Mullen expects casualties to rise in Afghanistan

[PakShaheen79]

By KEVIN MAURER and KRISTIN M. HALL, Associated Press Writers Kevin Maurer And Kristin M. Hall, Associated Press Writers – 32 mins ago

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. – The nation's highest-ranking military officer told soldiers and Marines Monday that the insurgency in Afghanistan has grown in the last three years and he expects casualties to rise next year as additional U.S. troops pour into the war.

"This is the most dangerous time I've seen growing up the last four decades in uniform," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told about 1,000 Marines at Camp Lejeune.

Many attending Mullen's talks at Camp Lejeune and Fort Campbell, Ky., will be sent to Afghanistan in President Barack Obama's plan announced last week.

After the first of the year, the Marines will begin sending an additional 6,200 from Lejeune and Camp Pendleton, Calif., the Pentagon announced Monday. The Army will also begin sending in the first of its forces in the spring — a training brigade with about 3,400 soldiers from Fort Drum, N.Y. Three brigades from Fort Campbell's 101st Airborne Division are also heading to Afghanistan and about 4,100 support forces from various places will deploy early.

"We are not winning, which means we are losing and as we are losing, the message traffic out there to (insurgency) recruits keeps getting better and better and more keep coming," Mullen said. "That's why we need the 30,000 and in particular, and you are the lead on this, getting in there this year, over the next 12 months, almost in lightning bolt fashion."

Mullen told 700 soldiers at Fort Campbell that military leaders believe they have 18 to 24 months to reverse the insurgency, in what he expects to be a tough and bloody fight.

"I am sure we will sustain an increase in the level of casualties, and I don't want to be in any way unclear about that," he told troops at Fort Campbell. "This is what happened in Iraq during the surge and as tragic as it is, to turn this thing around, it will be a part of this surge, as well."

"I expect a tough fight in 2010," Mullen said.

Camp Lejeune will supply 1,500 Marines by Christmas. An additional 6,200 are to follow next year. Pvt. William Schenider, 20 from Woodbridge, N.J., expects to deploy early next year. As a new rifleman, the deployment will be his first.

"This is what we've been training up for nine months. We want to put our training to use," Schenider said.

Many questions from soldiers and Marines focused on the role of Pakistan and America's NATO allies in containing al-Qaida and the Taliban and on the July 2011 withdraw date.

Mullen said the 2011 date is not an end or withdrawal date.

"In the long run, it is not going to be about killing Taliban," Mullen told the Marines at Camp Lejeune. "In the long run, it's going to be because the Afghan people want them out."

Mullen said the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is "the epicenter for global terrorism."

He said Pakistan's military has made huge gains in routing out terrorists from that country, but reminded soldiers that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and that the U.S. wants to maintain a long-term stable relationship with Pakistan.

"In the long run, we are anxious to get at al-Qaida and the leadership that resides in that border area," he said. "Strategically the way you do this in my view is to bring pressure from both sides."

___

Kristin M. Hall reported from Fort Campbell, Ky. AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to this report.

Mullen expects casualties to rise in Afghanistan - Yahoo! News

 

[Barrett]

Unlike most Americans this man atleast has the balls to admit the fact that they are not winning and thats means only one thing "they are loosing"
Yes the casualties will increase as the Taliban will have more Americans to shoot at.
I am still unable to understand the tactic behind sending more troops, it could not be to help the Americans for an honorable exit as they have only eaten dust and failed miserably in the past 8 years.
The Americans claim to be the champions of democracy so where are the democratic people of America to question the disgrace their leaders have brought upon the whole nation through machination.
Both the Iraq and Afghan war have proved to be a fiasco
I feel sorry for the families of the soldiers going to Afghanistan to defend the Imperialist policies of a Cruel, ignorant and Zionist state.

I hope there are still some ways by which they could yet redeem themselves.

 

[gambit]

Unlike most Americans this man atleast has the balls to admit the fact that they are not winning and thats means only one thing "they are loosing"
Yes the casualties will increase as the Taliban will have more Americans to shoot at.
I am still unable to understand the tactic behind sending more troops, it could not be to help the Americans for an honorable exit as they have only eaten dust and failed miserably in the past 8 years.
The Americans claim to be the champions of democracy so where are the democratic people of America to question the disgrace their leaders have brought upon the whole nation through machination.
Both the Iraq and Afghan war have proved to be a fiasco
I feel sorry for the families of the soldiers going to Afghanistan to defend the Imperialist policies of a Cruel, ignorant and Zionist state.

I hope there are still some ways by which they could yet redeem themselves.

Try serving some time in the military and see why.

 

[Barrett]

Try serving some time in the military and see why.

I'm sure you have served some time in whatever way... do you know why ?

 

[MZUBAIR]

U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells troops at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Monday that military leaders believe they have 18 to 24 months to reverse the Afghan insurgency, in what he expects to be a tough and bloody fight.

 

[gambit]

I'm sure you have served some time in whatever way... do you know why ?

Because the key to winning wars have always been with overwhelming human presence. Weapons allows you to increase your killing ability, but to establish a stronghold and to defend it you need to convince potential enemies that it will cost them dearly to take what you hold. Or you need to convince your current enemy that not only do you have superior weapons, there will be more of you than of them wielding these superior weapons. If we have 30,000 Afghan troops that are as well dedicated to Afghanistan as we are to their own country, there would be no need for US troops. We will give them our weapons and let them do the fighting and dying. But it still would require men to assault and to hold territories.

 

[Barrett]

Because the key to winning wars have always been with overwhelming human presence. Weapons allows you to increase your killing ability, but to establish a stronghold and to defend it you need to convince potential enemies that it will cost them dearly to take what you hold. Or you need to convince your current enemy that not only do you have superior weapons, there will be more of you than of them wielding these superior weapons. If we have 30,000 Afghan troops that are as well dedicated to Afghanistan as we are to their own country, there would be no need for US troops. We will give them our weapons and let them do the fighting and dying. But it still would require men to assault and to hold territories.

