US General asks for more troops

[viper37]

You are such an idiot. The US has over 60,000 troops there now, and the debate is over how many more we are going to send.

Talk about "facts" not being someone strong suit. You are only off by over 100% though, so that is getting better.

As of March, there were 32 000 US troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-26-afghanistan-troops_N.htm

Obama has promised to increase the number of troops to 59 000.  No way there's 60k troops now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Increase_in_US_troops

[Grey Fox]

I know the French HAVE NOT sent in the Legion which would otherwise be an obvious choice in this situation.

V

They did, atleast in 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm

The English article doesn't say where the soldiers were from but a French Official Communiqué does.

Communiqué de M. le Président de la République

Dans son combat contre le terrorisme, la France vient d'être durement frappée.

Hier, 10 de nos soldats appartenant au 8ème Régiment de parachutistes d'infanterie de marine, au 2ème Régiment étranger de parachutistes et au Régiment de marche du Tchad sont morts en Afghanistan. 21 autres ont été blessés, au cours d'une mission de reconnaissance conjointe avec l'armée nationale afghane. D'importants moyens, aériens notamment, ont été mis en œuvre avec le soutien des Alliés pour appuyer et dégager nos hommes pris dans une embuscade d'une extrême violence. Cette mission se déroulait dans la région de Kaboul, où nos forces sont présentes avec nos alliés depuis 2002.

Je m'incline avec respect et émotion devant le courage de ces hommes qui ont accompli leur devoir jusqu'au sacrifice suprême. Mes pensées vont d'abord à leurs familles et à leurs proches auxquels je transmets, au nom de la Nation, mes condoléances. Je dis aux blessés ma sympathie et mon soutien dans cette épreuve. Je partage également la peine de leurs camarades et au-delà de tous les militaires français. Dès ce soir je me rendrai en Afghanistan pour les assurer que la France est à leurs côtés.

Ma détermination est intacte. La France est résolue à poursuivre la lutte contre le terrorisme, pour la démocratie et la liberté. La cause est juste, c'est l'honneur de la France et de ses armées de la défendre. Au nom de tous les Français je renouvelle à nos armées la confiance de la Nation pour remplir leur mission.

[Berkut]

You are such an idiot. The US has over 60,000 troops there now, and the debate is over how many more we are going to send.

Talk about "facts" not being someone strong suit. You are only off by over 100% though, so that is getting better.

As of March, there were 32 000 US troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-26-afghanistan-troops_N.htm

Obama has promised to increase the number of troops to 59 000.  No way there's 60k troops now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Increase_in_US_troops

From that article:

The latest troop commitment gives Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander there, roughly the amount of troops he said he needed late last year. McKiernan asked for double the 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. President Bush committed 6,000 troops, and Obama's commitment of 21,000 brings the total number of troops to 59,000.

And this is only counting actual troops, not other personnel, which by last count that I have seen there were tens of thousands more.

Whether they are there now, or going to be there shortly is rather irrelevant to Marty's claim that the US has less than 30,000 troops committed. Not that that claim has anything to do with anything anyway.

[Zanza]

NATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.

Why does it matter again whether we win in Afghanistan or not?

One argument I can see is that it would make the life of the Afghanis better. That's a noble goal, but I am not sure NATO is currently taking the right steps towards that (Warspite can probably tell us more about that). However, it's reasonable and legitimate to define how much making their lifes better is worth to us. I assume you, Berkut, have a different willingness to commit to that cause than I do. But I don't think there is a "right" level of goodwill.

Another argument that might be considered is security. But frankly, I feel much more threatened by the home grown terrorists we have here. The previous German defense minister has said that "Germany is defended at the Hindukush". I think that's bullshit. Germany is defended in Germany. Invest into better police or intelligence or whatever if you want to combat terrorists. But not into fighting in Afghanistan.

[crazy canuck]

NATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.

Why does it matter again whether we win in Afghanistan or not?

One argument I can see is that it would make the life of the Afghanis better. That's a noble goal, but I am not sure NATO is currently taking the right steps towards that (Warspite can probably tell us more about that). However, it's reasonable and legitimate to define how much making their lifes better is worth to us. I assume you, Berkut, have a different willingness to commit to that cause than I do. But I don't think there is a "right" level of goodwill.

