U.S. Troops to Afghanistan: A Waiting Game

General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has told the Pentagon it would take more than a year to get all the troops he's asking for on the ground and in the fight against the Taliban, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

The first brigade could not arrive until January of 2010 and after that the need to build facilities to house more troops would limit him to just one additional brigade every three months. If the president were to grant McChrystal's full request of 40,000 troops it would be 2011 before they all got there.

That's bad news for the war since McChrystal has warned it could be lost in the next 12 months, but it also means the president has plenty of time to decide whether to give McChrystal all the troops he wants.

The White House is not happy with the way senior military leaders, beginning with Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, have handled the debate over Afghan strategy - boxing the president in with their public statements. Two days after the president held his first meeting on Afghanistan, Mullen was telling Congress he agreed with McChrystal.

"Having heard his views and having great confidence in his leadership, a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces," Mullen said.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Even before that General Petraeus, the overall commander for the region, gave an interview in which he strongly backed McChrystal's assessment.

As for McChrystal, he publicly dismissed a much more limited strategy favored by Vice President Biden.

"A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short sighted strategy," McChrystal said.

The Afghan decision is the president's first moment of truth as commander in chief. It is also shaping up as a watershed in his relations with senior military leaders.

[natdef_1]

by Ms_enza November 1, 2009 7:46 PM EST
Spending 40+ cents of every tax dollar on the DoD for the last 60 years is what broke this country... and then letting Bush and Cheney have it for 8 was the gravy.
-------------------------------------

Typical overly simplified anti-defense liberal tofu burger comment. Looks like a burger, but no meat...

[WeBleedGreen50]

Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have been in the military for the past 11 months, with only 5 of them in my current duty station. Joining at 20, I decided to give back to my country, and before heading off to Boot in December, I was eligable to vote. My vote had already been decided, I had voted for Senator McCain for being a Prisoner of War and being a honorable serviceman. Being too young at the time to remember the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and old enough to understand "Terrorism" for the second attack (being only in the 7th grade), I told myself I had to complete my High School Education to join in the battle.

Along my journey I have made many friends throughout all the branches, and take a bullet for most of them. Currently dettached to another unit and being told for the past two months we are on standby for my first deployment. I grow anxious on whether or not I'll be able to see any action and leave there knowing I helped out in some way.

I believe The Honorable President Mr. Obama is making a mistake with holding off on allowing Troops to be shipped out so if any of his Supporters read this... Make it a point to know, that WE are ready to Deploy. I leave you all with these words, "I want my time; It's why I joined."

Thankyou and GOD BLESS

[smartasss1]

A surge of 40,000 troops as recommended by Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petreus or Biden's scale back and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda strategy.

I think Biden's strategy makes us less of a target, cost less, has a more clear objective and something we can politically endure. It also has greater chance of catching Bin Laden. But if we abandon security on the large population area, the Taliban might regain and increase their territory again. More territory, more revenue, more fighting capability.

What to do?

[natdef_1]

PIE -- sure, we could nation-build every poor and dysfunctional country around the globe "one community at a time," and the world would be a more beautiful place, but...

In case you haven't heard, we are FLAT BROKE. OBAMA and his pals have identified just about everything humanly possible to spend our remaining tax dollars on, and put us in the poor house for decades to come.

Our mission in Afghanistan should be LIMITED: hunt down and kill every last one of the Al Qaeda m@therf*ck#rs that want to kill us, and then get the H#LL out of there.

[RD1956]

The President just inherited a mind set that was already in place. He is doing the best damage control possible.The president of Pakistan won't let the US get to where they need to be. Without co-operation from the Pakistani Govt we cannot root out the enemy. Remember Pakistan is a nuclear power no one wants that let loose again. More troops are not the answer. One decisive strike is. Find Bin Laden with the rest of the radicals strike and we can heal our country. That is the ultimate goal.

[PiePlate]

As I try to follow how our President will handle Afganistan, there are unanswered questions or questions that require clarification:

1. Mission: Why, specifically now, are we there and what, specifically now, do we hope to accomplish.
2. What, specifically now, is required to meet the mission and how long (now) is the estimated time for completion.
3. Once completed, what, specifically now, is the exit strategy and what presence (now) will be required to oversee progresses.

Each of these questions have dance footprints all over them. And the dance tune & drummer keeps changing.

I pretty much have an idea why we HAD to go to Afganistan: There was no alternative, considering the potential outcome and the neighborhood involved. What I don't understand is why we are trying to choose a centralized government for the people of Afganistan (or the appearance of it), and not letting them choose their own local leaders so they can keep their culture and heritage. The only comparison the Afghanis have is the Taliban v. America: How can they see a difference if we don't make one! American dominance is obvious by the number of troops we have in the area, but the Afghan people don't seem to have what they need to survive and/or join in their own fight for freedom. How can they fight for freedom when their neighborhoods (communities) don't have infrastructure and the basics of life for their families. It appears they are willing to fight for survival and will join anyone who provides money for survival of their families.

What's more important: A centralized government chosen by America (which they won't trust), or a stable local community government (someone they know and will trust) that can provide their needs?

Whatever our President decides, I hope it will include building up the communities beginning with the poorest to the more affluent bigger cities; and hopefully, building confidence and relationships with the leaders of each community. Security and meeting the needs of the Afghanis in every local community will certainly help them resist the available money being poked at them from their enemies and OUR enemies: But they need to SEE the difference America can make and FEEL freedom in their hearts one community at a time.

Long term? Well, we've already been there going on 9 years +loss of life! Get it done right (whatever that takes) and get out and let these people govern themselves. Their culture and heritage is just as important to them as ours is to us ... America can't change that and to attempt to do so places America on the wrong side of history. Freedom and democracy doesn't mean Afghanis have to buy the American way of life, because we haven't gotten it quite right here yet! It's a work in progress and always will be. My gratitude to the servicepeople in harms way around the world. Thank YOU!

[natdef_1]

I still think the best answer is to send Rahm Emanuel to Afghanistan in his ballet clothes to dance for the warlords.

[faceofus]

It is shameful how Obama is playing politics with the lives of young American soldiers in Afghanistan. If he can't decide to support them then he should bring them home!

[simpleanswer]

THERE IS A SOLUTION TO THIS COMPLEX PROBLEM, PLEASE SEND THIS TO SOMEONE IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

The A & W Solution: Autonomy and Withdrawl.

Historically Afghanistan is not now and never has been a united country. This is the problem and the solution. If a patient has an existing condition a doctor will attempt to cure an illness with more specificity than a normal healthy person. We need to approach the conflict in this way. Established tribal areas should be given the opportunity to be granted autonomy. Nation status with only three provisions: Democratic elections, freedom of religion and equal rights for women. When these tribes are legitimized security in these areas will become self sustained through a new "patriotic" identity. As we autonomize US troops withdraw. This compartmentalizes the Afghan situation. With every new nation the security area of US reponsiblity will shrink. THIS IS THE WAY OUT. Please send a comment if any readers find a flaw in this strategy.

[jefleshman]

SWAT and FATA in Pakistan is a prime example of why this does not work

[HGOODGUY]

*** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

[jsd330]

Remembering a couple of sayings in the Army that have been around a long time " HURRY UP AND WAIT" and "SNAFU". Nothing has changed.

[sean66x]

Obama needs a cogent policy for Afghanistan. Increasing the number of soldiers caused significant casualties. Weapons are a more serious point. Afghani soldiers themselves could wield technical kill systems at these chimps. There is no reason to commit Americans when Kabul could use the push-button tactic.