U.S. Army soldiers speak with village elders today in the village of Baba Kala, eastern Afghanistan. As the security situation continues to challenge coalition forces, President Obama is deploying another Army brigade and Marine expeditionary force. (Photo by Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
by Mark Silva and updated
President Barack Obama, ordering the deployment of an additional 12,000 U.S. troops and 5,000 support personnel to Afghanistan, said today it "is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.''
The president is authorizing 8,000 Marines and 4,000 soldiers - a Marine Expeditionary Force from Camp LeJeune, N.C., and an Army Stryker brigade from Fort Lewis, Washington - in addition to supporting forces to augment a U.S. force of about 30,000 troops already deployed in Afghanistan.
The president is meeting a standing request from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, who has sought as many as 30,000 additional U.S. forces to counter a resurgence of Taliban militants. The increase is backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Obama, who campaigned with a pledge to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months after election, maintains that the U.S. has "taken its eye off the ball'' in Afghanistan and must step up forces their to counter the Taliban.
"There is no more solemn duty as president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way,'' the president said in a statement issued by the White House.
"I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action,'' he said. "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.
"This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan,'' Obama said. "I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.''
Obama also has ordered a review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and maintains that the troop deployment he is ordering today will "not pre-determine the outcome.''
"Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan,'' he said. "As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.''
After many months of debate with former President George W. Bush over a deployment of forces in Iraq driven by the assessments of "commanders on the ground,'' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today endorsed Obama's Afghanistan deployment -- citing the assessments of "ground commanders.''
"We must address threats to American national security from Al Qaeda and related extremist groups based along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and we must redouble our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan,'' said Reid (D-Nev.) "I support President Obama's approval of a request from the ground commanders for more troops. I also strongly support the comprehensive strategic review of our policy that is currently underway."
Comments
We need to stabilize Afganistan and then get out of there. We never should have gone to Iraq and Afganistan was bungled by Bush. The people who attacked us on 9/11 are in Pakistan. We should rethink our strategy on how to get at them without provoking the Pakistany govt. We can always reenter Afganistan if we need to get someone there, it doesn't need to be done with hundreds of thousands of troops.
Posted by: icebergslim | February 17, 2009 5:10 PM
I think icebergism says it pretty well.
Posted by: Flo | February 17, 2009 5:41 PM
Flo, perhaps you and icebergslim should direct the forces to the location in Pakistan where those who attacked us are hiding.
Interesting how some democrats, Reid in this story, are OK with the deployment of additional troops when they had issues when President Bush sought the same. Are the protesters going to camp out at Obama's Chicago home such as Cindy Sheehan and the idiots that tagged along? Just because the president is of a different political party doesn't mean that our troops are in less harm or have somehow obtain superhuman powers.
No war will ever be won in Afghanistan, just look at history, but we can look for and search for the rats that choose to hide from us.
Posted by: Cindy Sheehan | February 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Have to just love ole' Harry "the war is lost" Reid and Obama now supporting a "surge" strategy, while Pelosi gets blessed by the Pope. I bet the MSM and lefties join the new warmongers battle cry, now that their hero has spoken. This is a grave mistake. Where is this international support Obama promised to deliver to the war or was that just more BS for votes? Just like Vietnam, the Democrats will lead us into a quagmire conflict with our warriors restricted by lefty PC idealism on how to fight it and it will be a prolong disaster. This old warrior says get out ASP!!!
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 17, 2009 6:17 PM
I am in general agreement with Ice. The time for big action in Afg. has long past.
Afg. has Tar Baby (VietNam) written all over it now. Early on in 01/02 when we had some big mo behind us, and the rest of the world was the golden opportunity.
GWB squandered it. (suprise). Now BHO is going to have to finesse this somehow. Hopefully he has read the history books.
Further, we have squandered so much of our own wealth and power in the last 8 years that it's questionable that we can sustain any long term effort involving 500K troops, or more.
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | February 17, 2009 6:25 PM
Obama will likely lose this war for us... he already was caught completely asleep while the Russians nabbed the Kyrgiz air base SO vital to any plans for a US "surge" strategy in Afghanistan (which Obama has endorsed, interesting because he was one of the most vocal opponents of the SAME strategy in Iraq... which obviously worked).
The MSM is too busy with articles on his puppy-vetting process and how he likes to play "hoops" to call him on all these serious strategic errors and blatant misrepresentations of the truth... but they can't hide failure and humiliation forever-- it's coming, unfortunately.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-must-our-enemies-think.html
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | February 17, 2009 7:03 PM
Well since the Taliban has overrun northern Pakistan I think it is time to take away their sanctuary. Besides the Taliban has stated that their goal is to spread Sharia law world wide. Why wait til they get here?
Posted by: Michael | February 17, 2009 7:13 PM
The Pentagon with its Bush leftovers wanted four more brigades-3000-3500 x 4 = 12000-14000. Looks like Obama is keeping pretty much in step with the Bush people--give or take 2000. Obama knows what 'on the double' means--and, man, he can jump to it. Doesn't Obama have any of his own military people? Looks like Obama allowed the Bush suck-up Betrayus to decide billions of military dollars and potentially hundreds more of American troop deaths. Pathetic. Its going to be Obama's war now. Did he really take time to think this over? WHAT IS OBAMA'S EXIT STRATEGY FROM AFGHAN???? DID THE PENTAGON HAVE ONE FOR AFGHAN--AS THEY DID NOT HAVE ONE FOR IRAQ???? THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE. WHAT IT IS AIN'T EXACTLY CLEAR.
How does one "win" in Afghan? We don't have the funding for more deficit "war" spending. This is another black hole with no way to win. Get rid of the Afghan's funding--napalm the poppy fields--or pay the growers to plant fruit trees instead of poppies--as suggested by someone at the Guardian. Try this before more troops are killed in the asymmetrical fighting. Low tech seems to always beat high tech. Or, does this just mean that the "experts" at the Pentagon are less than low tech? Yep. Keep the unemployment rate high so kids will enlist into the military. THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN. Take the best rural kids and destroy their lives. Allow good kids in boot camp to drown in base pools--as happened a few years ago--because the drill instructors are callous and treat the recruits like pieces of meat. Yep. Put more kids through the grinder for no exit strategy. Gooooo Afghan!!!!!!!
Posted by: Vivian | February 17, 2009 7:43 PM
I'm not in favor of a "surge" just getting things under control. I was totally against invading Iraq. Note this:
"The president is meeting a standing request from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, who has sought as many as 30,000 additional U.S. forces to counter a resurgence of Taliban militants. The increase is backed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates."
If Obama ignored the request of his commander and Sec. Def. everyone would be blistering him. Give me a break.
Posted by: Flo | February 17, 2009 8:11 PM
Jr. screwed the pooch by not focusing on Afganistan in the first place. Now it's likely to become Vietnam redux, if it isn't already. We still have to keep the heat on the Taliban, however, to keep a nuclear armed Pakistan from falling into their hands. Karsai is a liability, working both sides of the fence. If ever a U.S. president inherited a train wreck, economic crisis, foreign policy crisis, climate crisis. Thanks for nothing, Pugs.
Posted by: dt☢ | February 17, 2009 8:13 PM
Pakistan has nukes, and bin laden; Afghanistan is going down the tubes due to Bush's neglect while focusing unnecessarily on Iraq. We definitely need to stabilize and keep al qaeda from getting organized. But no, we don't need regime change and a long occupation. Obama obviously has to comply at this point with the request of Gates and McKiernan.
Posted by: rupert | February 17, 2009 8:23 PM
Isn't it amazing how the Republicans who supported Bush's wars suddenly become isolationists when a Democrat wins the WH. Like the economy, Afghanistan is unstable due to Bush, and we can't just walk away from it. Or did Bush catch Osama Bin Laden and forget to tell us?
Posted by: mort | February 17, 2009 8:28 PM
Isn't it amazing how the Democrats who did not support the wars suddenly become hawks when a Democrat wings the WH? No good will ever come out of Afghanistan, let's just kill those that need killing and get out. Did the Democrats think that Osama Bin Laden was caught during the Bush years when they were whining about the wars? So now it is OK because he hasn't been caught, wasn't caught back then either.
Bunch of morons and irrational logic you idiots use.
So now there are national security threats from Al Qaeda? You whiners shouldn't flip the same position just because a different party is in the WH. The same threats that we had during the Bush years are the same threats that we will have with Obama and beyond. I would prefer they focus the fighting on those lands than here on our land.
Thank you to all those who fight on our behalf.
Posted by: Mort Moron | February 17, 2009 8:59 PM
"Isn't it amazing how the Democrats who did not support the wars suddenly become hawks when a Democrat wings the WH? No good will ever come out of Afghanistan, let's just kill those that need killing and get out." Posted by: Mort Moron
What an idiot. You can't even read. Don't put words in my mouth.
Posted by: mort | February 17, 2009 9:16 PM
This is a grave mistake. Where is this international support Obama promised to deliver to the war or was that just more BS for votes? Just like Vietnam, the Democrats will lead us into a quagmire conflict with our warriors restricted by lefty PC idealism on how to fight it and it will be a prolong disaster. This old warrior says get out ASP!!!
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 17, 2009 6:17 PM
...
Calling your self a"warrior" now huh? Is that what you armchair chickenhawk Repugs are calling yourselves nowadays? HAHAHA!
I see there are still Wingnuts (you) all over crowing that Bush won the Iraq war. HAHAHA!
In the twisted Repug minds, occupying Iraq with 130,000 troops and paying off warlords not to shoot at us and each other, is victory.
There is going to be a civil war in Iraq no matter if we stay there for 100 years (like the Repugs want to do) or start leaving now like Prez Obama is starting to do. The Iraqi's have been fighting each other for over 1300 years, the only one's they hate more than each other is us. Heckuva Job, Repugs!
Which leads us to Afganistan, which thanks to the BushCo Repugs, again, has turned into a giant stinking cluster#&%$ because they ignored it. Heckuva Job...again, Repugs.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 17, 2009 9:21 PM
C'mon "Mort Moron" we never opposed going into Afghanistan and chasing down Al Qaeda after 9-11; it's when Bush pulled forces away from there and attacked Iraq that we had differences. Get a brain, dude.
Posted by: rupet | February 17, 2009 9:25 PM
Bunch of morons and irrational logic you idiots use.So now there are national security threats from Al Qaeda? You whiners shouldn't flip the same position just because a different party is in the WH. The same threats that we had during the Bush years are the same threats that we will have with Obama and beyond. I would prefer
Posted by: Mort Moron | February 17, 2009 8:59 PM
What Democrats didn't support Afganistan? We supported Afganistan all along we just didn't support the Repukes when they decided that it was a good idea to follow W. and Cheney over to Iraq for no reason and blow off Afganistan like they did.
Posted by: Leo T | February 17, 2009 9:36 PM
These college folk have narrowed bin Laden's location to one of three compounds inside Pakinstan. BO said he would bomb Pakinstan to get bin Laden, now's the time to put up or shut up. If he is a little worried about children causalities, maybe he could put Janet Reno in charge - she has no problem with children casualities.
.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-02-17-osama-geography_N.htm.
.
Where's FITZ calling for the troops to come home?
Posted by: Terry | February 17, 2009 9:52 PM
The first point is to the amazment of the boneheads who are surprised to see, in their words, now all of a sudden the left wants a war. Had you been able to remove your head from your backside you might have actually heard that we felt Afghanistan was "always" the real war on terror. Once again, the right screwed the pooch and left a mess. Quite simply put...the Afghanistan war on terror would be over long ago had the republicans not failed America with their ill concieved ill planned war in Iraq. While they were busy calling all that opposed the war unamerican......they let America down with incompetence.
ps....Nice of the child to add moron to a posters name. You're a prime example of the losers who couldn't remove their heads from their a$$.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2009 10:46 PM
WAR (R) = BAD
WAR (D) = GOOD
The chicken hawks(D) have awoke!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | February 17, 2009 11:26 PM
B.P. poster @ 9:21 PM...if you are going to continue to post using my identity please drop all the liberal BS!! Makes my dog puke.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 18, 2009 7:52 AM
So now Bubba Porter considers Defense Secretary Gates (a Republican) advice to be liberal BS. Hope your dog is feeling better, Bub.
Posted by: Flo | February 18, 2009 8:35 AM
Obama's illegal wars are breaking the back of middle class America. Obama's reccession could be solved by ending Obama's hawkish war policies.
