17k More Troops To Get Orders To Afghanistan

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Previous | Main | Next »

17k More Troops To Get Orders To Afghanistan

January 27, 2009 4:04 PM

ABC's Luis E. Martinez reports: When President Obama visits the Pentagon tomorrow he will be presented with plans that by week's end could see as many as 17,000 additional US troops receiving their deployment orders for Afghanistan.

Testifying on Capitol Hill today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there is little doubt that Aghanistan is the greatest military challenge for the US right now. To that end he spoke of the well-known request from the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, for additional brigades and for the first time he outlined an expedited timeline for their arrival which Obama will likely be presented with tomorrow.

Asked by Senator Carl Levin if a troop increase in Afghanistan was still dependent on the further drawdown of troop levels in Iraq, Gates replied, "Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think that we are actually in a position to address most of General McKiernan's requirements in the relatively near future." He added that, "Should the president make the decision to -- the final decision to deploy additional brigades to Afghanistan, we could have two of those brigades there probably by late spring, and potentially a third by mid-summer. "

Gates' answer was a faster timeline for the arrival of the requested brigades than either he or Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have outlined before. Both have said in the past that the Pentagon could send two additional brigades to Afghanistan by the summer and that it would take time to send the a third brigade and the additional "enabler" troops to support their effort.

Two Defense Officials say that Gates was referring to plans that will likely be presented to President Obama tomorrow during his meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plans will identify the three brigade combat units that will head to Afghanistan later this year and some of the enabler troops -- this could total around 17,000 troops. Orders will go for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade to arrive in the spring, counting their self-contained support and aviation units, this combat brigade plus enablers could total about 10,000 in number. In the late spring or early summer, an Army Stryker Brigade will flow into Afghanistan, that's about 4,000 troops. A third Army Brigade Combat Team will flow into Afghanistan in the fall, that's an additional 3,500 troops.

Pentagon planners have estimated that meeting McKiernan's request will take 25,000 troops over the next 18 months. It is possible that by Thursday, the Pentagon may have given orders to a significant portion of the requested troops to begin flowing into Afghanistan. The first of the four additional brigades that Gen McKiernan has requested, the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division has already begun flowing into Afghanistan. This week's orders would be for the additional three brigades and enabler troops that would meet his request.

Gates said later in his testimony that he would be skeptical of further troop requests from McKiernan in Afghanistan noting how important it is to put an Afghan face on the conflict and learning from the Soviet Union's mistake in the 1980's when even 120,000 troops weren't enough to win there. He reaffirmed the US mission there will last many years.

"This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan," Secretary Gates said. "Afghanistan is the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world, and if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience or money, to be honest. Now, we can help the Afghans....But it seems to me that we need to keep our objectives realistic and limited in Afghanistan. Otherwise, we will set ourselves up for failure."

Also, Gates says he doesn't envision any further significant troop flows into Iraq given the various drawdown schedules in place, namely the SOFA that requires all US troops out by the end of 2011.

January 27, 2009 | Permalink | User Comments (43)

User Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't consider myself a hawk, but the Taliban need to be defeated. They throw acid on women trying to go to school, attack artists and scholars, and harbor Bin Laden. I also think we should move into northern Pakistan and stop their operations there.

Posted by: Reason | Jan 27, 2009 4:41:29 PM

Let's ask the Russians how many troops we need to conquer Afghanistan....

Posted by: samhiguchi | Jan 27, 2009 4:49:07 PM

I thought Obama was going to surrender to them when he was elected

Posted by: hammer | Jan 27, 2009 5:09:16 PM

Total waste of time. Good point samhiguchi.

Posted by: Huh | Jan 27, 2009 5:18:35 PM

Oh and a total waste of money. Forgot that one especially given the fact that we are broke.

Posted by: Huh | Jan 27, 2009 5:22:49 PM

samhiguchi, you are exactly right.

Posted by: Ken | Jan 27, 2009 5:24:15 PM

I have a son leaving for boot camp soon & he has already been warned that after bootcamp then 13 weeks of training to be pre-paired to there.

Posted by: Cindy | Jan 27, 2009 5:38:22 PM

Let's ask the Russians how many troops we need to conquer Afghanistan....

****************************************

Did we forget that we set up bin Laden? Sent money into Afganistan to defeat the Russians?

Or are we just playing the Snark?

Posted by: THinking | Jan 27, 2009 5:42:19 PM

THinking - Nobody forgot the irony. How about Israel training and funding Hamas in the past to counter the PLO.

Posted by: Huh | Jan 27, 2009 5:43:40 PM

Hey we just paid $40k to the families of the 15 civilians that we killed in Afghanistan. What an excellent business/military model this endless war is.

Posted by: Huh | Jan 27, 2009 5:51:59 PM

Great! Which companies will be replaced Halliburton? It's time to pay off some old favor(s) along the campaign trails ,isn't it? It's getting ineteresting.

Posted by: mtr2311 | Jan 27, 2009 6:02:37 PM

More into the "Meat Grinder..." Now that's what I call "Change!"

Posted by: hmn... | Jan 27, 2009 6:04:03 PM

What do you call Democrats who abhor Iraq's invasion but support assaults in Afghanistan that kill MORE civillians? Oh right, HYPOCRITES!!! Just another shell game, with your tax dollars and American lives. But hey, they're not "your kids" so: "screw 'em, they should have gone to college! Oh wait, some DID go to college? Well they are in the military so they aren't worth much." Love that liberal/conservative welfare/warfare "Empire NOT a state" mantra. How many civillians and US military brothers and sisters must die to fufill the agenda of the Obama/Bush plutocracy? Oh well, at least "your kids" are safe. You just have to pay the bill for all of this. Enjoy your taxes!!! Hope you can wash that pesky blood off your hands.

Posted by: hmn... | Jan 27, 2009 6:10:06 PM

Who did say Bush air-raided villages and killed innocent people? History is repeating itself, that's the irony of CHANGE!

Posted by: mtr2311 | Jan 27, 2009 6:17:44 PM

Gates is correct to be cautious. As several commentators here point out, there's very little to be gained in Afghanistan even under the best scenario, against a huge potential loss. How many more Americans will we slaughter? How many more dollars in debt will we dump on their next of kin?

Posted by: Avery St. Clair | Jan 27, 2009 7:33:48 PM

Bomber's Martyrdom Tape Renews Fears Over Consequences of Closing GitmoTuesday, January 27, 2009 Terrorist Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi talks about his time at Guantanamo Bay in this martyrdom tape obtained exclusively by FOX News.As President Obama pushes for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the debate over where to house the terror detainees being held there is heating up. An exclusive video of a former Gitmo detainee's martyrdom tape, obtained by FOX News, is a reminder of the concerns that terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies.Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi was transferred back to his home country of Kuwait after his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Last April he blew himself up in a homicide attack that killed 12 people in Mosul, Iraq. Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack. "In the name of Allah, most compassionate, most merciful and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet," al-Ajmi says in the video. "I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and, after we were tortured, connected me with the Islamic State of Iraq [ISI]. And it is the gift of Allah to follow the path of this nation, the ISI." In the video, translated by the NEFA Foundation, a non-profit that tracks terror groups, al-Ajmi mentions Guantanamo Bay right away. For many jihadists, having served time at Guantanamo is seen as a badge of honor.Al-Ajmi's attack is one of the most well known and well documented cases of an ex-Gitmo detainee returning to the battlefield as a homicide bomber. His video renews concerns of many in the intelligence community of the potential consequences by releasing these prisoners. Sixty-two detainees released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman

Posted by: neofred | Jan 27, 2009 7:40:39 PM

Let's quit the war on terror and wait for them to return to New York or L.A. We will fight it here, You Liberal New Yorker and Liberal L.Aers can all hide under your desks, while it all goes down

Posted by: neofred | Jan 27, 2009 7:45:24 PM

Here's how we can win in Afganistan.
Lets the in theater commander make all of the tactical decisions and our troops free to fight the war.
Remove all of the liberal press because the bad guys are using them as a mouth piece for their propaganda.
The alternative is to let barrack runs the war. With his knowledge of combat tactics, experience with the military and the supports of millions of lefties, maybe the bad guys can laugh themselves to death.

Posted by: Reality2009 | Jan 27, 2009 8:10:48 PM

This is going to get ugly, but Obama did promise this even though the mainstream media barely reported it. They needed to get him elected and Palin was a more convenient distraction.

Unfortunately, many more troops will die under Obama's command than they would have under McCain's. No question about it. And when other conflicts heat up (India/Pakistan & Israel/Iran), we won't have enough troops to assist our allies. I hope Obama's younger supporters are ready for CHANGE. The draft is coming.

Posted by: Tony D | Jan 27, 2009 8:31:34 PM

What's funny to me is that this "war on terror" reminds me so much of the "war on drugs" both caused by the power which wishes to quash them and both FAILED.....

Posted by: lookingahead | Jan 27, 2009 8:33:06 PM

Post a comment