "......"

UNOCAL and other American companies are prepared to undertake the job ".

[Hartru]

I am asking this REALLY stupid question
bennyblack
-------------------------
It''s not a stupid question at all, it''s a good question. My answer would be politics and resources. Since the idiot-son was focused on Iraq instead of forgotistan, he just grabbed the closest drug lord he could find (Karzai) to run the place.
Plus, all resources were dedicated to establishing an oil colony in Iraq instead of properly dealing with forgotistan and al-quaida.
However, the idiot-son has such a long list of crimes, what''s one or two more....

More or less....

[bennyblack1]

Haven''t you people figured it out, yet?

Osama Bin Laden is now a figure of imagination. He has died, and has become an icon figure for terrorism. In other, he is viewed as still alive, and transfigured as a god, now, while others succeed him.

Bin Laden is DEAD!

[bennyblack1]

And I''d really HATE to say this, but the general clearly does NOT have the United States as his best interest in sending more troops over there without effectively reducing poppy seed distribution. The US waged war on drugs in Afghanistan is an oxy-moron. Our troops are killing "the enemy" while getting killed in order to halt production while the US pays to increase the growth of the plant which increases production.

The general says, "Send more troops, " because he needs a job. Either that, he''s addicted to heroine.

[bennyblack1]

I am asking this REALLY stupid question. If we are waging war on drugs, and mowing the plants causes 3 or 4 mores times the growth, then why haven''t we solved the problem by using a different method? What would kill those fields without destroying the agricultural value of them for other crops? It IS clear that mowing is the wrong method for killing these poppies, and another reason we should withdraw from Afghanistan. The heroine produced has produced more income. The income is not shared with the US and is more than likely being used to fund Al Queda. The population of Afghanis are growing found that the fields are popping up elsewhere making someone ELSE is making money on their destroyed fields while they starve. And there still is no solution to the reduction of the growth of the plant. The federal government won''t arrange to buy it for production of morphine for use in legal medicine as a highly effective pain reliever as well as a treatment for certain psychotic disorders.

[neoconrcrazy]

bushit''s responsiblity for future American deaths in Afghanistan, the place where 9-11 was born and where the mastermind still lives - the place bush abandoned

for iraq - is a fact.

this moron has allowed talibans and supporters to regroup and going back in will cost - more American lives.

[yongamerica]

Well well, all of a sudden someone has decided to focus on a primary objective that resulted from 9/11/2001 rather than some make believe apocalyptic vision from a President who thinks dead Presidents talk to him in his dreams.

[kansas1946]

Well, let''s see. Obama adovactes reducing troops in Iraq, and now the administration is "eying" reducing toops in Iraq.
Obama has been saying that he would increase troops in Afghanistan, and now the administration is thinking about increasing troops in Afghanistan. Sounds like Obama is already running the country. Thank God.