Another argument that might be considered is security. But frankly, I feel much more threatened by the home grown terrorists we have here. The previous German defense minister has said that "Germany is defended at the Hindukush". I think that's bullshit. Germany is defended in Germany. Invest into better police or intelligence or whatever if you want to combat terrorists. But not into fighting in Afghanistan.

Memories are short unfortunately.  Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?

[ulmont]

Memories are short unfortunately.  Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?

I don't think it will matter, no.

1) There are a truckload of safe havens left that we aren't doing anything about.  Take a look at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64333.htm

2) Note that a lot of the training for 9/11 was done outside of Afghanistan.  Take a look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977.html

[Zanza]

Memories are short unfortunately.  Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?

Yes, I don't think it would matter. There are other failed states and terrorists are probably not picky on where they put up camp.

And a considerable part of the planning and organizing was done from Hamburg. And we had multiple other domestic islamist terrorists. My take is that it makes more sense to fight them here than in Afghanistan. Because I think the guys here are much more dangerous than the guys there.

[Valdemar]

Poland, Denmark and the Netherlands have, IIRC, increased their troop commitment.  But I don't think they are fighting in the South, for the Dutch, it's the Eastern provinces I think.  So I'm not entirely sure what they're doing out there, what kind of troops they have, etc.

I'll repeat:

"I know ours (Denmark) are all combat troops, with materials and leopard tanks to back that, and including our small, but highly rated special forces permanently on tour there as well. Add to that a full combat hospital serving as THE hospital for both Danes and brits in Helman "

Denmark, Netherlands and UK have covered Helmand province together, Denmark has by FAR the majority of their troops there. The remainder of troops are a spot of command types in Kabul and engineers rebuilding stuff.

V

[The Minsky Moment]

NATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.

Why does it matter again whether we win in Afghanistan or not?.

Because security threats to the West in the present day come from non-state or transnational organizations as much as from traditional state actors.  One of key limitations of non-state actors is that although they may be organizationally virtual, they are existentially real: their leaders and rank-and-file occupy physical space and require real physical sustenance and equipment.  That in turn means that they cannot operate efficiently without at least the tacit cooperation of some state that can provide them with physical space to exist, sustain themselves, recruit and train, and access to the instrumentalities of modern finance and commerce.  This turns out to be a critical vulnerability because states are vulnerable to outside pressure - even countries like Iran, North Korea or Syria don't dare to overtly support al-Qaeda, for example. 

With failed states, however, there is no effective state authority on which to exert effective pressure, and that is why so there has been so much emphasis in the past decade about combatting the problem with failed states.  The revivial of widespread piracy in the Indian Ocean is another demonstration of the danger of allowing such failed state conditions to fester, even aside from the direct threat of terrorism.

[crazy canuck]

Memories are short unfortunately.  Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?

I don't think it will matter, no.

1) There are a truckload of safe havens left that we aren't doing anything about.  Take a look at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64333.htm

2) Note that a lot of the training for 9/11 was done outside of Afghanistan.  Take a look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977.html

Ok so your logic is that because there are other failed states around the world that one more shouldnt matter?

There may have been some training done for 9/11 outside Afghanistan but the hub for that training and planning was Afghanistan.   It is incredibly short sighted to suggest that giving that country back to terrorist organizations will not have the potential for extreme harm in the future.

[crazy canuck]

Zanza, why does it make sense to limit your fight against terrorists that threaten your country?

[The Brain]

Can't we just declare Exterminatus and saturate the place with fusion and virus bombs?

[ulmont]

Ok so your logic is that because there are other failed states around the world that one more shouldnt matter?

No, other terrorist safe havens (not the same thing if you look at the list).  Unless you're suggesting we go into all the others (or at least all other havens in the Middle East and Africa), you're kidding yourself that you're making a difference.

[Neil]

Can't we just declare Exterminatus and saturate the place with fusion and virus bombs?

No.  Apparently, being 'Western' is the same as being cowardly and unable to fulfill your duty.

[Jacob]

I fail to see how you could single out Canada like that. But then again, facts have never been your strong side.

My understanding is that Canadian troops, like British and American troops but unlike troops from most of the other countries on that list don't have all sorts of restrictions on their deployment so they're left guarding buildings in safe areas and staying in their camps most of the time.