More Than 17,000 Troops Headed to Afghanistan

by Kal El on February 18, 2009 · Comments

Good news for Afghanistan, unless you are a Taliban jihadi, or a supporter. Hopefully this surge will have the effect the surge in Iraq had in 2007/08. And while I do constantly criticize his socialist policies, I have to commend Obama on taking swift action on this one.

The Obama administration will send additional troops to Afghanistan in the coming months

President Obama will dispatch more than 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, the White House announced Tuesday.

“This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan,” Obama said in a statement. “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 said the deteriorating security in Afghanistan made the troop increase necessary, adding that the country has not received the strategic attention or resources it needs.

Although 17,000 troops have been authorized to go, the Pentagon identified and mobilized only about 12,000. Of those troops, 8,000 will be Marines and the 4,000 others will comprise an Army Stryker Brigade.The additional 5,000 troops will be identified and announced at a later date.

But sources provided FOX News with the identity of all 17,000 troops: 10,000 will be Marines stationed in the South; 3,800 with an Army Stryker Brigade; 1,000 Special Operations Force trainers and 3,200 force enablers.

Obama also said he is withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq. He said that will give the Pentagon more flexibility in shifting troops to Afghanistan.

The troop increase is a down payment on a larger influx of U.S. forces that has been widely expected this year. It will get a few thousand forces in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national midyear elections.

A spokesman for Gen. David McKiernan told FOX News that they had already started to build camp barracks for the troops in anticipation of the announcement — knowing how sensitive the timing is given the spring fighting season.

It is generally takes about three months for an Army brigade to deploy to the combat zone.

This is the first time the new commander in chief has sent significant numbers of new forces into battle. Obama campaigned on a new strategy for the Afghanistan war, but he has taken his time to approve the new forces.

Link to article.

Related posts:

  1. Obama decides to put Afghanistan surge on hold
  2. Democrats attempting to cut off funding for any additional troops in Afghanistan
  3. Afghanistan: US General may resign if not given enough troops to win
  4. Afghanistan: Six Taliban killed by US coalition troops
  5. Latest in Afghanistan: Operation “Strike of the Sword”
  6. Troops in Afghanistan email: “Obama blew us off”
  7. US troops and NATO gather at Pakistan border
  8. Afghanistan: British Troops forced to share same hospital ward as Taliban jihadis
  9. 90 Mohammedans sent to paradise in Afghanistan
  10. British muslims fight in Afghanistan… For the Taliban
Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • JEWHAWK
    The anti-war mob already began to BASH Barack Obama...

    With all due respect to that woman who lost her son in Iraq,but
    she's absolutely WRONG about the need to defeat the hordes
    of the middle ages called TALIBAN.

    I urge Mr.Obama to employ all NAPALM from the U.S.inventory
    by dropping it against the TALIBAN...I want to see them ABLAZE.
  • Beejj
    Sorry, Jewhawk, but you are doomed to disappointment. The only combusting wogs you are likely to see are the females who have fallen foul of their male tormentors for having said Hello to a stranger or to one not of the family. You've got to hand it to them, though: these arseholes know how to use petroleum products for the greater glory of Islam.
  • Guest
    The user deleted this comment.
  • Tonto
    So waddaya want a cookie? Don't come here and dis the Greatest American President in recent history without backing it up. As far as I'm concerned you can crawl back in your academia hole and bury yourself, and take your "honors" and initials with you. Personally, I can't name a Democrap prez back to Truman that was less than a scumbag....and that includes JFK and the whole Kennedy clan.
  • Beejj
    Hello, Andrew. It might be a bit soon to pass judgement of any flavour on Obama, but I hope your words prove to be prophetic. When you say he is not racist (I am NOT disputing you!!) I hope you do not harbour an undercurrent of feeling that John McCain IS racist. Although I live far away from the USA I try to keep my finger on its pulse, and it seems to me that despite Obama's lack of racial discrimination, he won the most racial US election in history. After all, I believe something in the vicinity of 97% of Blacks voted for him. To put it another way, 97% of Blacks voted against McCain. If that's not racism in vigorous action, I don't know what is! Yet, we cannot blame Obama for that.

