Commanders seek more forces in Afghanistan

[zimv20]

boston globe (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/01/08/commanders_seek_more_forces_in_afghanistan/)


Taliban prepare offensive against US, NATO troops

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the US military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against US troops and undermanned NATO forces. This has prompted US commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new US Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions.

NATO's 30,000 troops in Afghanistan are supposed to have taken responsibility for security operations. But Taliban attacks have risen sharply, and senior US officers here describe the NATO operation as weak, hobbled by a shortage of manpower and equipment, and by restrictions put on the troops by their capitals.

The accelerating war here and the critical need for troops complicate the crumbling security picture across the region -- from Afghanistan, where the United States chose to strike back after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, to Iraq, where US troops, in almost four years of fighting, have been unable to establish basic security and quell a bloody sectarian war.

President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure. Such an order, Pentagon officials say, would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they man both wars.

A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq.

(more)

(emphasis mine)

uh-oh.

[mactastic]

That really seems like a criminal misuse of America's military, and arguably benefits our real enemies while weakening our national defense.

And righties want to argue that Clinton broke the military. Look what Bush has wrought upon it. Bush has gutted the military, and left America without the ability to handle a major crisis without immediately resorting to nuclear weapons.

[obeygiant]

That really seems like a criminal misuse of America's military, and arguably benefits our real enemies while weakening our national defense.


I always chuckle when people talk about how the military is stretched too thin or that our national defense is weak. The U.S. could probably wage three wars at once with its current active military. The U.S. is second only to China in its standing army. 660,000 troops were sent to Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.

[Queso]

I always chuckle when people talk about how the military is stretched too thin or that our national defense is weak. The U.S. could probably wage three wars at once with its current active military. The U.S. is second only to China in its standing army. 660,000 troops were sent to Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.
There were 660,000 coalition troops in total for Desert Storm. Considering Saudi Arabia deployed over 100,000, the UK sent 43,000, Egypt 40,000, the Emirates 40,000, Oman 20,000, France 18,000, Bangladesh 6,000, plus well over 10,000 exiles from Kuwait itself and smaller deployments from more than 20 other countries, the number of US forces on the ground was considerably smaller than the 660,000 quoted.

[Thomas Veil]

A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq.You're doin' a heckuva job there, Dubya.

[obeygiant]

(post was removed)

go ahead a dispute the facts but it wont change them.

[Dont Hurt Me]

What King George should do is take those 20,000 troops who are going to be wasted in Iraq and send them after a guy named OSAMA in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

He promised to get Osama and lied to us again.

[skunk]

go ahead a dispute the facts but it wont change them.May I quote from Wikipedia?US troops represented 74% of the coalition’s 660,000 troops in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
As you so cleverly pointed out, disputing the facts won't change them.

[obeygiant]

May I quote from Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
As you so cleverly pointed out, disputing the facts won't change them.

and your point is? thats exactly where i got the figures from.

[skunk]

The U.S. is second only to China in its standing army. 660,000 troops were sent to Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.The clear implication in this post is that the US standing army is so large that it could afford to send 660,000 US troops, isn't it? Or are you just playing silly buggers?

[Mike Teezie]

SF is still going to Afghanistan.

I don't want to speak to everybody in SF, but everybody in my brother's little circle of friends that's about to be sent out prays for a deployment to Afghanistan. Iraq is seen as the clusterf*** where there is no hope, idea, sense, or point - and where you'll be surrounded by a regular Army folk that are sadly under-trained for the situation they are in, feel the same way, have no idea what's going on, and have no idea what to do.

One of my brother's two best friends just headed out to Afghanistan at the beginning of this month to join his ODA.

From what I've heard from them, they don't mind going there. It's much more of a "there's the bad dudes over there, let's get them" versus Iraq.

I'm sure they'll all be pulled out to fight in Iraq, so those pesky trrrrrrrrrists don't steal our freedom.

[MACDRIVE]

It would be interesting to compare the U.S. Army personnel numbers between the times of G.W. and Clinton. I've tried a Google search with no results. If anyone could to get those numbers, I think it would be most helpfull to this thread.

[mactastic]

go ahead a dispute the facts but it wont change them.
Damn straight! You're entitled to your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts.

By the way, if the military isn't stretched thin -- which I believe was your original assertion in this thread -- why are we having to remove troops from the Afghan theater to augment the forces in Iraq? If our military is as robustly staffed as you claim it is, why do we not have enough soldiers to fully staff BOTH theaters?

