Pentagon Signals Sending More Troops To Afghanistan

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LOLITA C. BALDOR | July 16, 2008 11:53 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, left, and Joints Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, take part in news conference at the Pentagon, Wednesday, July 16, 2008. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

WASHINGTON — Pentagon leaders on Wednesday signaled a surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later," a shift that could send some units there within weeks, as officials prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Senior military officials are looking across the services to identify smaller units and other equipment that could be sent to Afghanistan, according to a defense official.

Although there are no brigade-sized units that can be deployed quickly into Afghanistan, military leaders believe they can find a number of smaller units such as aviation, engineering and surveillance troops that can be moved more swiftly, said the official, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private.

The moves are expected to happen within weeks rather than months, the official said.

The decisions are being made against the backdrop of shifting priorities for the U.S. military, and were discussed during a meeting Wednesday of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Military leaders are weighing requests from commanders in Afghanistan for more troops, aircraft and other assistance. And they are trying to determine the right balance between the needs of the force in Iraq, versus troops in Afghanistan who are facing a Taliban resurgence.

Story continues below
advertisement

To date, the fight in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to Iraq, which has been the strategic priority. While Iraq will remains the top goal, it now appears the military believes there should be a more urgent emphasis on Afghanistan than there has been.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Gates told Pentagon reporters. But, he added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.

His comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year. And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.

"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

The Pentagon has been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much needed military buildup in Afghanistan, while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq. Gates and Mullen have repeatedly said they would have to reduce troop levels in Iraq before they could dedicate more forces to Afghanistan.

Mullen, who was in Iraq last week, told reporters that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions there this fall. He said he found that conditions in Iraq had improved more than he expected.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible _ it has not, and it is not," Mullen told a Pentagon press conference.

"But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions," he said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended, now that the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year has left the country.

Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon called the "surge." And it starts the 45-day evaluation period that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress he would need to assess the security situation and determine how many more troops he could send home.

Neither Gates nor Mullen would detail how they intend to juggle the military requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they spoke more aggressively about meeting Afghan needs more quickly.

Gates said commanders are looking at moving forces around to take advantage of a small boost in French troops expected in Afghanistan. But he ruled out rolling back some of the promises the Pentagon made to soldiers limiting their deployments to 12 months.

"I think we're looking at a variety of options on how to respond here," Gates said. "I will tell you that I have sought assurances that there will be no return to longer-than-12-month deployments, so that's not something we're considering."

Also, he said he is not aware of any plans to extend the deployments of any U.S. troops currently there.

Gates and Mullen also has strong words for Pakistan, saying Islamabad must do a better job preventing Taliban and other insurgents from crossing the border into Afghanistan to wage attacks.

The absence of pressure from the Pakistanis, Gates said, is giving militants a greater opportunity to penetrate the porous mountain border. He said the key is to further convince the Pakistani government that their country is also at great risk from the insurgents.

Gates said it is an exaggeration to say that the border problems have escalated into a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he also dismissed as untrue suggestions that the U.S. is massing troops along the border preparing to launch attacks into Pakistan.

His comments came as U.S. troops abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine of their comrades this week in a large, coordinated attack. Elsewhere in the frontier region, NATO launched artillery and helicopter strikes in Pakistan after coming under insurgent rocket fire, officials said.

There are currently 36,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 17,500 with the NATO-led force, and 18,500 who are fighting insurgents and training Afghan forces.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

(This version CORRECTS leader to leaders in first paragraph.)

 
Comments
42
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

at this rate
the taliban will be in kabul b4 december

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 07/17/2008
photo

Pentagon Signals Sending More Troops To Afghanistan - this headline is wrong.

s/b Pentagon Signals Sending More Troops To Pakistan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

Err - remember? Pakistan has "The Bomb", and the newly elected Pak government is far from being pro-american.

Pres. Musharraf has been efectively sidelined by the new government, and the Pak military can't afford to look weak against any potential NATO-intruders into Pak-land from the west, if they don't want to risk the complete defection and secession of the tribal areas in the west, as well as an all-out civil war in Pakistan's heartland - which India, in turn, might well use to fully secure Kashmir for herself in the ensuing turmoil.

Make no mistake: NATO invading Pakistan = War no. 3.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 07/17/2008

Test!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

does anyone remember how the soviet union fell apart? bin laden took it not only as a victory but as a roadmap to promote his fanaticism. talk about playing into one's hands. BTW is he still alive? does it even matter?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

Who will sit down on the other side of the table and sign the Articles of Surrender?
They have no Leader, they have no Army, they have no Country. We are shooting at an ever changing group of people.

We can"t win and we can"t lose. All we can do is to shoot at them until we get tired of the killing or we run out of money.
When we come home, we will neither have won nor lost. We will only be poorer and the subject of World scorn. America has lost its center.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 AM on 07/17/2008

One problem now is the terrain makes for a tougher fight. I think they were trying to hold off being as much in Afghanistan as possible, but now it's time to go all the way in...right when our troops are all exhauasted. That is terrible timing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

Who remembers????? It was Saudi's who attacked America's trade center. Russia pounded Afghanistan to dust and they still lost. See my post below. Afghanistan has to be secured so the US can attack Iran (which is in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan) on two fronts. The take over of Iran will be a bounty of black gold worth more than $75 trillion dollars.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 AM on 07/17/2008
- 2bad I'm a Fan of 2bad permalink

this is part of the disgusting truth of the bushco legacy. we had afghanistan stable until w's woody for iraq took control of his feeble brain. now we have to fight for the same territory all over again. besides that, most of the real problems are coming from neighboring pakistan. it's a tough call: should we gear up for another war in those country's? it's a debate that needs to happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 07/17/2008

The only thing that will defeat the Taliban is when the Afghan people say NO to them. That will never happen when they can be seen as defenders against western infidel invaders. We can never defeat them in the mountains of Afghanistan, we will fail like the Soviets failed, and the Soviets did not have to sustain long supply lines far from home like we do. They had three times the troops we have there, were much more vicious than we are, and still failed. Anyone with a brain knows we cannot win in Afghanistan, any more than we can win in Iraq. Impossible foreign wars far from home are always LOSERS, even the Romans knew that. What do they teach in America's war colleges and military institutes ? Nothing but nationalism, swagger and braggidocio ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

History WILL repeat itself
February 5, 1989

The last Soviet troops leave Kabul
In an important move signaling the close of the nearly decade-long Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, the last Russian troops withdraw from the capital city of Kabul. Less than two weeks later, all Soviet troops departed Afghanistan entirely, ending what many observers referred to as Russia's "Vietnam."

Soviet armed forces entered Afghanistan in December 1979 to support that nation's pro-Soviet communist government in its battles with Muslim rebels. Almost immediately, the Soviet Union found itself mired in a rapidly escalating conflict. Afghan rebels put up unexpectedly stiff resistance to the Russian intervention. Soon, thousands of Soviet troops were fighting a bloody, costly, and ultimately frustrating battle to end the Afghan resistance. By the time the Soviets started to withdraw in early 1989, over 13,000 Russian soldiers were dead and over 22,000 had been wounded. The Soviet Union also suffered from a very negative diplomatic response from the United States--President Jimmy Carter put a hold on arms negotiations, asked for economic sanctions, and pressed for an American boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 AM on 07/17/2008

Does the Pentagon know Obama isn't the commander-in-chief? They and the CIA do not have to consistently follow his orders... yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

Prepare for the draft...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 07/17/2008

Well Well , Who was the candidate that was advocating the exact thing the pentagon came around to for a little over a year now?. Not only that he gave a speech before the war begun in it where he said "So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush" in October 2, 2002. IF this doesn't define having the judgment to lead our nation i don't know what will ? In contrast lets see the judgment that is offered by Mcbush ...follow bush to no end that is his foreign policy judgment. This is the most crystal clear case the the MSM is working on behalf of Mcbush bec. there is no mention of it in the MSM , could you imagine if it was Mcbush who campaigned to send more troops in Afghanistan and now this happens .... it would have been braking news for MSM. Sad time for journalism in our country but we won't let them screw us this time !!!!!!!! Wake the hell up , volunteer , donate, vote Mr. Obama!!!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 07/17/2008
- 2bad I'm a Fan of 2bad permalink

after yesterdays news and this article, i was about to write something similar to the very pointed post you've submitted. well done, and well written! i could not agree more. sen. obama has shown his foresight to be dead on accurate many times when it comes to domestic and international affairs. the myth regarding the 'liberal media' is a bunch of chicken-fried crap! the msm's love affair with mcbush has to be finite. they'll have to wake-up sooner or later.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 AM on 07/17/2008

There is a recent literary gem in the bookstores which contains definitive information that the Bush/Cheney Administration and Senator John McCain did not want known to the voting public.

The title of this excellent book is, "THE THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR; the true cost of the Iraq conflict," written by Professors Joseph E. Stiglitz, Novel Prize in Economics - 2001, and Linda J. Bilmes, former Chief Financial Officer in the U. S. Department of Commerce.

The Iraq War apparently is directly responsible for the uncertain economic situation that we are experiencing, today. We enriched politicians, lobbyists, defense contractors, and black marketeers with our tax dollars and loans to the U. S. Treasury from around the world.

We owe gratitude and thank you to Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes for bringing this detailed enlightenment about the government's handling of this conflict. A disturbing, but interesting read.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 07/17/2008
photo

The three trillion dollars is a downpayment for the theft of $30 trillion dollars of gas and oil. THE US TAXPAYER PAYS THIS, NOT THE OIL COMPANIES. Do the math - 115 billion bbls of oil and 112 trillion cu ft of natural gas. At todays prices the oil alone is worth more than $15 trillion dollars US. I was figuring $135.00 per barrel times 115,000,000,000 - Is that right? A trillion has 12 zeros, right? Some one else figure the gas please, my calculator is smoking!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 07/17/2008

America is just about death and destruction these days. Obiously none of the Pentagon officials has learned by now that guerilla warfare and terrorism can't be beat or fought with invading or bombing the country. The bombing of Afghanistan in November 2001 had an appprox.death toll of 4000 to 5000 people among the Afghan civilians. Do you really think this is forgotten? The Taliban have a stronghold in many areas among the population. What will you do about that? Do you even have enough troops to speak the language? I bet you will get stuck in another half assed approach with many Americans and Afghanis dead. Iraq reloaded.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 AM on 07/17/2008

Well I hope the US has a better chance in Afghanistan than Russian did. Afghanistan just wants there opium fields for the big drug lords. Let me see Drugs Afhanistan, Columbia thru Mexico into the US through help of submarines. I'm sure glad we gave up on the drug war and decided to defend it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 07/17/2008

Draft all the children of the NeoCon warmongers without a day in uniform. This should provide
a few million new soldiers for the war effort in Afghanistan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 AM on 07/17/2008

Are you coming too? Oh wait, you're conveniently "against" this war, so you don't have to serve your country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 07/17/2008

I am a retired military Vietnam volunteer and Vietnam veteran. Tell us about YOUR service??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 07/17/2008
- TLV I'm a Fan of TLV permalink

The Taliban is on the rise and the heroin production is down. More troops to Afghanistan!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 AM on 07/17/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect