• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops - CBS News

Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops. A senior officer says "that's close to what [McChrystal] asked for." All the president's military advisers have recommended sending more troops.
Click to expand...

That's certainly a surprise, and quite different from what was being floated as a trial balloon over the past few weeks.

I found this part in particular quite interesting:

The buildup would be expected to last about four years, until McChrystal completes his plan for doubling the size of the Afghan army and police force.

With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.
Click to expand...

Given that Obama's proposed pace for withdrawal is largely identical to the timetable that President Bush negotiated, it looks like the total number of troops deployed overseas will be essentially identical to what it would have been had McCain been elected.
 
With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.
Click to expand...

What the hell's the point of sending them if it's going to take four years to get them all in theater? That's friggin stupid!
 
Update: MSNBC is running with a "white house sources say no final decision has been made" as if to pull back from this, but the AP has independent confirmation of the timetable and hints that the CBS numbers are accurate.

The Associated Press: AP Top News at 7:38 p.m. EST
 
Great news. I'm happy he listened to GEN McChrystal and his military advisers.
 
apdst said:
What the hell's the point of sending them if it's going to take four years to get them all in theater? That's friggin stupid!
Click to expand...

Read the article:

The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there.
Click to expand...

That's 1 year, not 4.
 
I would love to see McChrystal's plan for this Afghani police force, and how he's going to keep it integrated.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I would love to see McChrystal's plan for this Afghani police force, and how he's going to keep it integrated.
Click to expand...

Every Afghani police force and army unit will be working in conjunction with Army platoon sized elements. The parts of the plan that aren't classified have been released to the public, I'm sure you could find the rest of it online if you wanted.
 
apdst said:
Not much of an improvement.
Click to expand...

How quickly do you think he can feasibly get troops there? Considering the time it takes to prepare soldiers for deployment and the logistics involved one year seems to be just the right time frame.
 
RightOfCenter said:
How quickly do you think he can feasibly get troops there? Considering the time it takes to prepare soldiers for deployment and the logistics involved one year seems to be just the right time frame.
Click to expand...

6 months, at the most. Probaly less. It didn't take but a couple of months to put 7 divisions in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield.
 
RightOfCenter said:
How quickly do you think he can feasibly get troops there? Considering the time it takes to prepare soldiers for deployment and the logistics involved one year seems to be just the right time frame.
Click to expand...

Plus the time it takes to free up troops from the Iraqi theater.
 
RightinNYC said:
What a surprise that you're reacting this way.
Click to expand...

oh yeah! I'm an asshole for wanting a faster reinforcement of our soldiers that are already in country. How silly of me!
 
apdst said:
6 months, at the most. Probaly less. It didn't take but a couple of months to put 7 divisions in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield.
Click to expand...

Active duty soldiers who are always in training to be deployed. It takes just about a year to prep a National Guard or Reserve unit for deployment.
 
reefedjib said:
Plus the time it takes to free up troops from the Iraqi theater.
Click to expand...

As a point of clarity, it appears that the brigades will be deployed from the US, not Iraq.

apdst said:
oh yeah! I'm an asshole for wanting a faster reinforcement of our soldiers that are already in country. How silly of me!
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I said, though you're free to read it however you like. What I was getting at is the fact that Obama could **** solid gold bricks and you'd complain about how he was causing turbulence in the commodities market.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Active duty soldiers who are always in training to be deployed. It takes just about a year to prep a National Guard or Reserve unit for deployment.
Click to expand...

That was before we had so many combat experienced NG units, too.

But, again, it only took a couple of months to insert 7 divisions, including national gaurd units, into Saudi Arabia back in '90.
 
apdst said:
That was before we had so many combat experienced NG units, too.

But, again, it only took a couple of months to insert 7 divisions, including national gaurd units, into Saudi Arabia back in '90.
Click to expand...

It took Bush 6 months to put 20k troops in Iraq, so it doesn't seem particularly insane for Obama to take 12 to put 34k in Afghanistan.
 
apdst said:
That was before we had so many combat experienced NG units, too.
Click to expand...
Combat experience, while good, doesn't stop those units from needing to be re-certified and re-trained in techniques that the Army has decided they need to be successful in Afghanistan. Also, most reserve units spent their time in Iraq fighting a much different war than they will be fighting in Afghanistan, especially under McChrystal's new overall strategy.

But, again, it only took a couple of months to insert 7 divisions, including national gaurd units, into Saudi Arabia back in '90.
Click to expand...
Insurgency operations in Afghanistan are a lot different from the more conventional conflict that was fought during Desert Shield.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Combat experience, while good, doesn't stop those units from needing to be re-certified and re-trained in techniques that the Army has decided they need to be successful in Afghanistan. Also, most reserve units spent their time in Iraq fighting a much different war than they will be fighting in Afghanistan, especially under McChrystal's new overall strategy.
Click to expand...

That's why some of us have been harping on getting the ball rolling all this time.


Insurgency operations in Afghanistan are a lot different from the more conventional conflict that was fought during Desert Shield.
Click to expand...


What's that got to do with inserting troops into a theater of operations. Planes all land the same.
 
RightinNYC said:
As a point of clarity, it appears that the brigades will be deployed from the US, not Iraq.
Click to expand...

Sure, as troops deployed in Iraq return for rest and refit. I read thaat we are trying to keep 1/3 of the troops deployed abroad, 1/3 refitting and recuperating, and 1/3 in reserve. As troops in Iraq come home, fresh troops from the states can go to Afghanistan.
 
apdst said:
What's that got to do with inserting troops into a theater of operations. Planes all land the same.
Click to expand...

If we wanted to we could put every soldier in the Army in Afghanistan in a couple of months. That's also if we wanted to send them there without the training that the Army has decided they to effectively do their jobs, not to mention not dying.
 
reefedjib said:
Sure, as troops deployed in Iraq return for rest and refit. I read thaat we are trying to keep 1/3 of the troops deployed abroad, 1/3 refitting and recuperating, and 1/3 in reserve. As troops in Iraq come home, fresh troops from the states can go to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant that it looks like most of the troops scheduled to be deployed are already here in the US, rested up and ready to go.

The plan under consideration would call for sending the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Ky.; the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum, N.Y.,; and a Marine brigade for a total of 23,000 troops. An additional 7,000 troops would staff a new division in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

White House Leans Toward Sending More Than 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan - FOXNews.com
 
RightinNYC said:
Sorry, I meant that it looks like most of the troops scheduled to be deployed are already here in the US, rested up and ready to go.



White House Leans Toward Sending More Than 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I am not saying that troops in Iraq will be brought home, rested, then sent back out as the initial surge (they may well replace units in 18 months or 2 years). I am saying that to keep the reserve and refit balance, troops have to come home before other troops can be sent.
 
RightinNYC said:
It took Bush 6 months to put 20k troops in Iraq, so it doesn't seem particularly insane for Obama to take 12 to put 34k in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

And, that somehow, makes it ok?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom