U.S. Troops to Afghanistan: A Waiting Game

As Obama War Decision Looms, Top Commander Tells Pentagon Deploying All the Troops He Wants Would Take More Than a Year

(CBS)  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.

[Ms_enza]

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.

[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.

[ramos1129]

Before any more US troops are sent to Afgan, one vital issue, among others, must be resolved.

There are about 42 countries fighting in Afgan. Among them are the NATO countries. All have mininal amount of troops in the country. Should not any additional troops from the other countries? Right now, we have 68,000 troops there with England being the next highest with 9,000 troops. Why the inequity?

I am very ashamed of the media that does not raise this issue. It needs to be resolved before any more US troops are committed.

[jefleshman]

Ramos is you take the troop strength of the country and get the percentage of that countries force, I think you will have a better appreciation of the contribution, do not forget to include the other UN mission their soldiers are in support of as well.

[wayland59]

The French and Germans have a token force deployed, about 3,500 each. They are located in safer areas and are rarely in combat situations. These countries want all the benefits of NATO membership but give little in return. As usual, it's the Americans, Canadians and the British that do the fighting and suffer the casualties.

[TCMSOLS]

You leave half the country dislikes you, you stay half the country dislikes you. You increase forces and it becomes Nam the country hates you. You leave and another terror attack occurs on the US mainland the country hates you. Leaderships is shown by staying, leadership is shown by leaving both hard decisions.

So then it comes down to body count how many die in country can the objective be achieved, if you leave and a 9/11 occurs how many die?

The difference can be seen between al-Maliki and Karzai, the Iraqi?s arrest their own people after the terror attack, Karzai allows the second election to be rigged and shows no leadership on terror attacks.

[rwsmith29456]

They kept saying we weren't going to do a Vietnam again, but take s look. Iraq and Afghanistan are both mires. We could take out a regular army in a matter of days, but the regular armies aren't our enemies. It's the ones that sneak around and blow things up. I think it's a pretty weak excuse that they 'hide'. Our troops have been over there for years because the enemy 'hides'. What did our people expect? That they would stand there and let us shoot and bomb them? We need to get the job done, and if the job can't be done, get the 'beep' out of there.

[nopatriot]

Dead people no talk? I don't think so.
Usually after the big battle, the place are attached by ghosts , armies and people.
Many people saw those ghosts , but new people like current USA governing people, they don't think so.
They don't know the lives and people's ideas are really really really stick to you and try to say many things.
Many people see ghosts after the battle, some may be going to be Angels but some are not, right?
I am watching live ghost adventure and I have a reason to say NO to any war.
dead men walk- talk and fly and right behind you , I am not kidding.
That's why many people around the world, they dislike to do war. old European places too.
USA, such a new place, may be people don't feel too much about this often, and never believed those kinds people try to say something to you.
Not kidding, you should hear their voice , must feel the real voice.
You guys try not to see the reality .

[duffyn]

I for one am happy to have a President who has a brain and is using it to make the best decision in the best interest of our country. Unlike the prior bush who, yeah, always wanted to attack and get more soldiers. That's worked real well. What the H? God, if we had 1/2 the mondy now we've spent in Iraq. Are we in the country rescue business while our own country goes down the toilet? I take nothing away from our military and soldiers they're doing their job. I just hope we put all we got into Afghan or get the h out. Of course every President is surround by military commanders who are more than willing to attack....

[T-Fed]

When did the Kenyan develop leadership experience? Not in Kenya, nor Chicago nor in his short couple months as a U.S. Senator. While he runs to fund raiser events and rets out the White House to big donators, I and thousands others serve in Afghanistan in a "holding action" which Secretary of Defense Gates publicall acknowledged recently which was probably great news to the thousands of family members whose Soldier husbands were killed or injured in Afghanistan over the past eight years, and await a decision from the Kenyan Chief. Take your sweet time Hussein, the 60,000 you have in this crap hole of a country or flying overhead or serving in support off shore in the nearby Gulf have nothing else to do but to await your grand standing efforts. Take your time. Walk the dog. Raise some more money. Slap Biden in the back of the head.