Or is this story about soldiers being pulled from Afghanistan a lie, just another example of liberalmediabias?

[pseudobrit]

I always chuckle when people talk about how the military is stretched too thin or that our national defense is weak.

The biggest weakness is national defence policy.

[Ugg]

and your point is? thats exactly where i got the figures from.

Then why didn't you provide a link and acknowledge that only 74% or 488.400 of them were Americans? Certainly your intent wasn't to mislead?

[obeygiant]

If our military is as robustly staffed as you claim it is, why do we not have enough soldiers to fully staff BOTH theaters?


I dont know, do you? My point is that the military is not stretched thin.
If they need to, they can move people around pretty well.

Then why didn't you provide a link and acknowledge that only 74% or 488.400 of them were Americans? Certainly your intent wasn't to mislead?

So we have at least 488,000 troops. Thanks for doing the math.

for the actual numbers click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

[Queso]

I dont know, do you? My point is that the military is not stretched thin.
If they need to, they can move people around pretty well.
What is stretched thin is the money to pay for all of this. The US budget deficit has averaged around $400 milliard* a year since Bush came to office, meaning the US national debt has grown by over 40% in just six years and now stands at a little over $8 billion*. That's $30,000 of debt for every single man, woman and child in the United States, the interest for which is paid for through your taxes.

Makes your credit card bill seem a little easier to manage doesn't it.

* European definitions of milliard and billion used. 1 milliard = 1 thousand million. 1 billion = 1 million million.

[solvs]

The U.S. could probably wage three wars at once with its current active military.

Then why can't we handle even one?

I have a friend who was pulled from Afghanistan to be sent to Iraq. It keeps happening. The 'stans, where the real terrorists are, are getting worse as we pull more resources from the area to attempt to fix the problems in Iraq. Meanwhile look what's going on in NK and possibly even Iran. We couldn't do anything about them if we wanted to. And look around. We don't. No one trusts the current administration to deal with things because they obviously can't.

So, yeah, our military is stretched too far.

[mactastic]

I dont know, do you? My point is that the military is not stretched thin.
If they need to, they can move people around pretty well.
Then why is the new SecDef asking to increase the size of the Army and Marines? If we're as robustly staffed as you say, why do we need a bigger military? Why are people on their third or fourth deployments? Why are NG members routinely sent on 18-month deployments? Why has the 24 month limit on NG deployments been revoked? Why are stop-loss orders used? Why are recruiter standards being lowered?

For fun? Because the top brass want to be dicks? Or because they have no other options for coming up with troops?

What's next, shall we remove forces from the DMZ to augment our forces in Iraq?

And don't say you don't know. You know damn well why, you just won't say it.

[obeygiant]

And don't say you don't know. You know damn well why, you just won't say it.

I believe I've stated the facts on a few occations. You can believe what you want.

[Dont Hurt Me]

War is allways easier for those not fighting it, or for those who never served or for those who have no children fighting. Funny the administration fits all three categories here.

[takao]

the country with the biggest "defense" budget of the world, by far
and it still doesn't have enough troops

so much for irony

[Dont Hurt Me]

I dont know, do you? My point is that the military is not stretched thin.
If they need to, they can move people around pretty well.



So we have at least 488,000 troops. Thanks for doing the math.

for the actual numbers click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
They are stretched thin its why the new defense dude gates is asking for 95,000 more troops. Its not because we have enough troops its because we dont have enough troops for Bush's foolishness such as Iraq.

[pseudobrit]

660,000 troops were sent to Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.

and your point is? thats exactly where i got the figures from.

So we have at least 488,000 troops. Thanks for doing the math.

I believe I've stated the facts on a few occations. You can believe what you want.

Which set of your stated facts am I to believe?

[skunk]

Which set of your stated facts am I to believe?Follow the Administration's lead: believe only the "facts" which suit your argument. Or, if there aren't any, make them up.

[solvs]

Does anybody seriously think this will help? That we're really going to win this? I'm thinking, like the rest of the ~70% minority of Americans against this, we can't win no matter what we do. And I'm wondering how the ~30% majority that still supports GW can honestly believe we still have a shot.

Seriously. We lost. Long time ago. Nothing gonna change that.

We. Have. Lost.

[hulugu]

First,

A few facts:

The US currently has deployed 169,200 soldiers to Iraq and 19,500 to Afghanistan. However, the total active US military is more than 1.5 million soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen, including troops deployed in Europe and the US.

