WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over six months, an accelerated timetable — with an endgame built in — that would have the first Marines there as early as Christmas, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.
With the full complement of new troops expected to be in Afghanistan by next summer, the heightened pace of Obama’s military deployment in the 8-year-old war appears to mimic the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, a 20,000-strong force addition under former President George W. Bush. Similar in strategy to that mission, Obama’s Afghan surge aims to reverse gains by Taliban insurgents and to secure population centers in the volatile south and east parts of the country.
In a prime-time speech to the nation Tuesday night from West Point that ends a 92-day review, Obama will seek to help sell his much bigger, costlier war plan by tying the escalation to an exit strategy, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity. With U.S. casualties in Afghanistan sharply increasing and little sign of progress, the war Obama once liked to call one “of necessity,” not choice, has grown less popular with the public and within his own Democratic party. In recent days, leading Democrats have talked of setting tough conditions on deeper U.S. involvement, or even staging outright opposition. The 30,000 new U.S. troops will bring the total in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 U.S. forces by next summer. New infusions of U.S. Marines will begin moving into Afghanistan almost as soon as Obama announces a redrawn battle strategy.
#97, In the case of Iran, sure they have every right to make nuclear weapons. But do you really want them to go through with that knowing how they’re going to use them? Do you really want to wait until they fire one off? Or do you nip it in the bud?
I want to remove the need for them to feel threatened by us.
#100, Thank you.
#100. Same here… Jag, I really think you should let that one go.
#101
> I want to remove the
> need for them to feel
> threatened by us.
By that do you mean pull out of the Middle-East and let them “resolve” their differences? That is what I call kumbayah foreign policy. If we all just sit around the campfire and sing kumbayah, there won’t be any problems. It only works with reasonable countries that actually want peace. It doesn’t work with countries run by nut jobs like Iran. Iran has made it clear that their main objective is to wipe Israel off the map. In the days of flintlocks and horseback cavalry, it might have made sense to just let them go at each other until they got tired or wiped out each other’s military, however in the days of jet fighters, missiles and nuclear weapons that policy could cost the lives of many people outside of the Middle-East.
96 RBG
[SAUDI ARABIA FUNDED - HINT - ED.]
Saying “Saudi Arabia funded” is a little like saying the IRA was United States funded. You mean to say there are people within Saudi Arabia who have the means and resources to fund such terrorists. Ditto funding by rich Islamic radicals elsewhere.
It would be ludicrous to suggest the Kingdom of Saudi Aabia – as run by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud (note the “Saud” part) – would fund the same people who would dearly love to assassinate the king and replace him with a purely religious leadership.
(In past the Saudi king has stripped Bin Laden of his citizenship and banished him. Doesn’t sound much like support, does it?)
If you know anything about Saudi Arabia, you know about the historic struggle and compromises between the religious conservatives and the ruling kings. You know that occasionally the Saudi Kings get offed by the religious radicals. The country even supports two entirely separate armies as a defence against potential coups.
You also know that it is the king and like-thinkers who have been at the forefront of dragging the country into the 20th & 21st centuries but always at the cost of religious appeasements. But funding and building the means for revolution obviously would not be one of them.
So saying Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia funded makes as much sense as saying the US would fund a group of Lee Harvey Oswalds.
RBG
Now if you mean to say that funding can come from individuals anywhere on Earth regardless of stationed troops, that is as self-evident and pointless as saying criminals operate even though we have police.
RBG
#103, If Israel didn’t have us holding them back, they would clean the floor with any Arab country over the before they had the chance to do what everyone is afraid of.
Israel can MORE than take care of itself. There is no need for us to be their protector and savior.
#105, This has the added benefit of keeping us in a perpetual state of War Against X, thus keeping a whole slew of civil liberties suppressed.
RGB,
The point being made is you said countries with US occupying forces don’t tend to attack us. Saudi Arabia was occupied, and that occupation wasd a stated reason by the conspirators of 9/11.
108 smartalix
So which is it? The 9/11 attack against the US came from Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabia supported the US stationing troops in its country. They’re mutually exclusive.
Again, in case you missed it, Saudi Arabia as a country did not attack the US. But I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why individuals or groups would dearly like to do so. They should be appeased?
So I take it your idea of “occupying” is being officially invited and stationed to help defend against the powerfully militaristic Iraq after it invaded KSA’s historic ally Kuwait. And then leaving when asked. Saudi Arabia was fearful they could be next. KSA also has large disputed territory with Iraq.
RBG
Between the gate crashing party couple (at the White House dinner), and Tiger Woods’ character assassination. I’m thinking this is all well timed to show Obama that he could be GOTTEN TO, if he’s not more cooperative with the Pentagon warmongers. So he caved in to some of their demands for more troops. If he didn’t, then the crazies would be let loose on him so fast. We’d all be wondering, “Where the hell was the Secret Service?”
# 70 Greg Allen:
“As it ended up, the most effective Bush strategy was to give American tax dollars to our enemies as a bribe not to shoot our soldiers.”
I can TOTALLY get behind such a plan! Of course, just because it works great in Sid Meier’s Civilization doesn’t mean it necessarily will in life, but as you pointed out, it did seem to have a good effect in Iraq (when combined with the surge).
= = = = =
# 84 LibertyLover, I know the U.S. has a LOT of bases around the world, but I don’t believe your list is 100% accurate — North Korea? Burma (now known as Myan Mar)? Really?
= = = = =
Anyway, I don’t know what else President Obama could have done.