Q: Should more US troops be sent to Afghanistan?
We need more troops. The situation is getting worse. We had the highest fatalities among US troops this past year than at any time since 2002. I would send 2 to 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan. Keep in mind that we have 4 times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in. That is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the US, and that the place where we have to deal with these folks is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s not just more troops. We have to #1, press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people; #2, we’ve got to deal with a poppy trade that has exploded; #3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. Until we do, Americans at home are not safe.
Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008
Hmmmm… You would think, then, that with his willingness to send in troops, actually sending them wouldn’t be a problem… But he’s stalling on sending more of them to Afghanistan. There’s nothing wrong with that, right?
Depends on the President. See, he did order some more troops back in February, but nowhere near the 40,000 McChrystal is looking for now. In doing so, he used the excuse that he had to do it because Bush wasn’t doing his job (a common refrain for any decisions our current President was against but had to change his mind on; just blame Bush).
Reporting from Washington – President Obama ordered his first major deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country.
The deployment will double the number of American combat brigades in the nation at a time of tension with Afghanistan’s weak government over civilian casualties of the campaign against the increasingly bold Taliban, and concern over neighboring Pakistan’s ability to fight Islamic militants based there.
In a statement announcing the troop increase, Obama directed veiled criticism at the Bush administration, noting that a request from Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had been pending for months.
“This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires,” Obama said.
In undertaking the “solemn duty” to dispatch troops to war, Obama also delved into one of the main issues of his long presidential campaign. While denouncing the Iraq war as a mistake, Obama repeatedly pledged to refocus on Afghanistan.
So… President Bush didn’t give it the attention it deserved, and we get a promise to refocus on Afghanistan, yet here we are wondering why Afghanistan hasn’t gotten the attention it was promised, and so far the only ink the story has gotten is in scolding General McChrystal got for daring to take the issue public after the President ignored him for months.
What happened to listening to the Generals on the ground?
Oh right… That only applies when you can use the Generals on the ground to point out how your predecessor failed and how you have to clean up his mess.
Got it.
So Mr. President… What strategic attention, direction, and resources are you currently providing in Afghanistan that your predecessor wasn’t?
I have all day.
Take your time.