2000 more troops going to Afghanistan

• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-09-09 19:10

  Washington (CNN) -- As many as 2,000 additional troops -- including a number of U.S. forces -- may be headed to Afghanistan in the coming weeks under a plan backed by Gen. David Petraeus, CNN has learned.
  
  Petraeus has not commented publicly on the need for more troops, but a U.S. defense official and a senior NATO official directly familiar with his thinking and the entire matter have confirmed details to CNN.
  
  The proposal for more troops has been briefed to NATO officials behind closed doors.
  
  According to the NATO source, it calls for an additional 2,000 troops including at least 750 personnel to serve as trainers for Afghan forces. The trainers specifically would work to teach Afghan units how to support their operations in the field. The balance of the forces would work largely to counter the still significant threat posed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
  
  Another NATO official tells CNN "it's highly likely" many of the additional forces will be U.S. troops. Some NATO member countries are politically ambivalent about the war, he noted. And practically, it is only U.S. forces that have the most advanced equipment to counter roadside bombs
  
  In May, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent 850 U.S. military trainers on a temporary deployment when European countries could not pledge enough of their own forces. This latest need for 2,000 forces goes beyond that to include counter-IED forces, although some small number of the at least 750 additional trainers could replace those already there.
  
  No final decisions have been made on any additional U.S. troops.
  
  NATO military authorities are scheduled to meet in the coming days to try to get specific troop commitments from member nations. The goal is to get the matter resolved before a November NATO summit in which U.S. and NATO military commanders are expected to discuss progress in the war.
  
  It is not clear whether the new effort will bring the troop levels above the 30,000 additional U.S. forces authorized by President Barack Obama earlier this year, as it will depend on how many troops the NATO countries contribute and the potential re-assignment of existing forces. The president also authorized the Pentagon at the time to deploy 3,000 forces, but more than half of those 3,000 have already been earmarked.
  
  NATO sources emphasize they believe the bulk of the additional 2,000 will likely have to come from the US.
  
  The potential for yet another troop increase, even a relatively small one, is already being defended by NATO. The senior official told CNN "this relatively small uplift -- less than 2 percent of the 150,000 in theatre from the coalition -- reflects the direction of the campaign: training the Afghan security forces to prepare for transition, as well as protecting our forces."
  
  A U.S. military official also confirms that in recent weeks the discussion of the "withdrawal" of forces from certain areas of Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 has taken a bit of a twist.
  
  The official said the withdrawal in some areas will signify that those areas may be turned over to Afghan control, but that may not mean troops will come home. The latest options call for taking those troops not needed and sending them to other areas where security is still poor.

  
  
  Link to article: Sources: As many as 2,000 more troops may be going to Afghanistan - CNN.com
• Chillax wrote on 2010-09-09 20:01
  Not surprised.
• Magenera wrote on 2010-09-09 20:50
  Same, not surprised, Afghanistan was a ***t storm that grew worse cause we placed it behind the Iraq war, and the freedom progress.
• Athde wrote on 2010-09-09 20:53
  I dont see why we keep sending troops over there. We should instead be increasing our defenses here. I mean it's not like the Middle East is our only threat. We still have a chance to be attacked by, China, North Korea, Russia, and any other Souther American country that would like to see most of us dead >.>
• Chillax wrote on 2010-09-09 20:58

  Quote from Athde;150737:

  I dont see why we keep sending troops over there. We should instead be increasing our defenses here. I mean it's not like the Middle East is our only threat. We still have a chance to be attacked by, China, North Korea, Russia, and any other Souther American country that would like to see most of us dead >.>

  
  
  Consdering the US is an important trading partner for many of the countries mentioned, I doubt they would want to destroy the US.
• Athde wrote on 2010-09-09 21:10
  ^
  I doubt that as a whole they would, but their crazy leaders would... Kim Jon III or something like that, Chinese Prime Minister , im not sure about Russias leader but they're always cautious.
• Lan wrote on 2010-09-09 21:16

  Quote from Athde;150737:

  I dont see why we keep sending troops over there. We should instead be increasing our defenses here. I mean it's not like the Middle East is our only threat. We still have a chance to be attacked by, China, North Korea, Russia, and any other Souther American country that would like to see most of us dead >.>

  
  
  Iran would see the US dead before any of those countries o3o
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-09-09 21:20

  Quote from Athde;150737:

  I dont see why we keep sending troops over there. We should instead be increasing our defenses here. I mean it's not like the Middle East is our only threat. We still have a chance to be attacked by, China, North Korea, Russia, and any other Souther American country that would like to see most of us dead >.>

  
  
  You are retarded as hell.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-09-09 21:22

  Quote from Lan;150772:

  Iran would see the US dead before any of those countries o3o

  
  
  Iran? What can they do? You do realize that nuclear weapons are much more difficult to create than the corporate media makes it out to be. And even if they get nukes, they most likely wouldn't use them because the US would nuke Iran to oblivion if they tried. In the end, war in the middle east is about $$$ and not national security or bringing democracy over or whatever other propaganda is used to sell the war.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2010-09-09 22:31

  Quote from Cucurbita;150775:

  You are retarded as hell.

  
  
  2nded
  Those countries got nothing.
• paladin wrote on 2010-09-09 23:10
  Meh
  We already spend millions why not pour more
  *drinks coffee*
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-09-09 23:14
  Out of Iraq and into Afghanistan and Iran.