Biden On Afghanistan: Expects "Uptick" In U.S. Casualties

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden says the nation should expect more U.S. military casualties as the Obama administration plans to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials say they plan to send up to 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan war, where the Taliban is resurgent and violence has been on the rise. The request for more troops from military commanders was endorsed by the Bush administration and has been favored by the Obama government, too.

Biden said Sunday that additional U.S. forces will be engaging the enemy more. Asked if that means the U.S. public should expect more American casualties, the vice president said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."

Biden spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Comments

[ImpalaSuperSport]

We'll never hear a body count, now, from the media, and we'll suddenly have resolve accept nothing less than victory. Now that it's THEIR victory.

[DWP]

Hope is that we do not get bogged down in Afghanistan. Some suggest it could become Obama's Viet Nam.

[Schumer]

VP J.Biden well spoken. I have become one of your fans. Why not speak out about how much money it will cost as well!

[MadeinAmericaProud]

Do you know Huffpost is not the only website you can express yourself? The VP Biden also has a web site.

[Ergon]

So, why are we in Afghanistan?
Don't say OBL and AQ.
A large number of Americans believe the official story is a lie.
Can that be addressed in HuffPo?

[glockman]

Just because Americans believe it's a lie doesn't make it a lie. Both OBL and al-Qaeda are, indeed, real.

[Ergon]

Your belief in the official story doesn't make it true either.

[Fabian09]

When will Obama realize that it is an impossible task to occupy Afghanistan and instal a US-friendly regime there that has control over the whole of Afghanistan?
It has been argued that the war in Afghaistan is a just war. May be it is. But, a wise president does not start a war only because it is a just war.It has rto be a winnable war, there should be clarity on the objective, and one should have clear idea about the indicators that would indicate victory.

What does Obama want in Afghanistan? To strengthen democracy in Afghanistan? You cannot do that by killing civilians through drone-bombing.

To defeat the Taliban? The Taliban is clearly getting more and more ground support because of the presence of the foreign forces.

[LALC]

And the presence of poverty = more Taliban support. It gives impoverished people something to hang on to, to fight for

Once again poverty breeds radical hatred, illegal activites (such as black market & poppy crop - good $$ source), crime, etc.......

And, Obama didn't start this war - it was handed to him!

[mach]

If povertry is leading to terrorism, why were the hijackers of 9-11 all college educated, middle to upper middle class men? Why, after training on how to become pilots, a rather lucrative career, did they chose to fly into buildings?

[Pulemerci]

Thank God Biden is not the Commander in Chief. This isn't a garden variety Biden gaffe, it's a bone-headed answer to a loaded question. Joe, please stick to attending funerals and ceremonies and get away from the cameras and mics. Hopefully, your services will never be needed.

[Kartoffel]

"Uptick" sounds like somebody talking about the stock market.

[PoliticalAmazon]

I don't want any Bush/Cheney euphenisms about the slaughter of our soldiers.

I want an exact decription, in plain speech. I want Americans to join me in sobbing as I see every coffin unloaded from its air transport.

Since Obama seems determined to have his own Iraq debacle, albeit in Afghanistan, at least this time let the American people have the full face impact of what Obama, Congress, and the Americans who stupidly said "We can trust him" and "He won't do what Bush did" when they should have been demanding objectives, exit strategies, and projections of civiian and mlitary losses, as well as a reaistic projection of time until complete pull out is accomplished.

[Kartoffel]

Barack is refocusing on Afghanistan because of a cynical lie he told during the campaign. Back in 2007 he vehemently opposed the Bush surge in Iraq, saying repeatedly that it would fail in its primary mission of quelling violence. When the surge worked, Barack had egg on his face, and John McCain was vindicated. It was shaping up to be a huge political problem for Barack. So he came up with this absurd BS that the REAL and ONLY reason he opposed the Iraq surge was that is took focus away from Afghanistan. All his predictions of military failure in Iraq were swept under the carpet. He still pretends they never happened. The unfortunate result is that now he must either stick to his storyline of a mandatory escalation in Afghanistan, or admit it was all a bunch of phony campaign rhetoric to erase the shame of Bush's military success in Iraq. Of course Barack won't admit that. He'd rather pull his own fingernails out than admit that. So now we have a situation where a lot American boys have to die in Afghainistan because of a lie our president told to get elected. It's disgusting.

