Obama To Send 17,000 Troops To Afghanistan
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Afghanistan, Barack, Military, The World, Video
Following up on his campaign promise to have a surge-like push in Afghanistan to see if it could help the country.
“This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan,” Obama said in a statement. “I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.”Obama said the deteriorating security in Afghanistan made the troop increase necessary, adding that the country has not received the strategic attention or resources it needs.
Although 17,000 troops have been authorized to go, the Pentagon identified and mobilized only about 12,000. Of those troops, 8,000 will be Marines and the 4,000 others will comprise an Army Stryker Brigade. The additional 5,000 troops will be identified and announced at a later date.
But sources provided FOX News with the identity of all 17,000 troops: 10,000 will be Marines stationed in the South; 3,800 with an Army Stryker Brigade; 1,000 Special Operations Force trainers and 3,200 force enablers.
Also, according to the following report, Sec of Def Robert Gates wanted 30,000 troops…
My guess is if more troops are needed in Afghanistan, that’ll be an easy case for Obama to make to pull troops from Iraq. And I have little doubt that more forces are required because right now it’s a mess.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 and is filed under Afghanistan, Barack, Military, The World, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Has Obama made any statements about what his view of success in Afghanistan looks like? Not being cute here, I just haven’t seen anything and have a genuine interest. Hoping that he’s learned from the failure of Bush on this front, and has a specific, well-articulated concept of what the end-game looks like.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am
IMO, one of the unstated reasons why the Bush admin decided to get involved in Iraq was because of how unlikely it was that we’d be able to substantively reform Afghanistan. In other words, we figured we had a decent shot of reforming Iraq in comparison to our chances in Afghanistan. IOW, we invaded Iraq so we’d have a chance at putting one in the win column in response to 9/11.
Afghanistan exists as an entity primarily due to the political machinations of various bickering nations, some or even many with imperial aspirations. I wish more folks would think long and hard about how unlikely it is that Afghanistan would ever have emerged as an entity on its own, due the shared aspirations of its populace.
As we speak, America and other nations are on the verge of adopting the foolish position of wanting a stable, democratic, unified Afghanistan more than the various factions who live there. So I hope we seriously limit our involvement and keep our goals and expectations low.
Sadly, once most Presidents toss some of their own chips into a pot, they have overwhelmingly strong subsequent impulses to double down regardless of what cards come on the flop. If Obama has any skill at poker, he’ll know that what matters is what’s in the pot, and that the goal is to win the game, not the hand. And that what the audience thinks of you is not that relevant.