So are you telling me that what 100,000 NATO were unable to do in eight years, 30,000 more will do in 18 months ?
And you are badly mistaken if the Afghans want to fight anyone it is the occupiers of their land apart from a very small minority.
If you had any substantial support from the locals the whole war wouldn't have been such an embarrassing failure.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Because the key to winning wars have always been with overwhelming human presence. Weapons allows you to increase your killing ability, but to establish a stronghold and to defend it you need to convince potential enemies that it will cost them dearly to take what you hold. Or you need to convince your current enemy that not only do you have superior weapons, there will be more of you than of them wielding these superior weapons. If we have 30,000 Afghan troops that are as well dedicated to Afghanistan as we are to their own country, there would be no need for US troops. We will give them our weapons and let them do the fighting and dying. But it still would require men to assault and to hold territories.

So why USA had to withdraw in shame from Vietnam even it had hundred of thousands of soldiers (more then they have in Afghanistan) on ground with awesome firepower, Vietnam which is way too small compared to Afghanistan territory wise.

100,000 occupiers controlling less then 30% of Afghanistan, so 30,000 more will control how much, approx 10% more, getting the total to 40% approx ??

So far weapons provided to ANA & ANP are getting into the hands of Afghan & Pakistan Talibans using against either US forces or PA. So we should be expecting more weapons to get into the hands of Taliban.

Iraq & Afghanistan are much different. What US achieved in Iraq can not be replicated in Afghanistan.

 

[gambit]

So why USA had to withdraw in shame from Vietnam even it had hundred of thousands of soldiers (more then they have in Afghanistan) on ground with awesome firepower, Vietnam which is way too small compared to Afghanistan territory wise.

100,000 occupiers controlling less then 30% of Afghanistan, so 30,000 more will control how much, approx 10% more, getting the total to 40% approx ??

So far weapons provided to ANA & ANP are getting into the hands of Afghan & Pakistan Talibans using against either US forces or PA. So we should be expecting more weapons to get into the hands of Taliban.

Iraq & Afghanistan are much different. What US achieved in Iraq can not be replicated in Afghanistan.

The Vietnam War was largely a political war, meaning the political aspect of the war intrude into the military arenas, such as how the Johnson Administration picomanaged the war down to approving which targets before a bombing mission. Plus there were different political goals for the two sides. For North Viet Nam, the political goal was to unite the two Vietnams back into one. For South Viet Nam, the political goal was to maintain partition. Political goals determine military objective. Either NVN grows weary of trying to conquer SVN because partition enforcement was superior to what they could exert against it. Or SVN falls because the US-SVN alliance could not support enforcement for whatever reason. Keep in mind that the US military was never defeated in combat and under 'Vietnamization' of the war, the ARVN was becoming more professional and competent. So to focus on only the troop figure is misleading.

You forget that when the Taliban was ousted the first time around, it was not US troops that ran the country. So my argument remain valid that the more troops one has, the greater the control one can exert over a territory, if deployed wisely. SVN was not ruled over the by the VC. The guerrilla branch of the NVA was troublesome, but it alone could not defeat SVN. Do you really believe the Taliban will meet our 30,000 with their 30,000? No...The Taliban will bring 3 millions if feasible.

 

[gambit]

So are you telling me that what 100,000 NATO were unable to do in eight years, 30,000 more will do in 18 months ?
And you are badly mistaken if the Afghans want to fight anyone it is the occupiers of their land apart from a very small minority.
If you had any substantial support from the locals the whole war wouldn't have been such an embarrassing failure.

That is what we hoped for. But just like Iraq...

If we decide to 'go Roman' on Afghanistan, it would not be like when the Soviets was in the country. Back then, the muslims had support from US and Pakistan. But if do decide to 'go Roman' in Afghanistan, we would forgo local support and deploy with no political restraints like Iraq and Viet Nam. It would be Desert Storm all over again.

 

[Barrett]

That is what we hoped for. But just like Iraq...

If we decide to 'go Roman' on Afghanistan, it would not be like when the Soviets was in the country. Back then, the muslims had support from US and Pakistan. But if do decide to 'go Roman' in Afghanistan, we would forgo local support and deploy with no political restraints like Iraq and Viet Nam. It would be Desert Storm all over again.

Not going 'Roman' on Afghanistan will not earn any support from the locals. 30,000 or 300,000 it will only deteriorate the current situation, if it can get any worse.

In the years to come, the Americans will spend more money of the tax payers, more casualties and loss of human lives irrespective of their nationality, the outcome will be an unstable region, more dangerous Afghanistan, highly motivated hostile forces, more bitterness for the Americans and the most dangerous of all 28 million inflamed pashtuns of a nuclear state.

No one will benefit from this other then the elites who will make more money from legal and ill-legal trade of weapons to both states and non-state actors to exert their power in the struggle for gaining control over Afghanistan.

It is about time that the Americans reassess their policies based upon assumptions, use of force and attacking indiscriminately in the name of preemptive strikes.

The world has only become more dangerous

 

[Hulk]

I think Afghanistan can be solved and will be solved. These kind of situations takes time to solve and so if Afghanistan is taking. I do not have any theory to support this, so please do not ask questions. It is my gut feel, it will take 3 to 5 years.

 

[Barrett]

I think Afghanistan can be solved and will be solved. These kind of situations takes time to solve and so if Afghanistan is taking. I do not have any theory to support this, so please do not ask questions. It is my gut feel, it will take 3 to 5 years.

Respect your gut feeling but seems like mere assumption, the situation on ground narrate a different story.