A Stealth Troop Increase
| Tue Sep. 1, 2009 9:37 PM PDT
Julian Barnes reports in the LA Times that the Army is planning a stealth increase in troop strength in Afghanistan:
U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with "trigger-pullers," defense officials say.
The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops — a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proven a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.
....The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, officials said....Such a request could be submitted in coming weeks.
McChrystal is definitely showing off that "political savvy" his bosses have been looking for. Still, an increase in combat troops is an increase in combat troops. It doesn't really matter how you get there. Just keep this in mind and add it to the total when McChrystal finally unveils his official request a few weeks from now.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Ah, this gives me a chance
Submitted by Ty Lookwell (not verified) on Wed Sep. 2, 2009 2:22 AM PDT.
Ah, this gives me a chance to post a link to the most insightful post I've read all week, which touches on Obama's Af-Pak policy, among other things:
this will not end well
Submitted by junebug on Wed Sep. 2, 2009 10:31 AM PDT.
"Still, an increase in combat troops is an increase in combat troops. It doesn't really matter how you get there. Just keep this in mind and add it to the total when McChrystal finally unveils his official request a few weeks from now."
I get your point, but McChrystal's thinking may be that a clever reshuffling, such as this, helps to reduce the number of troops in his request later this month. Or maybe not. Who knows? But I disagree with your comment that it doesn't really matter how you get your troop increase. It matters a great deal if it's achieved by the addition of military contractors. We've seen how this story ends: Blackwater in Nisoor Square; DynCorp running prostitution rings. The fact that this possibility is even on the table tells you just how desperate McChrystal is.
Check This Out...
Submitted by nepeta on Wed Sep. 2, 2009 7:51 PM PDT.
An expose, with photos, of the contractor craziness going on in Afghanistan right here in Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/animal-house-afghanistan
it is perfectly logical
Submitted by tpx on Wed Sep. 2, 2009 12:26 PM PDT.
Increasing the number of American trigger-pullers increases the number of dead Afghan civilians.
Ah, this gives me a chance
Submitted by sharoncollinsr on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 8:06 PM PDT.
Ah, this gives me a chance to post a link to the most insightful post I've read all week, which touches on Obama's Af-Pak policy, among other things, voucher code | promo codes are more important than ever to people trying to save money.
No Land War In Asia
Submitted by buddy66 on Wed Sep. 2, 2009 1:19 PM PDT.
I'm an old soldier and an old man. And I'm sick of always being right. I barely escaped a courts martial for criticizing our intervening in the Korean civil war. I was fired for denouncing our doing the same in Vietnam. I was laughed at as a silly old man and ignored for warning that Iraq would be a disaster. Now I'm back again...
I still subscribe to the notion of No Land War In Asia, since I consider everything east of Athens to be Asia. Afghanistan will be another disaster. It's terribly sad to be right about such awful things.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
