Gates: U.S. Troops Not Going To Pakistan

As Violence Intensifies With Taliban, U.S. Defense Secretary Won't Commit U.S. Forces

(AP)  There are no plans to deploy U.S. ground troops to Pakistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, despite concerns over increasing violence between Pakistani troops and Taliban militants.

Speaking to about 300 Marines at Camp Leatherneck in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, Gates assured them that they wouldn't be fighting in the neighboring sovereign nation.

During a 12-minute question-and-answer session in sweltering heat, Gates told a sergeant he didn't have to "worry about going to Pakistan."

Pakistan's military continued fighting Taliban guerrillas in the Swat Valley on Thursday. On Wednesday, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari appealed to President Barack Obama for more help reversing the extension of Taliban-held territory to within 60 miles of the capital, Islamabad.

Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in southern Afghanistan, told reporters that he expects to see an increase of violence in Afghanistan between now and elections this fall.

"This will be a spike, not an upward slope," he said, because as U.S.-led forces try to secure areas, insurgents are going to try to push back.

More than 60,000 U.S. troops will be stationed in Afghanistan by fall, up from about 38,000 now. The Pentagon has estimated it will deploy about 68,000 troops to Afghanistan for the length of the U.S. combat mission.

Nicholson said the U.S. is looking at three factors to see if its efforts in Afghanistan are working: better security over a period of time, an increase in Afghan security forces and a decrease in poppy cultivation.

Gates also told the Marines that the Pentagon was working on getting troops more time at home between deployments in battle zones.

[gravyboat45]

This will change. The number of American boots on the ground in Afghanistan will grow, and at some point, Pakistan will ask for help.

[noloyalisti]

Yes, America would rather kill women and children from the air with un-manned drones. Aren't we brave and good?

[p_syrus]

Excepting of course "hot pursuit" & "needful active interventions".

[ayatoldya]

Pakistan has a million man Army. It's fielding just 12-15 thousand troops into the Swat valley. The majority of the army remains on the Pakistan India boarder.
Pakistan is not serious about fully eliminating the Taliban from its country yet. Think of this, it has a ONE million man army and yet it almost a third of its domain is "lawless", the havens of al Qaeda and more.

[jwind1]

It's laughable when Hungry stated that libs were ok with an invasion of Pakistan. Jeez, they won't even let us water-board the "terrorists" captured there, but a big ol' invasion is nothing to sweat over. lol Hungry furiously posted over the "drone" attacks and issued an outcry for the innocent villagers every time, and now he says Bush should have attacked Pakistan in a bigger way. Hungry is so confused that he didn't even read the title of the story and that Obama isn't going in either, better catch up on Obama's stance Hungry, I know it's hard to do as it changes so often.
Posted by promaclaura at 7:51 AM : May 7, 2009

would be laughable if Hungry were in his 20s...he is over 40 years old tho.....that makes it sad

[budmag06]

"Correct - and for the first time, you're going to see some ACTUAL PROGRESS in the country."

It's amazing that the "anti-war" liberals who condemned Bush for the wars now fully support Obama for escalating the same two wars? The truth is that liberals hate everything the right and for what the right stands for and will follow Obama into war and into the destruction of this country. It is assured that there are liberals who are appalled at Obama's war policies but, where are these brave liberals to speak out against Obama? War is war and those who
lead us to war should not be supported or trusted.

[inventagod]

Back when Gates worked for Bu$h - anything they said was quickly proved to be a lie. Let's see if Gates has changed....

[promaclaura]

It's laughable when Hungry stated that libs were ok with an invasion of Pakistan. Jeez, they won't even let us water-board the "terrorists" captured there, but a big ol' invasion is nothing to sweat over. lol Hungry furiously posted over the "drone" attacks and issued an outcry for the innocent villagers every time, and now he says Bush should have attacked Pakistan in a bigger way. Hungry is so confused that he didn't even read the title of the story and that Obama isn't going in either, better catch up on Obama's stance Hungry, I know it's hard to do as it changes so often.

[hungry1968-15]

folks if the article said obama wants us troops in pakistan , hungry would be for it.....since it says they arent going..he is against troops there...hungry gears his beliefs to what Obama says...he is nothing but a 40 year old sheep.....it is sad
Posted by jwind1 at 7:31 AM : May 7, 2009





Hey junior.....

Why don't you go back and actually READ my posts, instead of guessing what I'm thinking?

Is reading comprehension still a "bit too much to ask" from you?

[hungry1968-15]

The war continues and Obama owns it now.
Posted by no_obamain2012 at 7:26 AM : May 7, 2009





Correct - and for the first time, you're going to see some ACTUAL PROGRESS in the country.

Stay tuned.