Afghan Surge Next President's Problem

Pentagon Official Says Bush Administration Won't Answer Calls For More Troops

(AP)  It will be left to the next administration to decide on any sizable troop increase for Afghanistan, the Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday.

U.S. commanders in the nearly seven-year-old war have been asking for three combat brigades, or roughly 10,000 more troops, to help confront increasing violence in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week that officials have been looking for ways to send additional forces as soon as possible - likely in smaller units and fewer than commanders want.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference Wednesday that the decision on how and when to meet the request for the larger amount is "a question, frankly, for the next administration," which will be chosen in November's presidential election.

His comment came as President Bush was arriving at the Pentagon for a briefing by top military leaders.

Bush has made the five-year-old war in Iraq the Defense Department's top priority, and defense officials have been candid about the fact that the focus on Iraq has meant fewer troops and other military assets available for the campaign in Afghanistan.

"That is the war which we have focused on," Morrell said of Iraq, asserting, "That is the war we are now winning."

Officials have said that if improved security conditions in Iraq hold, they hope to be able to devote more troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent following its ouster by the U.S.-led invasion of late 2001.

[ontheleft]

Start up the draft. That''s about the only way to get all the war mongers in this country to actually fight a war instead of promoting it.

[omnibus66]

So the Smirkinator is going to ignore the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan. Who would have ever guessed?

But in Iraq, we cannot consider a troop reduction because the Puppet-Master-In-Chief''s #1 puppet Petraus is a good puppet and says all the right things.

The George W Bush Sewer Treatment Plant in San Francisco will be a fitting tribute to the man.

[hermitdave]

GOSH reading that you would think the BOZOS at the Pentagon had no idea that both the Afghan and Iraq CRUSADES were illegal and criminal. In a just world the entire gang of them and those higher would be standing trial for WAR CRIMES.

[lawyertom1]

The idea that adding a few more troops will solve the Afgani problem is as preposterous as the thesis that the small addition made a different in Iraq. Surge smurge. What is needed, as General P made so clear and as has advocated for decades since ''Nam, is a combination of providing medical, educational, and social benefits, working with the locals, having onsite military support etc. This is not rocket science; it has been known as an effective strategy since the Brits defeated the Communists in Malaysia. At least in a small, pathetic way we are beginning to do this in Iraq and Afganistan; we need to do a lot more. This obsession with troop numbers above all else is doomed to failure.

[seafang]

Well Hermitdave, what rock were you hiding under when the Congress of the United Sates did it''s Constitutional duty and voted to declare these wars. Nobody else but them can vote for war, and they did that three times; the first time by a vote of 534 to 1; that one nay vote being from an educationally handicapped person who didn''t understand the meaning of the word "necessary", nor that voting to not do that which is "necessary", is a pretty good definition of insanity.

[hermitdave]

GOSH seafang, so just when did congress declare the Bush crusades WARS? As in WW-2. Granted the wimp congress gives Bush anything he wants. Granted congress is as much to blame and should join George and Uncle Richard and the Neo-Cons when the whole bunch is put on trial for war crimes. The all murdered thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraq citizens. All for BIG-DRUGS and BIG-OIL

[rmwhitman]

How many troops are in Germany, South Korea, and Japan?

[marcosis78]

Thousands. lol

[noaanhc]

One of the main problems is that many of our
so-called NATO allies with exception of the UK,Canada and France,are wimps who refuse to send their troops
into Afghanistan unless they can only be deployed in a non-combat role situation.This is the typical European way,they always want someone else to do the dirty work for them instead of joining in themselves to fight the global war on terror.They are really nothing but a bunch of patheic unreliable allies.

[formrusmcsgt]

And just why will it be incumbent on the next administration to try to salvage Afghanistan?

Because this group of inepts have spent 7 years at it and can''t figure out squat....

[nextgenman]

Old Bushie and the Keystone GOPs have left EVERY problem they created to the President Obama.

[clestes-2009]

Typical shrub actions. He makes a mess and someone else cleans it up. He has been doing it all his life. He has been rescued from life''s problems starting with good old Babs Bush getting him into the National Guard instead of going to Vietnam.

why did anyone ever think the job of US president would be any different?

[iuphockey12]

WELL IF ALL THE TERRORISTS ARE HEADING OVER TO AFGHANISTAN THEN LET THEM AND ONCE A MAJORITY OF THE ARE THERE THEN WE NUKE IT.

BAM! TWO DEMOCRATIC STATES

[liberalme]

what a moronic post. Bush can''''t be President after January so it is obvious someone else has to deal with it. Presidents only get 2 terms you idiot.

Posted by jamesm12341 at 08:57 AM : Jul 24, 2008

What an absolutely idiotic response--but then again--who would be surprised?
You lack the knowledge and intelligence to respond with anything of substance pertaining to the story--therefore, sadly, must disect anothers post to make yourself think you are as smart as they are.

Sad little boy.

[liberalme]

So what? why are you crying man? Why do we train our troops? We don''''t train them to become decoration pieces. Certainly they must go and fight.

Posted by TomFlint69 at 06:

YEAH!! Well said----Let them go fight like Bush and Cheney did!!! Great examples!!!!

[petro49l]

Bin Laden insists on recruiting rank and file Arabs for Taliban Forces. He compels or tricks them into it. Bin Laden only wants body counts of dead Taliban and American Soldiers. His goal is political power. Why allow Bin Laden to take-over an opium empire?

[fizzie319]

I have been saying this for the past TWO YEARS to people who say they are going to vote either Hillary or Obama to end the war and to bring our troops home... The war isnt going to end our troops aren''t coming home: it will only transfer to a different country like Afghanistan, like what is being mentioned in this news article, or Pakistan or possibly Iran. I guess they just dont listen to me.

[deacon20081]

why does it matter why? if it needs to be done, it needs to be done!! you libs are so hung up on the past...that is why you are losers in life
Posted by jamesm1234
-----------------------------------------

Hung up on the past? You mean of course the fact that Bush and the Oil Companies declared War for Oil because Iraq was going to accept the Euro instead of the dollar? That the decision to focus on Iraq instead of Afghanistan was based on Greed?
That Bush has led this country to despair with his Failure as a "president"? That his friends on Wall Street got Drunk and now we have a Hang Over?
Well then yes we are dwelling on the past.
No amount of double speak non-sense will deflect the
reprocussions that are going to take down Dubya and his cronies. There will be a price they will have to pay in our courts or the World Court soon enough.

[jericho1337]

It`s funny (and a bit alarming) how quickly the US has forgotten Reagan and the Cold War. Remember when he spoke at the Berlin Wall?

As The National Review reports: "When [Reagan] went to the Berlin Wall before the Brandenburg Gate and spoke what has become the signature line of his presidency, entreating Mikhail Gorbachev to `tear down this wall,` it was greeted back home by the chattering class with rolled eyes and smirks. There he goes again."

Remember that? Remember how the US and Reagan were chided for their "cowboy mentality?" Why do we insist on making those same elitist mistakes?

I believe that history will look as kindly on the current Middle East situation as it does on Reagan and the Cold War. It doesn`t matter if you don`t believe this... just *remember* it and then in twenty years you can point it out to the current batch of apologists and buffoons.