What's new

Gates Backs Buildup of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

pkpatriotic

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
0
Gates Backs Buildup of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Estimate Is 20,000-Plus In the Next 18 Months
By Ann Scott Tyson
02ec2618b7cef39f9834138935f32860.gif

Staff Writer
Saturday, November 22, 2008


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday that he supports a fresh troop buildup in Afghanistan -- officially estimated at more than 20,000 U.S. troops in the next 12 to 18 months -- to fight a growing insurgency and to safeguard the 2009 Afghan elections. But he stressed that in the long run the conflict should be "Afghanistan's war."

"The violence is up," Gates said. "It's clear there is a need for more [troops] to try to deal with this increased security problem," he told reporters traveling with him to a meeting of defense leaders in Canada.

Gates said he intends to meet the requests of top U.S. commanders in Afghanistan for an increase of four more combat brigades and an aviation brigade, as well as thousands of support troops -- a total reinforcement of "well north of 20,000" in the coming year and a half, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

The troops would deploy primarily to eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border, where the 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division is headed in January, as well as to southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is based.

"It's important that we have a surge of forces before the election. And my speculation would be that people will want to focus that surge in areas like RC [Regional Command] South to ensure that people can register and vote," Gates said at a news conference in Cornwallis, Canada, where he attended a two-day meeting with defense ministers from Canada, Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Estonia and other countries that have a total of about 18,000 troops in southern Afghanistan.

Gates said that securing Afghan elections "may be the most important objective for us in 2009" and called the prospects for a successful vote good. "The notion that things are out of control in Afghanistan or that we're sliding toward a disaster, I think, is far too pessimistic," he said.

In south Afghanistan, additional U.S. combat units are also needed to move throughout the region and prevent insurgents from exploiting the boundaries between British, Canadian and other allied forces that now concentrate their operations in different provinces, officials said. "The enemy we are dealing with in Afghanistan does not respect . . . boundaries," said a senior defense official traveling with Gates, pointing to the movement of fighters and the trafficking of weapons and drugs across provincial lines.

"Clearly, one of the purposes behind additional U.S. forces is to give the commanders the maneuverable capability to be able to address problems across the entire RC South," Gates said.

President-elect Barack Obama has also called for additional combat brigades for Afghanistan, where there are currently about 32,000 U.S. troops and 35,000 non-U.S. NATO or other allied troops. Still, Gates and others have indicated that they do not expect large numbers of reinforcements from NATO, which leads the mission in Afghanistan. This is particularly true of countries fighting in the south, such as Britain and Canada, which say their forces are stretched too thin.

"The reality is there are other NATO doors that President-elect Obama should be knocking on first" to ask for more troops, Peter MacKay, Canada's defense minister, said during the news conference yesterday. "I think, clearly, the RC South -- eight countries have been carrying what I would describe as a disproportionate share of the load," he said.

In the long run, Gates stressed, a primary goal must be to accelerate the growth and capabilities of Afghan national security forces. That will require an international investment of billions for years, he said, because the Kabul government, with an annual budget of about $700 million, "will never be able to sustain this force."

Empowering Afghans to secure and govern their own country is expected to be a main theme of a Bush administration review of Afghanistan strategy that is expected to be released soon. Gates was briefed on a draft of the review in recent days.

"One general theme that I am pushing very hard . . . is we need to remember this is Afghanistan's war against a threat to a freely elected Afghan government, and we're there to help them take on that threat," Gates told reporters on his aircraft after the meeting.

"This isn't our war, necessarily," he said.
 
.
So they are taking the side of "elected" warlords... Funny. Will that bring democracy and justice to Afghanistan or even more supporters for Al Qaida?
 
.
So they are taking the side of "elected" warlords... Funny. Will that bring democracy and justice to Afghanistan or even more supporters for Al Qaida?

Neither to promote democracy in Afghanistan nor supporting AlQaida, as they have already projected and strengthen AQ ..........Now AQ acting as their laser guide and providing standings and space for US to live in their for long time to not only enjoy Afghan resources but also keep monitoring and control regional activities especially to confront China & Russia.
 
.
"So they are taking the side of "elected" warlords... Funny."

What's funny is you thinking that we'd take the side of your proxies.:lol: Hmmm....aren't they the same guys who we're fighting? Fat lot of good it did you anyway. Where's the Durand accord that got done while YOUR WARLORDS were in power? Didn't happen, did it?

You might actually try to support free elections and then show that amazing pashtu plurality at work. Just a suggestion. Then again, you might actually need a message of hope to attach to those election campaigns-

"Vote for me and I promise to provide Friday after-mosque entertainment at the soccer stadium. Women beaten. Hands chopped off petty thieves. A be-heading or two. Promises to be first-rate wholesome family entertainment presided over by a mullah. Make certain to bring the kiddies."

Try promising a Koran in each home that possesses a literate soul. That's called an empty promise, btw. Most can't read...and I mean MOST.

Then again, I am writing to a Pakistani whose understanding of a democratic PROCESS is likely rudimentary if not skewed altogether. You've a rather spotty history there in the last, oh...sixty plus years.