Of active combat brigades the US has deployed 12 of the 37, owing to the number in South Korea, as well as 2 currently being trained on the Stryker. Furthermore, nearly 38,000 troops are deployed among the Navy's various ships, including the two active carrier groups (the remaining 10 are engaged in either pre-deployment operations, training, or refitting).

It's interesting to compare this number to the 1991 Gulf War, in which 660,000 troops were deployed (comprising a significant portion of the 1991 roster of 770,000 active duty troops).
Furthermore, at the military's height in 1969 the US supported 2.4 million troops.

It should be noted that the US has soliders in 130 countries on nearly every continent, although the Australian contingent is limited to 200, and the largest single group is on US soil.

Now, for obeygiant's assessment. On the surface, it would appear that the US is merely fighting for Iraq with less than 1/10 of the active duty force. However, once one begins to delve deeper into military operations, it becomes clear that while 1.5 million people are on the 'roster' many are support staff. These duties include everything from staff support (paperwork), to the airmen who fly Air Force One, to the Marines stationed at every US embassy throughout the world. And, while an embassy Marine could be rotated into Iraq, the same cannot be said for the B-1 engine mechanic based on Diego Garcia.

Furthermore, the problem isn't just simply manpower, but equipment. The US military cannot fulfill it's needs, and this includes ammunition, tank treads, tires, and fuel. For example, up-armored HUMMVEEs wear out engines and spring much faster than normal, while Kiowas are being grounded because of the lack of air-filters. The operation tempo is very fast in Iraq, and US military units are being ground down to the nub.

The US cannot realistically fight two wars at the same moment, this was at best an operational plan that would not have survived the first days of combat against a determined foe.

[mactastic]

Ah the facts... stubborn things, aren't they! :p

But hey, if you want to believe the US military is hunky-dory and has the manpower and machinery to fight two more serious ground wars, go right ahead...

[AP_piano295]

I dont know, do you? My point is that the military is not stretched thin.
If they need to, they can move people around pretty well.



So we have at least 488,000 troops. Thanks for doing the math.

for the actual numbers click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

Allow me to grant you a quick lesson on the workings of a military force (I dont claim to be an expert but I seem to grasp the concept better than you at least) In a short engagement (like Desert Storm) it was possible to deploy saaay 80 or 90 percent of our troops because the nature of the engagement (short term) because nearly the entire force will be in and then out before things like morale become a problem.

In a conflict like Iraq with no end in sight you must practice troop rotations you cannot keep all of your soldiers in the field indeffinitely or your looking at mental break downs etc. Then you need to consider the fact of tours of duty expiring, VERY VERRRY few soldiers who served in Iraq are willing to re inlist and as soon as they have the chance to get out of active duty they jump on it, which is causeing a shortage in able bodied trained soldiers. Then you need to look at recruitment which (due to the quagmire of a war were stuck in has been consistently down) meaning that the military isnt getting the new soldiers it needs, and even if they were to obtain these soldiers they first need to be trained. Then you need to contend with losses though the number of soldiers killed in this conflict is realitively few the numbers of dehibilitated is not so small and all soldiers who have suffered these terrible injurys are removed from the field.

Your thinking of the military as a concrete number is woefully false at the moment I doubt that we can afford to deploy any more of our forces without further jepoardizing our ongoing conflicts.

[solvs]

I doubt that we can afford to deploy any more of our forces without further jepoardizing our ongoing conflicts.

We already have. Look at Afghanistan. Or NK.

[xsedrinam]

Seems like a few of us have been saying this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/iraq.congress/index.html) for some time, now. Though I haven't been a Hillary fan, I'd say she's thinking right, this time.
"We could, with our attention focused on this strategy -- which I think is a losing strategy -- turn what has been a very positive development in Afghanistan to a loss," Clinton said on NBC's "Today" show. "We're going to have a big Taliban offensive in the spring. We need more troops in Afghanistan."

If I remember the chronology, didn't the U.S. start with Afghanistan along with all those promises?

[solvs]

Though I haven't been a Hillary fan, I'd say she's thinking right, this time.
I also dislike Hillary, but I agree, that doesn't make her wrong. This time. She's a bit of an opportunist (just a bit), but as I've said, she seemed to do a pretty good job last time she was President. :p I find myself doing that a lot lately, agreeing with people I dislike and disagreeing with people I used to. People like McCain, who I used to like, have just let me down.

I never would have voted for someone like Al Gore before either, but if he ran now, he'd be my first choice over the rest of these jokers. :eek: