Military Chief: US Doesn't Have Enough Troops To Send To Afghanistan

From The Washington Post:

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq.

Watch the video:

Comments

[Liberoservative]

Doesn't it amaze you that Barack Obama has been saying since day one that we should be going after AQ in Pakistan and all of a sudden.... we are going after AQ in Pakistah?
The repubs pushing the Left now...
If we are going to die.. at least let us die in warfare against those that engineered 9/11

[speakingtruth2power]

According to the neocons, there are plenty of troops around the world,

ready and willing to serve and die in Viet---I mean Iraq and beyond!!!!!

According to our Armed Forces though, they are all on the other side.

[egal]

This wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't decided we didn't need to be able to fight two wars on two fronts at the same time. He cut troops by 30% in the Army when their full strength was only 80% of the minimum required for effectiveness, and then he went and started an unneccessary, illegal war in Iraq on top of the terrorist-seeking troops in Afghanistan when we needed to focus on fighting terror instead.

[escobar]

He is right.
War and prisons are our growth industries.
They don't have enough troops to hold a gun on every citizen in every country we occupy since we don't have the support of the populations there.
If they did have enough troops, they would invade Syria, then several other countries that Kristol and company gloated about wanting to attack when on on TV a few years ago.
Of course, his outrageous statements went absolutely uncontested.
The war monger is still treated as a respectable person along with his well off bloodthirsty associates who know nothing of suffering, let alone war.

[peacekitten]

wouldn't it be wonderful if schools and hospitals were our growth industry instead?

then maybe, just maybe the prison and war business would experience a downturn.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Start a Draft garnering the names of all the people between the age of 18 to 45 who actually voted for Bush the second time.

[Rog49Thomas]

I believe your proposal might require the adjustment of minimum entry standards into the Armed Forces.

[CommanderWhitehead]

Ohioliberal,

The problem with your solution is that the average Limbaugh fan is either 90 years-old or a unemployed, alcoholic, inbred, chain smoking, barnyard sodomist in his or her late forties.

...But than again..."you go to war with army you have..." someone once said.

[escobar]

Yes, bar stool warriors abound and their beer garden, simplistic mentality pumps out over the air waves 24/7.

[peacekitten]

send 'em any way. they wanted this, now they should have to participate in it. scr&w 'em.

[southafrica4obama]

where's my comment

[southafrica4obama]

Ask Sean Hannity, Bill O-really, Lars Larson, Rush Li, Glenn BacK, all those fox news kittens, and children of all those who voted for the war in Iraq to join. And who else.....?

[kkuate]

The war in Afghanistan is actually the efforts of the US military to capture Osama Bin Laden and destroy any terrorists organizations in that country, mainly Al Qaida.

The 9/11 attack on US soil happened at the beggining of George Bush's first term, and now, in his second term's last year, Bush has nothing to show. No gains here... The Decider decided to ignore the claims for justice from thousand of 9/11 victims relatives, to engage in a crusade for oil...Bush did not "put country before everything else" (McCain's definition of patriotism); Bush did put greed before justice.

God damn George W Bush for his selfish motives to attack and destroy the country of Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden to close out the 9/11/01 crime on humanity......Obama, as POTUS, better embrace the executive job of resolving the justice claims of all those 9/11 dead and alive victims.

[AjazHaque]

Is the Bush Administration Encouraging Israel to Attack Iran?
While the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says Iran has either stopped or slowed down development of a nuclear weapon, Bush Administration is adamant that Iran is developing one.

The recent and very visible exercises by Israeli air force have been described by some eager Pentagon officials as preparation for an attack on Iran. To many Middle East watchers this is probably just saber rattling and may in fact be to pressurize European allies to get on with it in Iran or else!

The fanatical Ahmedinajad regime will respond with everything he has got. Iran will retaliate by launching missiles on Tel Aviv (probably devastating the city) and close the Straits Of Hormuz sending crude oil price to $250 a barrel or higher causing massive problems for many economies of the world.

The Israelis are not that stupid to launch another war. Their attack on Lebanese cities was watched in horror by the world. Their super efficient army suddenly did not look so super any more. Israel seems to have learned its lessons and is now negotiating with its adversaries.

The larger question for the U.S. is, where is the US media in all this? Are they going to sit idly by while another war is launched and not challenge Bush Administration as they did before Iraq war? Why is media not analyzing and presenting to US public the consequences of such a misadventure?

[Indubio]

Israel will destroy Iran rather than permit them to develop enriched uranium. If Israel conducts an attack, it will be massive and undertaken with US complicity. As for Iranian retaliatory capability: Ahmedinajad couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat let alone hit Tel Aviv with a missile. Iran would launch a counterattack provided their armed forces aren't devastated by the initial attack. Israel won't launch a modest attack on a few targets because they recognize that Ahmedinajad will not simply complain to the UN. When Israel attacks, Iran isn't going to be able to do much to stop it and the attack will likely devastate the Iranian military and government. An important US roll will be to insure that what remains of the Iranian military doesn't impact use of the Straits of Hormuz. The biggest issue with an operation like an Iranian attack is that the unexpected happens and once "it" begins to fly those who wish to control the direction of events usually end up as bystanders. It's hard to say what might happen if Israel attacks Iran but my guess is it won't be pretty especially for Iran and those who are praying for lower oil prices. One thing is for certain: I can't think of a single nation who will miss the Iranian revolutionary government, which as much as Iran's nuclear facilities will be a target of any attack.

[strangelet]

You know, I doubt that there is a single nation that misses the Saddam Hussein government, but there are a lot of them (including the US public) that aren't all that happy with the way things have gone in Iraq for the last five years. No doubt the IDF can roll over the Iranian forces, but as we have seen in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the tricky bits come AFTER the victory.

[wm1066]

Draft Blackwater!... they are already there!
Put them under military rule, and military pay.
And military accountability.

[booker52]

This WH will not be happy until the Middle East is one big war and we are in the middle of it. My question is why??? We just need to get the hell out of there and leave them to it. To hell with there oil. To hell with the lot of them and that includes the Saudi's, let them guard their own backside.

[lisakaz2]

Indeed, that's the best answer but it will be viable only when this government encourages independence from ME oil and the Big Oil companies who buy it. The US is addicted to those companies (at least the govt is) so it seems we are stuck riding this out unless we elect someone not beholden to those companies.

[JoeBlough]

If we don't have enough troops to handle Afganistan, where will we get enough troops for Iran as well. It looks like Bush won't be happy until everyone in the Middle East is dead or dying.

[lisakaz2]

You're explaining why ths WH has extended those tours -- but probably also why an atom bomb isn't out of the realm for this bunch of cretins.

[xrepublican]

2000 Marines just had their tours in Afghanistan extended. Happy July 4th.

Bush 'supports' our troops by never letting them come home.

Bin Laden got EXACTLY what he wanted (and more) by sucking us into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan - his intent with 9/11. Bush nnot only WILLINGLY engaged 'the enemy' on THEIR terms but made it WORSE for our troops by turning Iraq into a failed state and squandering them in an unwinnable occupation of THAT country - which had NOTHING to do with 9/11....... Bush - a total and complete FAILURE squandering the lives of our troops.... btw - anyone catch binLaden yet?

[abouttime]

After Bush bombed Iraq to pieces he said he didn't care about Bin Laden. Truth be our special forces could have gotten him at Torro Borro, but instead Rummy hired insurgent (enemy of US) Tribes to do it and they took the money and weapons and ran into the hills.
Now, war incorporated is calling the shots - corporate mercenary troops bought with blood money from our commonwealth. We loose. Our marines are cannon fodder. Our Military is in shambles. In the 1980-'s "we" (Kissinger, and neocons) laughed at Russia for thinking they could "win" in Afganistan, but now these same hawks are reaping profits from an un-winnable war. In the 1980-'s the U.S. supplied weapons and money to Iran and Iraq so they could have a war that "we" profited by. That's the way I see it. The purpose of these wars are profit -- not for me and you, but the insiders at wall street. Our infrastructure crumbles.
You say Bin Laden got what he wanted, which may be true, but so did Bush, Chenney, Rummy, et.al.
We are paying high gas prices so that the rich can get richer. The whole thing is fixed - the cabal is alive and well - the cabal is running this country and must be challenged and charged with treason and convicted.
Obama is our only chance so we must put pressure on him, now, to regulate the unfettered "free market" As it is now, Wall Street runs things.

[Donnat]

And now the poor SOBs in Afghanistan will be stop lossed and left there until they are killed or eligible for retirement. How does this support the troops again?