[Ergon]

The Bush 'surge' worked because:
3-4 million Sunni have been ethnically relocated outside of Iraq.
A million Iraqis are dead.
The rest are being bribed.
Everyone knows the U.S. is leaving. Real victor..Ir­an and the Shia.
If you think Iraq was tough, wait till you meet the Afghans.

[glockman]

Please cite your source for the claim of 1 million Iraqi dead.

[PoliticalAmazon]

The Bush surge worked because he redefined the objective, and moved it to match what was happening.

[Kartoffel]

The question I never see liberals ask is what happens if these 30,000 additional troops fail to make a dent in the problems in Afghanistan. Does Barack throw up his hands and admit defeat? Or does he send another 20 or 30 thousand? I think it's obvious he'll send more troops. There's no way a (perceived) liberal Democratic president will be caught dead admitting defeat in a military campaign of his own making. He won't do it because he knows it would probably make him a one-term president. Ambition and ego won't allow that, and we know Barack Obama has tons of both. He'll keep getting us in deeper, same as JFK and LBJ in Vietnam.

[CologneCitizen]

Afghanistan is a no win situation for the USA. The best equipped and strongest army is lost in that mountain terrain. Opposite to what many Americans believe, the Taliban have a stronghold in the population. They do lot of things on community levels and are not regarded as terrorists by many Afghan people. And there is no clear goal yet defined. It doesn't matter if Osama Bin Laden is caught or not. You are wasting resources abroad which you should better use at home, especially financially. It is sad to see such a former great country like the USA working permanently on their self destruction.

[Seven7s]

Actually Obama said this throughout his campaign.

I think when Obama speaks the problem is people hear what they want to hear and not what's being said.

He never said he was bringng the troops home he said he was going to end the war in Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. So some will come home but they will be deployed to Afghanistan soon.

[swo68]

"He never said he was bringng the troops home he said he was going to end the war in Iraq and focus on Afghanista­n."

Wrong...an­d right.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZvToGgImnc

(There are also other youtube videos of him giving speeches saying he would end the war and bring the troops home, without mention of Afghanista­n.)

Obama statement:

“It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future.’’

And as you know, there are several examples of him talking about redeploying to Afghanistan, including his senate bill. But during the campaign, Obama would send mixed messages regarding what he would be doing, and was tricky with the language.

[libcrusader]

Joe, insert foot into mouth once again...jk­.....

We have the finest military there is...we won't see an uptick...r­emember in Gulf War 1 when all of the naysayers were predicting 30,000 body bags would be needed!???!!

Obama is running the show now, and will take it to the Taliban..

[lisa12345]

I have no problem with what Biden said, I like Biden. My problem is with the whole setup.

I can't stand our people dying over there if it will not help the Afghans in the long run. It seems devastating to negotiate with the Taliban, yet there are articles that make a good argument for how that is the only way to "win" with them. I believe in listening to the UN, though, and they seem to be saying, we need to do what we initially planned to do.
Did anyone read the Oprah article on here? Some of the people in the ME seem to be helped by, and to welcome, positive western influence. The first thought is to stop warring and try to bring new ideas. However, contact with the west can also make them more reactionary. It was better for Iran under the Shah, but they revolted because they did not want to be controlled by western forces. They wanted their own culture and in the end they would up a fundamentalist Islamic culture--we did not succeed in stopping it. See Persepolis--great movie. Perhaps if we helped them in a careful manner--Kristina VanderHeuvel's article--in the long run, they would progress and that would be the end of fundamentalism. Maybe. or perhaps it would lead to reactionary forces and we would be under threat of terrorism again. Perhaps we are safest if we just leave the ME alone? Hard to tell.

[pepperdude]

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CONTACT CINDY SHEEHAN? WHERE IS THE H AG OF THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT WHEN YOU NEED HER?

[swo68]

That's a little disrespectful. She may have been anti-war, but she paid for it in a way few of us can understand.

[chanis30]

And here I thought "change" was coming!

[raptor]

Change is not always improvement.

[postman606]

Don't know what campaign you were watching, but that's pretty much what he said he was going to do.

[swo68]

The key in your response is "pretty much," because he only sometimes said troops would go to Afghanistan. Other times he said he would end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home - leaving out any mention of Afghanistan.

[conniedogs]

Why are we going to Afghanista­n....and please don't tell me "to get BL".

[donaldw6]

To get bin Laden and Al Qaeda. After that, hopefully just to negotiate a bunch of settlements and get the heck out.

[conniedogs]

In that case, they should reinstate the draft.