# Top U.S. General: Send More Troops to Afghanistan



## BHarwana

The general overseeing all wars in the Middle East said Thursday the U.S. must increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to break what he considers a stalemate in America's longest war.

"I do believe it will involve additional forces to make the advise-and-assist mission more effective," Army Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, told a congressional committee, adding that the new forces would require developing a new strategy as well.

He didn't specify how many more troops he recommends sending, but his subordinate who oversees the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan, Army Gen. John Nicholson, told Congress in February the situation on the ground requires "a few thousand more."

The greatest question among all Afghanistan observers is how the additional forces would make a difference on the ground. In July 2009, then-newly elected President Barack Obama decided to deploy 30,000 additional troops as a part of a "surge" strategy, which he said at the time he would begin to withdraw within 18 months.

War planners are feeling intense pressure for a new plan amid a resurgence in Taliban forces throughout the embattled nation, but particularly in the militant group's traditional strongholds in the country's northern and southern regions. The Islamic State group has also established a presence in Afghanistan, known there as the Islamic State Khorasan Province, and claimed credit for an attack on a military hospital in Kabul on Wednesday that killed dozens.

Votel said he will recommend the increase in troops to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis as the Pentagon puts forward new plans for Afghanistan to the White House.

There are roughly 8,400 U.S. troops and 5,000 NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan. There are almost 10,000 other American contractors there also, according to reports compiled by Central Command, serving mostly in logistical and maintenance roles but with many hundreds as security forces. U.S. forces in Afghanistan are supposed to only support and train their Afghan partners, who have seen unprecedented casualty levels in the years since they've taken on the primary fighting role. A few thousand Americans are dedicated only to hunting terrorist targets from organizations like the Islamic State group or al-Qaida.

The Pentagon announced in January it planned to deploy 300 Marines to Helmand province, home to some of the fiercest fighting during the height of the war.

Obama had originally pledged to withdraw all Americans from Afghanistan by the end of his tenure in 2016. Critics point to the deteriorating security situation on the ground and the Taliban resurgence as proof that Obama's strategy of announcing his planned and continued withdrawal of U.S. troops gave an advantage to enemy forces. 



https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...neral-us-must-send-more-troops-to-afghanistan


----------



## maximuswarrior

So, after retreating mass number of forces the US may end up deploying more forces again. This has become an addiction.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## BHarwana

maximuswarrior said:


> So, after retreating mass number of forces the US may end up deploying more forces again. This has become an addiction.


Cost of world dominance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

Real news: US sent more troops for destabilization of Pakistan via Baluchistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ali_raza

BATMAN said:


> Real news: US sent more troops for destabilization of Pakistan via Baluchistan.


or maybe pakistan wants america to come again.


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

They will be welcome by Angel of death

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## khanmubashir

BHarwana said:


> The general overseeing all wars in the Middle East said Thursday the U.S. must increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to break what he considers a stalemate in America's longest war.
> 
> "I do believe it will involve additional forces to make the advise-and-assist mission more effective," Army Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, told a congressional committee, adding that the new forces would require developing a new strategy as well.
> 
> He didn't specify how many more troops he recommends sending, but his subordinate who oversees the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan, Army Gen. John Nicholson, told Congress in February the situation on the ground requires "a few thousand more."
> 
> The greatest question among all Afghanistan observers is how the additional forces would make a difference on the ground. In July 2009, then-newly elected President Barack Obama decided to deploy 30,000 additional troops as a part of a "surge" strategy, which he said at the time he would begin to withdraw within 18 months.
> 
> War planners are feeling intense pressure for a new plan amid a resurgence in Taliban forces throughout the embattled nation, but particularly in the militant group's traditional strongholds in the country's northern and southern regions. The Islamic State group has also established a presence in Afghanistan, known there as the Islamic State Khorasan Province, and claimed credit for an attack on a military hospital in Kabul on Wednesday that killed dozens.
> 
> Votel said he will recommend the increase in troops to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis as the Pentagon puts forward new plans for Afghanistan to the White House.
> 
> There are roughly 8,400 U.S. troops and 5,000 NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan. There are almost 10,000 other American contractors there also, according to reports compiled by Central Command, serving mostly in logistical and maintenance roles but with many hundreds as security forces. U.S. forces in Afghanistan are supposed to only support and train their Afghan partners, who have seen unprecedented casualty levels in the years since they've taken on the primary fighting role. A few thousand Americans are dedicated only to hunting terrorist targets from organizations like the Islamic State group or al-Qaida.
> 
> The Pentagon announced in January it planned to deploy 300 Marines to Helmand province, home to some of the fiercest fighting during the height of the war.
> 
> Obama had originally pledged to withdraw all Americans from Afghanistan by the end of his tenure in 2016. Critics point to the deteriorating security situation on the ground and the Taliban resurgence as proof that Obama's strategy of announcing his planned and continued withdrawal of U.S. troops gave an advantage to enemy forces.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...neral-us-must-send-more-troops-to-afghanistan