    Not living in The Land of the Free, it is difficult for me to render an opinion concerning the efficacy or otherwise of a President's effects upon his country's internal affairs, so any judgement I arrive at must be based upon his wider influence(s). Thus, I conclude that Ronald Reagan was the most successful US President of my lifetime, and I was born when FDR ruled the roost (don't start me on FDR!!!!), so I have seen a few. (Who was the worst? Without doubt, the Peanut Vendor.) After all, Reagan priced the Soviet Union out of existence, and that feat will go down in history as a stunning achievement: damned if I can think of a parallel. You must educate me by supplying details of Reagan's hideous crimes to which you allude, for I am the eternal student.

    Please, Andrew, don't tell the world of your ability to type so well. It doesn't become you. For my part, I can use but a single digit to type, for when I attempt to use two, they quarrel and gibberish ensues. I have long contributed to the thesis that typing is best left to the lower orders: it gives them something to do and keeps them out of mischief. And what's all this about your highest level of academic honours (capitalised, to boot!) at - where? How very embarrassing. You must strive to grow out of such things or you'll fast run out of friends. You see, I could spout similarly about my Cambridge days, but my mother taught me when I was a little boy the song, "How vain is man who boasts in fight/the valour of gigantic might ...." (Handel).

    As for your final paragraph, I confess to being bamboozled, but then, my educational experiences at Cambridge cannot hold a candle to those that forged you at Lower Merion High or Messiah College.
  • Beejj
    Moderator, why does my comment, written several days ago, not appear here?
  • It may have been lost throughout the whole change in comment systems. Please repost, we should have any more issues going forward.
  • Beejj
    Thank you, John. I wrote something along these lines .......

    America and other civilised countries involved in Afghanistan should withdraw all their troops from that mad country of warring tribes. Stop squandering lives and billions of dollars. Who gives a pinch of shit if such withdrawal results in the Taliban taking over again? The greater the spread of the Taliban, the more backward Muslim countries become. But they'll be able to establish more training camps for terrorists! So what? They already have more than they need. Consider the history of Afghanistan and see for yourself how all attempts to dominate the country by foreign forces have failed. Do people truly believe that by sacrificing its Youth in a Muslim country lasting good will come of it? Do they imagine they will be rewarded with gratitude and friendship? Just consider the Gulf War (the Mother of Battles - that lasted all of 43 days!!) and the sacrifices made by the Allied forces to expel the Iraqis (the murdering, torturing, raping, environmentally-ruining bastards) from Kuwait (whose ruling family fled the moment Saddam's heroes crossed the border). After liberation, Kuwaitis embraced the conquering Allies in a frenzy of passionate gratitude, but what is the situation now? They despise us. Recall the report of the Kuwaiti professor who recently fondly mused about the release of anthrax in the US? A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. They are not worth a single drop of our blood or a cent of our money. Bring the boys and girls home forthwith and keep a sharp eye on the activities of these fourth columnists as they try to spread their poison in our lands.
  • Greg
    Right on Tonto2. Aaaand, we have got to get rid of this game of oneupmanship, and stop hobbling our soldiers. NO MORE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.
  • Tonto
    Actually, the plan in Afghanistan is very different than in Iraq. It's not about democratizing the Afghans, that's impossible and wouldn't even work in their primitive society. It's about denying the ground to the Taliban and keeping Iran nervous. I don't think many outside the military understand the concept behind it all and just think it's a straight forward "conquer the bastards".......it's not. It's about gathering anti-taliban allies (who are all tribal and wishy-washy muz) against the taliban (who are Iran driven, and also wishy washy muz). Islam is a very secondary consideration in Afghanistan. The big deal is in political influence, which is what Iran wants and the US wants to deny. The primary aim of the "black robes" in Iran is a world wide caliphate to win back the dubious "glory" of 14th century islam. We're really just waiting for Israel to bomb the shit out of Iran and the revolution there to get underway. Once Iran is removed as a threat, our troops will return. Until then, it's "good training".
  • Tonto
    Hopefully with orders to waste anything with a beard that ain't a goat.
blog comments powered by Disqus