More Troops For Afghanistan

[tomahawk6]

Petraeus: 20K troops for Afghan war from U.S.

By Frances D’Emilio - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Dec 9, 2008 15:46:12 EST
 
ROME — The 20,000 additional troops sought by American commanders for the NATO mission in Afghanistan would come from the United States, with any additional increase supplied by allies, the U.S. general who oversees the Afghan war said Tuesday.

Gen. David Petraeus, who is head of U.S. Central Command, was asked at an American institute in Rome, where he gave a speech, about beefing up troops in Afghanistan.

There are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, just over half of whom are from the U.S.

U.S. troop levels are already at their highest level since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban government after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But American commanders are seeking 20,000 more troops to stem the violence that has engulfed parts of the country.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has also called for increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan.

The increase of “somewhere around 20,000 or so” would come “on the U.S. side,” Petraeus told his audience, which included Italian military officers and political and strategic analysts.

As for any additional contribution from other NATO countries, “if you can ask the question in Brussels, we would be very grateful to you,” the general said.

NATO, which has its headquarters in Brussels, has been trying to invigorate what is seen as flagging European support for military operations in Afghanistan.

Petraeus did not say how many additional troops he would like U.S. allies to contribute.

He was scheduled to meet Tuesday evening with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, and on Wednesday with Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini.

Italy has 2,500 troops in NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Frattini said recently the U.S. should look elsewhere in Europe if it wants additional troops for Afghanistan.

Some U.S. political and military leaders have considered negotiations with elements of the Taliban as the insurgency gains sway in large areas of Afghanistan.

Petraeus appeared to distance himself from that possibility. He told his audience, without elaborating, that he has not said he would negotiate with the Taliban.

However, speaking about what was learned from the war in Iraq, where Petraeus had been the top commander, the general said it was important to separate the “irreconcilables” from the “reconcilables” among insurgents.

“If they are truly irreconcilable then they must be killed, captured or run out of the country,” Petraeus said. But the others, “if you do it right, can be embraced, can be made part of the solution instead of a continuing part of the problem, and that means though sometimes sitting down across from a negotiating table with people who may have your blood on their hands.”

 

[Binder]

I wonder what Canada will do when Obama requests that we stay beyond 2011 and/or supply more troops.  I read this article today in the Globe & Mail.  It's worth reading. 

The Headline reads "How coalition politics will soften Canada's defences"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081210.COMILITARY10//TPStory/Comment

Here's a bit:

"This has serious implications for the Canadian Forces and for relations with the United States. In the first place, the re-equipment of the armed forces, already slowed by an unwieldy procurement system, may not proceed under the coalition. The acquisition of new supply ships and Arctic patrol vessels; replacements for the navy's aged destroyers and for its frigates; the finalization of contracts for Chinook helicopters; new Hercules transports, unmanned aircraft and fighters; a replacement for the Aurora surveillance aircraft; new search-and-rescue aircraft, trucks and light armoured vehicles - all had become stuck in the sclerotic processes of the departments of National Defence and Public Works and could be killed. The Liberals have been lamentably soft on defence for the past 40 years; there is little doubt they will be even less interested in spending the very large sums that are necessary to restore the Canadian Forces if they are dependent on the NDP and Bloc.

This will have a serious impact on relations with Barack Obama's new administration, which will surely want Canada to do more in Afghanistan and in North America. The coalition document affirmed that Canada will keep its troops in Kandahar until 2011, but to do what? Will the battle group will be allowed to fight? Or would a new coalition government oblige it to pursue the passive, purely defensive role wanted by the NDP and Bloc?"

 

[tomahawk6]

They will probably deploy Marines to round out the Army deployment,which would ease the Army's burden somewhat. Another possibility is to replace a regular army brigade or two with additional Guard brigades similar to what we did in Bosnia.How many forces can be deployed will be limited by the precarious supply line from Pakistan.That has to ge top priority IMO.

Gates: More brigades to Afghanistan by summer

By LOLITA C. BALDOR - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Dec 11, 2008 7:11:12 EST
 
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The Pentagon is moving to get three of the four combat brigades requested by commanders into Afghanistan by summer, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday as he traveled here to meet with military leaders.

In his most specific comments to date about how soon he will meet the call for up to 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan, Gates said he will not have to cut troop levels further in Iraq to free up at least two of those three brigades for Afghan duty.

At the same time, Gates said a key “course correction” in the Afghanistan war for the administration of President-elect Barack Obama will be to build the Afghan army and better cooperate with Kabul on security operations.

“I think there’s a concern on the part of some of the Afghans that we sort of tell them what we’re going to do, instead of taking proposals to them and getting their input and then working out with them what we’re going to do, so it’s a real partnership,” Gates told reporters traveling with him to Afghanistan. “That’s an important aspect of this, that I think we need a course correction.”

Gates was scheduled to meet with Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and to gather with U.S. troops in Kandahar.

The meetings come as senior military leaders and the White House are pulling together a broad new military strategy for Afghanistan, one that would shift the focus from the waning fight in Iraq to the escalating Afghan fight.

Gates said he expects the troop levels in Iraq to remain fairly steady through the provincial elections early next year and “probably for some period of time after that.”

While there is wide agreement that the military emphasis will now shift to Afghanistan, long regarded as the secondary priority behind Iraq, there is still debate on how best to do it.

Gates would not detail any of the findings that have surfaced in the strategy reviews. But the push to increase the size of the Afghan army is reflected in at least one of the ongoing studies.

The White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the incoming Obama administration and Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, all are conducting their own reviews. Obama has said getting more troops to Afghanistan is a priority.

