More Troops For The Forgotten War?

[Shooterman]

Well, it seems NATO was mostly blowing smoke.

Except for France.

U.S. may increase Afghanistan force by 7,000
Another 7,000 troops could be deployed in 2009

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and THOM SHANKER
New York Times

TROOP LEVELS

There are about 62,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, about 34,000 of them American, up from just 25,000 U.S. troops in 2005.

The U.S. troops are divided into a force of 16,000 who operate under NATO command and an additional 18,000 who are conducting counterterrorism and other missions under U.S. command, according to the Pentagon.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has begun planning to send as many as 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies, senior Bush administration officials said.

They said the step would push the number of U.S. forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began, and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.

The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing recognition of the fact that NATO was unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest last month.

The shortfalls in troop commitments have cast doubt on claims by President Bush and his aides that NATO was stepping up with more help in Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai's government faces a resurgent threat from the Taliban and remnants of al-Qaida.

The increasing proportion of American troops, from about half to about two-thirds of the foreign troops in Afghanistan, would be likely to result in what one senior administration official described as "the re-Americanization" of the war.

Two more brigades
"There are simply going to be more American forces than we've ever had there," said the official, who spoke anonymously because he was discussing future military planning.

A dozen NATO countries have pledged a total of about 2,000 troops, according to senior NATO officials. Senior alliance commanders in Afghani-stan have said they need about 10,000 new forces.

Only one country so far has actually begun preparing more troops to deploy: France, which is sending 700 troops to Afghanistan, NATO officials said.

Few of the additional troops are expected to materialize any time soon, the officials added.

Officials stressed that no formal new U.S. deployment plans for Afghanistan had been presented to the Pentagon or the White House, and that the decision could be left to the next president, though they would not rule out the prospect that Bush would order a troop increase.

Bush has long faced criticism that the Iraq war distracted the country from confronting the al-Qaida threat in Afghanistan, and Democrats as well as Republicans have expressed general support for shifting more attention to Afghanistan.

The initial planning under way would send about two additional brigades of U.S. forces, or about 7,000 troops, to Afghani-stan next year.

That would meet two-thirds of what commanders have portrayed in recent months as a shortfall of three brigades, or about 10,000 troops, including combat forces, trainers, intelligence officers and crews for added helicopters and troop carriers.

Bush administration officials initially argued that NATO should fill that void, because the U.S. military was overextended in Iraq. And publicly, the administration has remained mostly supportive of the alliance effort, with the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, declaring at the NATO summit last month that in addressing the problems in Afghanistan, "NATO's answer today is help is on the way."

The weeks leading up to the summit meeting included intense lobbying to increase troop commitments and lift some restrictions on how national troops operate and where. Over a private dinner in Bucharest, Bush and other leaders listened to their counterparts make their pledges.

Only France announced its pledge publicly.

According to NATO officials, Georgia, whose application for a fast track to membership was rebuffed, pledged 500 troops. Poland pledged 400 more troops and the Czech Republic pledged 120.

Italy, Romania and Greece made promises for military or police training teams. Azerbaijan and New Zealand also promised increases.

The results of the NATO session disappointed commanders in Afghanistan. A NATO military spokesman issued a diplomatically worded statement this week. "In the run-up to and during the Bucharest summit, nations added extra contributions," the statement from Kabul said. "However, shortfalls still exist."

Julianne Smith, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan policy institute, said the summit meeting did not live up to the expectations or the public celebration during the session.

"If you look at what the NATO commanders got, it's hard to see the silver lining," she said.

3,200 Marines deployed
As with previous shortfalls in NATO commitments, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could be prompted to fill the void, perhaps deploying other U.S. forces to replace the 3,200 Marines who arrived over recent weeks in what was described as a one-time, seven-month stop-gap deployment.

Gates did say publicly last month that the United States was prepared to commit additional forces to Afghanistan in 2009, but he put no number on the anticipated increase.

A senior Pentagon official said Gates made the announcement after consulting with Bush, arguing for a public statement that would prove to NATO allies that the United States remained wholly committed to the Afghan mission despite strains of the war in Iraq.

Senior officials said the 7,000 troops were about the most the U.S. military could add to Afghanistan in 2009.

U.S. may increase Afghanistan force by 7,000 troops | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

[Woodmonkey]

Forgotten war seems to describe Afghanistan to a "t."

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Forgotten war seems to describe Afghanistan to a "t."

I thought so too, Miss Katie.

[leobold1]

Make that a capital "T".

Afghanistan has been forgotten even in the months after 9/11. There was a big push on right after, it was all over the news, then it started to drop off around Christmas and the New Year. Now, you can go for more than a week without hearing about it, unless you really look. And if you watch only the local news...unless there's been a local death in Afghanistan, you can go months without hearing about it.