Guess that you must like being under the thumb of your own warlords. You know, the ones whom you call generals. Plenty here seem to prefer that over your president.

Quite some choices there. GWB never looked so good.
 
.
"Vote for me and I promise to provide Friday after-mosque entertainment at the soccer stadium. Women beaten. Hands chopped off petty thieves. A be-heading or two. Promises to be first-rate wholesome family entertainment presided over by a mullah. Make certain to bring the kiddies."
Why not dare to build up forces in Saudi Arabia for similar reasosns?

Any how, I don't believe what ever you wrote but one thing is for sure warlords of Afghan parliament are stil chopping hands of those who refuse to help indians in executing terroist acts in Pakistan.
Women are even in worst socio ecnomic condition as they were before that is why Karzai and northern alliance nexus is loosing on political grounds against the very same Taliban and is unpopular.
There has been more insult to humanity since US inavasion which had no grounds to prove the posibility of complicity of Taliban.

very interesting to note is if Mullah Umer is on ur side than he can be President of Afghanistan under official protection of US army and if he is politically aligned with some one else than he is most wanted by US!

Mullah may be a terrifiyng word for u but for locals it has different meaning and this is all because u lack the local socio knowledge and your source of information which is RAW is simply toying with u and northern alliance is double crossing u.
You don't even have record of travel and meeting schedules of Afghan foreign minister.

Ground reallity is that Pakistan is facing terrorism on its own soil since US invasion of Afghanistan and this is the bottom line which you keep ignoring.
 
.
"...if he is politically aligned with some one else than he is most wanted by US!"

Yup. Nailed it.

Hanging out with OBL will get you nowhere fast with America.

Neo's Post

Nice lil' letter there from the KSA to the taliban gov't.
 
.
US to send over 20,000 troops for Afghanistan

* Defence Secretary Gates says infusion to take place before Afghan elections
* Rejects speculation that Kabul could be heading for a dire situation

CORNWALLIS: The Pentagon is considering a plan to send more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months to help safeguard elections and quell rising Taliban violence, officials said on Friday.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he and top commanders had discussed sending five brigades to Afghanistan, including four brigades of combat ground forces as well as an aviation brigade, which a defence official said would consist mainly of support troops. An Army combat brigade has about 3,500 soldiers.

Gates said much of the infusion could take place before Afghanistan holds elections by next autumn.

“I think it’s important that we have a surge of forces before the election,” said Gates, who stressed no decision on troop deployments had been taken.

“We’ve had some very preliminary discussions,” he told reporters after meeting to discuss southern Afghanistan with his counterparts from NATO countries with troops deployed in the region.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said more support troops, also known as “enablers,” could also head to Afghanistan as Gates considers a request by US Army Gen David McKiernan, the top commander of NATO and US forces in the country.

“The commanders are looking for well north of 20,000 forces. Gates wishes to fulfil the commanders’ request,” Morrell told reporters as the US defence chief returned from Cornwallis.

Violence in Afghanistan has surged to the highest levels since the 2001 US-led invasion toppled the country’s Taliban government. An Army combat brigade is already scheduled to arrive in eastern Afghanistan in January to begin training Afghan forces.

Most of the remaining forces, which could begin deploying as early as next spring, would likely head to poppy-growing southern Afghanistan where commanders say the NATO force of 18,000 troops is too small to contend with an increasingly confident Taliban insurgency.

There are now some 70,000 Western forces in Afghanistan, including 32,000 US forces -14,500 under NATO command and 17,500 under a US command.

Gates’ use of the term “surge” to describe the influx drew parallels with the 2007 US force build-up that placed an extra 30,000 US troops in Iraq and contributed to a sharp decline in violence there.

“The key is how do we reverse the trends of the last couple of years or so in terms of rising violence and create a better security environment in which economic and civic development can go ahead and take place,” Gates said.

“We are clearly going to be putting more troops in and I think that the prospects for being able to have these elections successfully are good,” he said.

“We all recognise the need for the Afghan government - with our help - to demonstrate some progress over the course of 2009,” he said.

Gates rejected speculation Afghanistan could be heading for a dire situation.

“The notion that things are out of control in Afghanistan or that we’re sliding toward a disaster I think is far too pessimistic,” he said.

US President-elect Barack Obama says he wants to focus more on the Afghan war and plans to persuade other nations to send more soldiers.

But Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Obama should look to other NATO members first, rather than turning to the other seven states that took part in the Cornwallis meeting: Canada, Denmark, Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, Estonia and Romania.

“The reality is there are other NATO doors that President-elect Obama should be knocking on first,” he told the news conference. Canada has long complained that the nations with troops in southern Afghanistan are bearing a disproportionate share of the military burden.

“There is an enormous amount of goodwill that has been engendered by President-elect Obama that he might be willing to spend for a cause that he clearly believes in,” said MacKay.

Many NATO countries insist on stationing their troops in quieter parts of Afghanistan and strictly limit what kind of combat activities they can carry out. reuters
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom