Obama Quietly Authorizes Up to 15,000 More U.S. Troops for Afghanistan

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Quietly Authorizes Up to 15,000 More U.S. Troops for Afghanistan
Fox News ^
________________________ ________________________ ____

October 13, 2009 11:50:49 AM by traumer

In an unannounced move, President Obama is dispatching up to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced in March.

The additional troops are primarily support forces -- such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police.

A Washington Post report published Tuesday said Obama dispatched 13,000 additional troops, but an unnamed defense official familiar with the process told Fox News that the number is closer to 15,000.

"Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000," a defense official, speaking anonymously, told the Washington Post.

But in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, a defense official refuted that the dispatch was "unannounced," saying the decision to send 15,000 additional troops was part of a larger move to reach 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by year's end -- a move that Defense Secretary Robert Gates cleared with Obama in March, the official said.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
________________________ ________________________ ______

I cant wait to visit DU and Huff Post to see the reaction to this. 

[240 is Back]

I can't wait to see the repubs BITCH about this, as you know they will.

[MM2K]

Isnt that far less than Mchrystal's request? Ofcourse they will bitch!! And they will have every right to.

[Skip8282]

I can't wait to see the repubs BITCH about this, as you know they will.

240, I'm wondering if you're the guy on the couch in this video?

[Ex Coelis]

the Taliban are a bunch of pricks

true story

[Soul Crusher]

240, I'm wondering if you're the guy on the couch in this video?

That clip is priceless! 

[240 is Back]

skip & 33,

Is obama doing the right thing by sending 15k forces to afghanistan?

[Soul Crusher]

skip & 33,

Is obama doing the right thing by sending 15k forces to afghanistan?

It depends on what they are there for.  If they are there to be targets for the crazies and have to use the updated ROE, then it is a huge mistake. 

Its not so much the numbers of troops as it is the ROE.  We could blow the joint to smitherines, but we are not doing that. 

[Hedgehog]

It depends on what they are there for.  If they are there to be targets for the crazies and have to use the updated ROE, then it is a huge mistake. 

Its not so much the numbers of troops as it is the ROE.  We could blow the joint to smitherines, but we are not doing that. 

Do you think Obama should pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq or do you think he should stay?

[Soul Crusher]

Do you think Obama should pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq or do you think he should stay?

It depends on what the task and mission is. 

If its nation building - hell no - out of there. 

If its targeting terrorists and al quada and going after the crazies, then the military knows what they need. 

[James]

240, I'm wondering if you're the guy on the couch in this video?

 

[GigantorX]

skip & 33,

Is obama doing the right thing by sending 15k forces to afghanistan?

I believe that this troop increase was set in motion during Bush's tenure?

[shootfighter1]

I think the situation is so complicated that we'd have to hear the intelligence of what is really going on in order to make a decision.

My general thinking is either trust your ground commanders and authorize what they ask for (because thats their field and job) or pull most of the troops out and change the mission.  Doing something in the middle is not wise in a war.

[GigantorX]

I think the situation is so complicated that we'd have to hear the intelligence of what is really going on in order to make a decision.

My general thinking is either trust your ground commanders and authorize what they ask for (because thats their field and job) or pull most of the troops out and change the mission.  Doing something in the middle is not wise in a war.

You send them in there piecemeal and they will get chopped up piecemeal.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Obama has done the job of pacifying the anti war left very well.

[GigantorX]

Obama has done the job of pacifying the anti war left very well.

Very true.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama has done the job of pacifying the anti war left very well.

They are nothing more than lemmings.   Their white guilt will not allow them to protest Obama.

[LurkerNoMore]

I pray my 15,000 brothers show up in that hell hole with a dagger in their teeth, a grenade in their hands, and infinite scorn in their hearts and give those infidels a taste of their own medicine.

[Soul Crusher]

I pray my 15,000 brothers show up in that hell hole with a dagger in their teeth, a grenade in their hands, and infinite scorn in their hearts and give those infidels a taste of their own medicine.

If only the ROE allowed that to happen this thing would be over a hell of a lot sooner. 

[GigantorX]

If only the ROE allowed that to happen this thing would be over a hell of a lot sooner. 

I will try to find the articles but I've been hearing/reading that the villagers in "that hell hole" have been pressing the commanders etc to take it to the Taliban/AQ more and more instead of not being so aggressive.

[240 is Back]

If only the ROE allowed that to happen this thing would be over a hell of a lot sooner. 

do we follow geneva or don't we?

please stop bitching abuot the ROE out of one side of your mouth, while saying 'fvck geneva' out the other side of your mouth.

Either we follow those rules, or we don't.  Stop complaining about the rules, while bragging how you don't need to follow them.

I dont care what position you have, but choose one, Mr Kerry.

[Soul Crusher]

do we follow geneva or don't we?

please stop bitching abuot the ROE out of one side of your mouth, while saying 'fvck geneva' out the other side of your mouth.

Either we follow those rules, or we don't.  Stop complaining about the rules, while bragging how you don't need to follow them.

I dont care what position you have, but choose one, Mr Kerry.

Personally, if I am in a war like this, I kill or be killed, period.   These are terrorists, not uniformed soldiers fighting for a nation state.   

[240 is Back]

Personally, if I am in a war like this, I kill or be killed, period.   These are terrorists, not uniformed soldiers fighting for a nation state.   

then do we just nuke the whole nation?

Or do we follow geneva?

There is no middle ground.  You break geneva, and you're on the same plane as the terrorists and there is no claiming the moral high ground. 

[Soul Crusher]

then do we just nuke the whole nation?

Or do we follow geneva?

There is no middle ground.  You break geneva, and you're on the same plane as the terrorists and there is no claiming the moral high ground. 

I dont care about the moral high ground.  I care about our soldiers coming home alive.   

[GigantorX]

do we follow geneva or don't we?

please stop bitching abuot the ROE out of one side of your mouth, while saying 'fvck geneva' out the other side of your mouth.

Either we follow those rules, or we don't.  Stop complaining about the rules, while bragging how you don't need to follow them.

I dont care what position you have, but choose one, Mr Kerry.

The "ROE" isn't some static military law that was enacted however long ago by congress or something. There are ROE's for every theater and, as far as I know, they can change from time to time as the situation dictates. Right now our soldiers aren't going to get the support if there is a chance that civilian causalities could be a result, kicking in doors, house to house stuff is also a no-no (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) and the list goes on. We have The Geneva Conventions, correct, but in the terms of the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan, they aren't the same thing.

The problem is that the enemy knows our ROE's because they were, stupidly, publicized and they know exactly how to fight our troops while they are constrained by the ROE's. Like Operation Rolling THunder during Vietnam, it was a big "showcase" air campaign that while it dropped lots of bombs, it did little to destroy supplies, infrastructure etc...because the "no bombing" zones were plentiful and the communists knew where to keep the important war waging supplies/fuel etc to keep them protected. Compare that to the Linebacker air operations in the early 1970's that took of the gloves and essentially crippled the communist forces.