[HGOODGUY]

HIS NAME IS PRESIDENT OBAMA YOU BIGGOTED NIMROD!!!!!!

A waiting game? What is our feraful Commander in Mischief waiting for, maybe, the New Jersey election? Obama is a political animal from Chicago, everything is calculated to try to achieve maximum political payback, I am glad I don't have sons or daughters serving under him. I feel sorry for those families that do and the soldiers that are in harms way.

[mecanik-2009]

Winning the battles and losing the war is what we did in Vietnam. Why haven't we learned from that. You simply can't change the animal within them. They're so hyped up about there stupid beliefs that they are tieing themselves to a third world reality and will never progress into the modern world. To call what you believe in a religion it needs to be based on love and respect for others. Anything else is based on evil and needs to be destroyed.

[amacd385]

First Year: Is Obama ?overwhelmed? --- or just ducking the central issue?

Multiplicity of problems --- unity of cause: Empire.

WOW! Obama appears to be fighting a multi-front battle on a wide array of domestic and foreign policy problems of almost overwhelming scope --- Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Nuclear Proliferation, Middle East peace, Global Warming, 'the dollar', financial reform, health care, the economy, H1N1 flu, jobs, domestic spying, torture policy, UN investigation of drones, State Department resignations, returning body-bags, etc. etc. ....

But is Obama really fighting all these battles, or is he just posing and pretending to fight? And what is the common thread that links all these seemingly complex and disparate problems?

The reality is the all of these multiple problems domestically and abroad emanate from only one singular cause: EMPIRE --- and the sad truth is that Obama will not even whisper the name of the disease, EMPIRE, which is at the heart, and is the proximate cause, of all of America's foreign and domestic problems.

Obama is blindly touching the front, the back, the truck, and the tail of this elephant of EMPIRE that is killing our country, but he will not (or can not), despite his reputed genius and rhetorical skills, articulate, nor even begin to confront, the whole image of the cancerous elephant of EMPIRE, which is killing our country 'abroad' and 'at home'.

Obama needs to step back from the fog of battling dozens of supposedly different symptoms and recognize the cause of all of our 'sorrows' --- EMPIRE.

Obama needs to re-read and understand Hannah Arendt's prescient warning, from her experience with the Nazi and Soviet Empires, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home".

There is something hidden, blocking, and obscuring ?hope? and ?change? for America, and Obama will not even whisper the name of that hidden thing ---- ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

[nopatriot]

YESTERDAY, I LISTENED TO THE RADIO, I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS TALKING, BUT HE SAID " DEMONIZED BLAH BLHA BLHA BLHA, CHILDREN WERE KILLED EVERYDAY (IN AFGHAN )... NO, NO IT IS NOT THE ISSUE, THE ISSUE IS OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN, HE IS NOT A CITIZEN, HE IS A FOREIGNER"
SOME PEOPLE LOVE THIS KIND OF TALK IN USA, NO MAKE SANSE THOUGH.
THOSE PEOPLE CAN MAKE MONEY ON THE RADIO, IT IS USA , ISN'T IT SHAME?
THEY DON'T CARE KILLED OR BE KILLED, ONLY TALK TALK TALK, WHAT HE DISLIKES OR NOT.
HE DISLIKES OBAMA, AND HE DOES NOT CARE HOW MANY DIED IN AFGHAN.
WHY HE CAN STILL TALK ON THE RADIO?

He can still talk on the radio because of the First Ammendment you doofus! It is called Freedom of Speech, it is the same Ammendment that allows you to express your opinion in this blog. If Obama and the Democrat Socialist party have their way you would be deprived of it!

[rwsmith29456]

Well, I, for one, don't understand what you are saying.