PDA

View Full Version : 1,000 brits, 20K+ americans to be deployed in Afghanistan



skunk
09-22-2009, 01:24 PM
Army draws up plan to send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6843477.ece)

Britain is making plans to send up to 1,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to meet the call for reinforcements made by the US commander in Kabul.

The troops would be Britain’s contribution to a military surge called for by General Stanley McChrystal, who commands Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) (http://www.nato.int/ISAF/) in Afghanistan, some details of which were leaked to an American newspaper yesterday.

Here is the ISAF's own report (PDF file) (http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2009_03/20090331_090331_afghanistan_report_2009.pdf) on Afghanistan.

A similar surge in troop numbers was credited with turning the tide in the war against insurgents in Iraq.

Note how well the surge has worked in Iraq.

An extra 1,000 troops, the equivalent of a battlegroup, would increase Britain’s military presence to about 10,000. Britain’s force is already the second biggest after the US, which has 62,000 troops in Afghanistan and will increase this to 68,000 by the autumn.

What do brits think about this move?

In a choreographed plan by the Pentagon and the MoD, Nato would be requested for up to 30,000 extra troops to support the new strategy recommended by General McChrystal. Most of the reinforcements would come from the US.

What the article's title doesn't mention is the additional 20,000+ US troops.

What do amerikans think about this move?

Although Downing Street insisted yesterday that no formal proposals have yet been made, senior government figures acknowledge that a detailed request for more troops is being drawn up and will be presented to Gordon Brown and the Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, once the McChrystal report has been published officially.

In his report General McChrystal calls for a surge in troops to accelerate the training of the Afghan National Army. He warns that without more troops and a new strategy Nato will fail to defeat the Taleban. He gives Nato 12 months in which to regain the initiative.

Gen. McChrystal, how much do you make off the poppy trade?

Lexion
09-22-2009, 02:16 PM
What I find ironic, the guy McChrystal
replaced got the axe for asking for
more troops.

I think the term was "incompetent" for
the on-going situation.

McChrystal was the go-to for counter-
insurgency.

Now, he says he needs more troops.

Well, guess the other guy was right.

(can't recall his name off the top of
my head)

guinnessford
09-22-2009, 05:04 PM
Is this just to replace the troops that have been killed?

Im not gonna ask the obvious, but werent we supposed to be pulling out?

Lexion
09-22-2009, 05:07 PM
Nah, this if Afghanistan.

We're pulling out of Iraq.
(w/o even a reach-around)

They want a troop surge in
Afghanistan like the one that
supposedly freed Iraq.

McChrystal talked a good talk,
got the job and fell on his ass.

guinnessford
09-22-2009, 05:30 PM
I guess I was mistaken, I swear I heard a smoke up the ass story of a complete pull out from the region.

MSM at its best, or me just misunderstanding what they said.

Either way, they should all be bruoght home before another one gets killed.

We arent gaining anything there, Bin Ladens dead, and if he was alive we ant find him.

Fuckin I.R.S can find 5$ I stole, but the Guv couldnt locate a 6'6' guy attached to a dialisys machine.

Snow Crash
09-22-2009, 09:45 PM
Nah, this if Afghanistan.

We're pulling out of Iraq.
(w/o even a reach-around)

You don't get reach-arounds for corporately driven war based off lies and deceit.

Lexion
09-22-2009, 11:26 PM
You don't get reach-arounds for corporately driven war based off lies and deceit.

Please describe "corporate".

And "lies and deceit".

Talking 9/11 ?

I'm not going there.

Snow Crash
09-22-2009, 11:29 PM
You don't get reach-arounds for corporately driven war based off lies and deceit.

Please describe "corporate".

And "lies and deceit".

Talking 9/11 ?

I'm not going there.

Corporate, as in "of a corporate nature, of Corporations" and lies and deciet, as in everything to do with the War on Terror, the Saddam/Al CIAda link, the WMDs, the false flags, the quest for resources, and so on and so forth.

Lexion
09-22-2009, 11:54 PM
Ok....gonna leave the "corporate"
thing out.

Yes, the CIA funded the Taliban.

False flags ?

Doubt it.

Not subtle enough.

Need bang, for the buck.

Snow Crash
09-23-2009, 12:05 AM
Ok....gonna leave the "corporate"
thing out.

Yes, the CIA funded the Taliban.

False flags ?

Doubt it.

Not subtle enough.

Need bang, for the buck.

Don't take this the wrong way Lex, I don't mean this to sound as catty as its gonna sound, but I really cannot be arsed to dig shit up for you, as it appears that you've already decided your position on the Iraq situation, and I don't think me showing you anything will change a thing. So why waste our time? Know what I mean?

I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, though I will continue to vehmently oppose any notion that the Iraqis deserved to be invaded, and that it was done so to find WMDs, or terrorists, or the Lost Dutchman's Mine, or to save dmocracy from the Lucky Charms Leprachaun.