In order to win USA needs to deploy in 10s of 1000s and also surge budget by several folds for Afghnistan and most importantly also brace for coffins of American soldiers regularly coming to States as before is USA ready for that when one of reason of Trump victory was that he claimed Obama and Hila spent American money and blood to protect others

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stealth

maximuswarrior said:


> So, after retreating mass number of forces the US may end up deploying more forces again. This has become an addiction.



Its not addiction but the fear of new powers joining the game. Russia and China, which are now enough capable to settling score and also provide new power projection to the world. Russia particular has won two major test cases against United States in just one year.

Case No#1 - Ukraine
Case No#2 - Syria

Now after almost wining two fronts from militarily/diplomatically and almost halted US objectives in these two battlegrounds, Russia is quite confident to enter AFGHANISTAN. It will be another punishing hit to the stand alone power aka United States in the global politics since last 3 X decades after U.S.S.R breakup.

Now feel the heat and sit calm Americans. You've already lost every single war in the history from Afghanistan, Iraq to Vietnam. United States Military supremacy @ stake!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MIR RAZA HUSSAIN

USA can not run away from the mess they created in afghanistan they have to clean it but now to clean it they have to pay heavy blood price. As for Russia this time it matter of its own safety last time we wer against Russia which result in its defeat but this time we are with Russia so things will be totally different, it high time for PAKISTAN RUSSIA & IRAN to do joint efforts to solve afganistan issue cauz its matter of own safety as well. And as for endia they are trying to be over smart by supporting and using ttp isis like groups to destabilize PAKISTAN and this is killing peace of the region and soon they will taste the consequences of their own stupidity of supporting isis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## maximuswarrior

Yep, expect another Syria in Afghanistan. Only this time around Iran, China and Russia are the main actors. The US can be expected to be sidelined once more. Let's watch the show unfold.


----------



## IceCold

maximuswarrior said:


> Yep, expect another Syria in Afghanistan. Only this time around Iran, China and Russia are the main actors. The US can be expected to be sidelined once more. Let's watch the show unfold.


Dont forget Pakistan because once shit hits the fan Pakistan with that long porous border cannot remain unaffected hence the more aggressive role by PA and strikes on terrorist hideouts inside Afghanistan to keep them away from our borders.


----------



## maximuswarrior

IceCold said:


> Dont forget Pakistan because once shit hits the fan Pakistan with that long porous border cannot remain unaffected hence the more aggressive role by PA and strikes on terrorist hideouts inside Afghanistan to keep them away from our borders.



You already know my position on Afghanistan.

1. Seal and monitor the border to the best of our ability;
2. Repatriate all Afghans;
3. Strike terror sanctuaries in Afghanistan through covert and overt means.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

maximuswarrior said:


> You already know my position on Afghanistan.
> 
> 1. Seal and monitor the border to the best of our ability;
> 2. Repatriate all Afghans;
> 3. Strike terror sanctuaries in Afghanistan through covert and overt means.


Yes, my point was inline with your comment about the real players in Afghanistan. I dont think Iran would be the real player, it would be China, Russia and Pakistan. This was evident from the fact that these 3 countries met for the first time bypassing both the US and Afghan government on the future and stability of Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## maximuswarrior

IceCold said:


> Yes, my point was inline with your comment about the real players in Afghanistan. I dont think Iran would be the real player, it would be China, Russia and Pakistan. This was evident from the fact that these 3 countries met for the first time bypassing both the US and Afghan government on the future and stability of Afghanistan.



Iran has always had a hand in Afghanistan some way or the other. I would agree that their influence is limited, but they are going to make glad use if it.


----------



## Defence Gamer

Why again? Afghanistan used to be much better under the Taliban Goverment.


----------



## Techy Hassan

Our Christian brothers come to Afghanistan get life losses. Christian brothers in US get sorrow and grief. Christian country becomes more weak and our Christian sisters in USA become more vulnerable to the world. Christianity is going to suffer. Godforbid.

Better to put afghans in a trade traps to behave properly. Inside afghanistan they may keep on killing each other. 
Dont give them aid. Give them flour when they produce work and not heroein.


----------



## Saif-ud-Din Qutuz

They'll keep on losing soldiers in Afghanistan. US chickened out in front of Russia in Syria, so much so that they've agreed to launch coordinated military assaults with Russia. What a shame, its called bow to the king lol


----------