Posted by: Slim | February 18, 2009 10:43 AM
It is obvious that Bubba Porter didn't hear the outcry from the left about them taking their eye off the real war in Afghanistan for their ill concieved, ill planned disaster in Iraq. They were so busy shouting how unamerican we were that it simply went over their tiny heads. Afghanistan would be over had they not have gotten their testosterone mixed in with their thinking. Congratulations Bubba...thanks to you more lives and fortune will need to be thrown at this mess you have made. Keep your hormones in check and your head out of your backside and get with the program.
Posted by: bill r. | February 18, 2009 10:44 AM
You lefties change with the wind. Sure, there have been some that supported Afghanistan, but many didn't. Those little dramatic marches focused not only on Iraq, but Afghanistan as well, all war. Unfortunately your brains can't process rationally. That annoying and ugly Cindy Sheehan and her supporters stalked the president at his ranch for all war.
From what I have heard and read, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. I for one, think it is great that the former dictator is no longer in power. I remember certain democratics stating that he had weapons of mass destruction, including Billy Clinton.
So Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are in Afghanistan. But we should only focus on one?
Afghanistan is not winnable regardless of who the Commander in Chief is. It will be another Vietname regardless if a (D) or (R) is in office.
Will you lefties demand of president Obama to allow pictures and footage of the flag draped coffins to be shown?
Will you lefties not oppose funding for the wars, including a surge in Afghanistan that at several points money for troops and a surge were opposed by His Highness, King Obama?
If Afghanistan was always supported by you lefties, how come Feinstein (D) is revealing secrets to our enemy regarding the stationing of our Predator Drones? I did not hear any outrage from the left about that?
WILL YOU LEFTIES BE DEMANDING THAT OBAMA'S DAUGHTERS GO JOIN THE WAR as you did of president Bush's daughters? If Obama is hawkish and wants a surge and is willing to risk the lives of our brave men and women, he should be willing to have his daughters there - this is simply based on the logic used against President Bush.
No. That is not in your talking points. You haven't been told what to think about that yet, and won't be.
From what I remember many of the (D) leaders and loudmouths saying, was end all war. End all funding. That money being used for war could be used for things here at home.
But now war is good. It is so sad that your hatred of President Bush is greater than that of the terrorists. You couldn't support him no matter what simply because of his political party. I did not vote for THE ONE, but he is my president and I will support him.
Posted by: RupetBubbaFloLeo | February 18, 2009 2:31 PM
Posted by: RupetBubbaFloLeo
Hilarious!!
Why not expend your efforts on something productive?
Posted by: Flo | February 18, 2009 6:19 PM
Well there's more TROOPS FITZ IS GOING TO BE ASKING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO BRING HOME
Posted by: Terry | February 18, 2009 7:56 PM
Auntie FLO, I think what is hilarious is when you and those like you have nothing to say and respond with a stupid comment, yet never follow what you are telling others to do. Why don't you expend your efforts on something productive if that is how you feel? That is what is hilarious.
Posted by: RupetBubbaFloLeo | February 18, 2009 8:42 PM
Posted by: RupetBubbaFloLeo
You're a moron; your rant if full of lies; it's nonsense; you totally misstate what we've said; you say nothing of what al qaeda will do to us if we leave Afghanistan.
Posted by: Flo | February 18, 2009 9:51 PM
R-B-F-Leo,
Nobody ever said any of that you idiot.
Posted by: OldCreaky | February 18, 2009 9:55 PM
Pointless. You aren't going to be schooled on these boards. You have your talking points and that is all that comes out of your mouth. WOW! What a bunch of sheep some of you people are.
You never say nothing of what al qaeda will do to us if we leave Iraq. You never explain yourself.
OldCreapy, yeah, nobody ever said any of that. Yeah right. Go wait for your orders on what to say or believe next.
Flo & OldCreapy are really the same person, FLO just wanted to make it seem as if somebody is on her side.
Posted by: RupetBubbaFloLeo | February 18, 2009 10:11 PM
Posted by: RupetBubbaFloLeo
Sorry, I take it back. You'll never do anything productive. But enjoy Limbaugh and Hannity.
Posted by: Flo | February 18, 2009 10:47 PM
Icebergslim is almost right, correct, the operation doesn't need to be carried out w/ "hundreds of thousands of men...", most of us would just prefer a massive air strike, w/ a few a nukes tossed in for good measure, turn the place to glass, and call it a day. You people are morons. Not one good thing has ever come out of that useless place, unless you're a heroin addict.
Posted by: AugustWest | July 3, 2009 9:33 AM