Gates said he has no details on the expected deployments to Afghanistan next year, adding that he has not approved any orders for specific units. He said the Joint Chiefs may have identified the units, but he’s not aware of those decisions.

He added that he does not know when he will be able to send the fourth requested brigade.

Gates and other U.S. officials have endorsed efforts to pour four combat brigades and thousands of support troops into Afghanistan to stem the spike in violence and tamp down the resurgence of the Taliban.

Officials already had announced that one unit — the 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division — would go to Afghanistan in January and that they would try to meet the rest of the troop requirements as soon as possible. But military leaders have resisted disclosing which units or how quickly they would go, saying much depends on how quickly troop levels can be cut in Iraq. A brigade is about 3,500 troops.

The U.S. is working to meet deadlines in its agreement with Baghdad that require combat troops to leave the cities by June and be out of the country in three years. As planned, the number of combat brigades in Iraq is dropping to 14 early next year, and Gates said that level will enable him to get a second brigade to Afghanistan by summer.

He said he’s not sure whether the third brigade will be redirected to Afghanistan from a planned tour in Iraq or if it can be found elsewhere.

Asked whether Marines may be tapped to go, Gates said the decision has not been made.

The top Marine officer, Gen. James Conway, told The Associated Press this week that he believes there is a growing consensus that Marines could be used to fill part of the need in Afghanistan. If approved, he said, some could go there in early spring.

“It’s clear that the Marines want to be in the fight, that’s what you’d expect,” said Gates, adding that it’s clear that the security situation has greatly improved in Iraq’s Anbar province, where the bulk of the Marines are. “I don’t have a problem with Gen. Conway’s desire to have a bigger part of the mission in Afghanistan for the Marine Corps.”

He said he will wait for recommendations from his military leaders.

There are 31,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 13,500 with the NATO-led coalition and 17,500 training Afghan troops and fighting the insurgency. There are 149,000 troops in Iraq.

Gates’ stop in Afghanistan was designed initially as a farewell tour to visit troops as he prepared to leave office. But that changed when he was asked to stay on by Obama, making Gates the new administration’s Republican holdover in the Cabinet.

During a NATO meeting in October, Gates asked allies to consider increasing troop levels in Afghanistan next year during the elections, a move that has been made for past votes, both there and in Iraq. Gates said the increase would be temporary, and it was not clear how many forces would be needed or who would provide them.

At the same meeting, the allies also agreed on to step up their operations to combat Afghan drug lords who fuel terror networks.

 

[CougarKing]

Update: Gates says more US troops could be going to Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gates

Gates: More US troops could head to Afghanistan
          Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 4 mins ago
FORT DRUM, N.Y. – The Pentagon's chief said Thursday he could send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year than he'd initially expected and is considering increasing the number of soldiers in the Army. Both issues reflect demands on increasingly stressed American forces tasked with fighting two wars.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' comments came during a short visit to Fort Drum in upstate New York — an Army post that that he said has deployed more soldiers to battle zones over the last 20 years than any other unit. Two Fort Drum brigades are headed to Iraq later this year, and a third is currently in Afghanistan.

Asked about Afghanistan by one soldier, Gates said, "I think there will not be a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000, at least probably through the end of the year. Maybe some increase, but not a lot."

So far, the Obama administration has approved sending 68,000 troops to Afghanistan by the end of 2009, including 21,000 that were added this spring.

The White House has wanted to wait until the end of the year before deciding whether to deploy more, but a defense official said Thursday that Gates does not want to discourage his new commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, from taking a frank look at how many troops he needs.

McChrystal, who took over as commander for all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, is expected to advise Washington in the next few weeks on his views of how to end, and win, the 8-year war.

McChrystal is nearing the end of a 60-day review of troop requirements in Afghanistan, and will soon provide that report to Gates.

The former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, had told Obama that he needed an additional 10,000 troops, beyond the 68,000. The White House had put off that decision until the end of this year.

Gates and other military leaders have said they are reluctant to send many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, because of concerns that a large American footprint there could appear to Afghans as an occupying force.

During a question-and-answer session with soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division, Gates also said he is looking at beefing up the Army with more troops. He did not say by how many, or what the plan would cost, but predicted that he'll decide as early as next week.

"We are very mindful of stress on the force," he said.

Most of the 200 soldiers in the short town hall-style meeting are headed to Iraq later this fall. Their commander, Maj. Gen. Mike Oates, returned from his third tour in Iraq only 50 days ago and said he is working to easing stress on soldiers and their family members who have faced a seemingly revolving door of deployments since 2001.

"What we're trying to do is help everybody receive this stress and deal with it better," Oates told reporters. "And there's a lot of room for growth there."

Gates stopped at Fort Drum on his way to Chicago, where he is expected to give a feisty speech Thursday evening hammering Congress for trying to tack on billions of dollars for additional F-22 fighter jets to the Pentagon's 2010 spending plan.

The Senate is debating whether to add $1.75 billion to the half-trillion dollar budget to buy more jets that supporters say will better protect the United States and save jobs in the faltering economy. Meanwhile, the House has voted to spend $369 million more as a down payment on 12 additional jets.

Speaking to reporters aboard his plane to Chicago, Gates would not link the F-22 spending directly to the costs that will be needed to grow the Army. But he called Congress' demands "a zero-sum game."

"A dollar for something we don't need is a dollar taken away from something we do need," Gates told reporters. "And we've got a lot we need."

He predicted the Senate vote on the funds will be close but noted President Barack Obama's threat to veto the added money should it be approved.