# U.S. Says Attacks Are Surging in Afghanistan



## dapaterson (16 Jan 2007)

From today's New York Times:



> *U.S. Says Attacks Are Surging in Afghanistan*
> 
> By DAVID S. CLOUD
> Published: January 16, 2007
> ...



Full text online at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/world/asia/16cnd-gates.html?hp&ex=1169010000&en=8a932d6274d79f47&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2007)

This ought to debunk the story that the US is going to pull out of Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_re_as/us_afghanistan

Commander wants Afghan tours extended

KABUL, Afghanistan - The top U.S. commander in 
Afghanistan said Tuesday he wants to extend the combat tours of 1,200 soldiers amid rising violence, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was "strongly inclined" to recommend a troop increase to 
President Bush if commanders believe it is needed.


----------



## Franko (16 Jan 2007)

Wonder how this is going to influence the increase of troops to the big sandbox?

More than likely it won't, however, with the increases being proposed by Dubbia wouldn't it strain an already thin replacement pool?

Regards


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2007)

No question the OPTEMPO is high but we still have deployable units. Not sure how many troops the commander might be seeking but we could deploy a Ranger battalion I suspect and there are NG infantry battalions available for deployment.


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2007)

Out of curiosity, what's the U.S. looking like in terms of a strategic reserve these days? I recall reading somewhere that they had nothing brigade size or better that was deployable and not already committed to a particular theatre... Is the cupboard so bare as that?


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jan 2007)

Forty percent of the Army has NOT deployed to the sandbox - yet. The National Guard remains the strategic reserve. If we needed them they could be fully mobilized.


----------



## brihard (18 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Forty percent of the Army has NOT deployed to the sandbox - yet. The National Guard remains the strategic reserve. If we needed them they could be fully mobilized.



I know that N.G. equipment is generally pretty comparable, but how's their level of training and operation readiness if they need to surge, say, a couple batallions and an armoured regiment on 5 days notice? Pick some hypothetical political flareup... Say Taiwan or something.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jan 2007)

We dont have any NG units that could deploy on 5 days notice. We would be lucky to deploy a NG battalion/brigade in anything less than 60 days. In an emergency we might get that down to 30 days if they had all their equipment - a big if. If we need a battalion somewhere in the world we could deploy a Ranger battalion in 48 -96 hours probably. The 82d has a ready brigade that could be most anywhere in a week.


----------



## brihard (18 Jan 2007)

OK, gotcha. I genuinely had no idea what kind of ready reserve you guys keep...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jan 2007)

In the old days we had enough airlift to move the entire 82d, now the USAF would have to scramble to lift a brigade. The reason for that is an air force decision. They sold the C-17 as being more capable than the C-141 [it is] but we had 280 of them. The air force bought only half that many rather than a 1-1 replacement. We have plenty of C-130's but I sure wouldnt want to fly one from Ft Bragg to Korea or Kuwait and then jump into combat.


----------

