Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

CBS Exclusive: Sources Say Force Will Grow to 100,000 with Long-Term Stay Planned; White House Denies Report

(CBS) Editor's note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/...in5592551.shtml

We have denial, so it must be true!

[Kevin and 10]

We only hear about the number of GIs being deployed or shuffled. How many more mercenaries have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? These numbers aren't being reported in MSM. Pulling out troops and replacing them with 'contractors' is not scaling back.

[alienlovechild 75]

We only hear about the number of GIs being deployed or shuffled. How many more mercenaries have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? These numbers aren't being reported in MSM. Pulling out troops and replacing them with 'contractors' is not scaling back.

The people you're thinking of aren't mercenaries but they contractors.

"A mercenary is a professional soldier hired by a foreign army, as opposed to a soldier enlisted in the armed forces of a sovereign state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh...the good 'ol days when speaking of an exit strategy out of Iraq would flabbergast the war hawks by emboldening the enemy.

[alienlovechild 75]

Oh...the good 'ol days when speaking of an exit strategy out of Iraq would flabbergast the war hawks by emboldening the enemy.

Or the infamous timetables and breaking up Iraq into three nations by doves. Now asking for any strategy from Obama is nearly treasonous.

[Pooky 3,843]

Oh...the good 'ol days when speaking of an exit strategy out of Iraq would flabbergast the war hawks by emboldening the enemy.

Then reality hit home, the troop surge gave the commander on the ground the necessary resources to substantially fulfill his mission and stem the ability of foreign insurgents to wage their sort of conflict.

Past lessons should be a clear indicator to the President of his next course of action in Afghanistan. His hand-picked commander has requested additional resources. Putting these resources in theater at his disposal will bring about a successful outcome.

The alternative is to legalise heroin, subsidise the Afghan poppy farmers and cut off the bad guys' money supply. Either or, there's no real easy choice.

[Danno 1,228]

I;ve said it before and I will repeat it....

Obamer will vote "present" as he always has on issues he has no passion for.

He will send enough troops to cover his a$$ from a huge back-lash should things go downhill.

[nowhereman 1]

Oh...the good 'ol days when speaking of an exit strategy out of Iraq would flabbergast the war hawks by emboldening the enemy.

Or the infamous timetables and breaking up Iraq into three nations by doves. Now asking for any strategy from Obama is nearly treasonous.

In business we set goals & criteria for success, but Bush essentially wrote a blank check to the Iraqi & Afghani politicians & expected almost nothing in return. If a CEO did this he would be fired in a New York minute, but strangely the Republicans didn't see any problem at all with this when it came to war. Calling this disingenuous is an understatement to say the least.

As for Obama he inherited two wars: one started on incorrect (and many claim trumped up) intel & then incompetently executed for about 3 years & another started based on solid intel & executed properly for several years & then it turned sour because we let it. Although I do believe Obama should have made a decision sooner about the situation in Afghanistan lets be crystal clear on how we got to where we are today.

[NickD 203]

Sen. Feingold says, get out, and I wholeheartedly agree. No organized government in Afghanistan, just thousands of warlords. Our troops have to follow the rules of engagement, meaning they have to be shot at first before firing back, contractors do not. Sure that general wants more troops, more troops means more power for him. But what for? Nothing will change unless they kill everyone, but can't do that unless threatened first. All BS, and certainly not a war by any sense of the word. We are targets, they are like spies.

Doesn't anyone want to collect that 25 million dollar reward for Bin Ladden? And isn't our presence there giving them an excuse to find more terrorist?

If they want to send anybody, can send all these fatass cops in town Homeland security is paying for, just issue traffic tickets or fines for a burnt out license plate lamp. How come the front plate doesn't have a light? And does that tiny bulb really help with the super bright headlamps these cop cars have? Would be nice to be able to drive 26 in a 25 again without fear of getting a ticket.

[Kevin and 10]

We only hear about the number of GIs being deployed or shuffled. How many more mercenaries have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? These numbers aren't being reported in MSM. Pulling out troops and replacing them with 'contractors' is not scaling back.

The people you're thinking of aren't mercenaries but they contractors.

"A mercenary is a professional soldier hired by a foreign army, as opposed to a soldier enlisted in the armed forces of a sovereign state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

You know most soldiers never see combat, but they are still counted as 'boots on the ground', contractors/mercenaries are not.