Up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan by summer

[Al-zakir]

Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:11pm EST

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States is aiming to send 20,000 to 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan by the beginning of next summer, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Saturday.

Washington is already sending some 3,000 extra troops in January and another 2,800 by spring, but officials previously have said the number would be made up to 20,000 in the next 12 to 18 months, once approved by the U.S. administration.

"Some 20 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now. I don't have an exact number," Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters in Kabul.

"We've agreed on the requirement and so it's really clear to me we're going to fill that requirement so it's not a matter of if, but when," he said.

"We're looking to get them here in the spring, but certainly by the beginning of summer at the latest."

U.S. Army General David McKiernan, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan, has asked for the extra troops to combat a growing Taliban insurgency in the east and south of Afghanistan.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has pledged a renewed focus on Afghanistan, where U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in late 2001 after the September 11 attacks.

The United States now has some 31,000 troops in Afghanistan.

After the January deployment, most of the reinforcements are to be sent to southern Afghanistan to bolster mainly British, Canadian and Dutch troops who have suffered heavy casualties in the last two years fighting in the Taliban heartland.

"That's where the toughest fight is," Mullen said. "When we get additional troops here, I think the violence level is going to go up. The fight will be tougher."

He said beefing up U.S. forces in Afghanistan was linked to winding down in Iraq.

"Available forces are directly tied to forces in Iraq. As we look to the possibility of reducing forces in Iraq over the course of the next year, the availability of forces to come here in Afghanistan will increase," Mullen said.

INDIA-PAKISTAN

Mullen said the attacks by Islamist militants in Mumbai last month showed the need to reduce Indian tensions with Pakistan and that would help bring stability to Afghanistan.

"That's another big piece of the strategy, what I would call regional focus to include Pakistan, Afghanistan and India ... leadership in all three of those countries to figure out a way to decrease tensions, not increase tensions," Mullen said.
He said the late arrival of winter this year had meant there were still significant flows of militants from the tribal belt along the Pakistani side of the border, but better cooperation with the Pakistani military was nevertheless helping.

"We're not there, we still have a long way to go but we've actually made a lot of progress," Mullen said.

Mullen said the Afghan government was not as strong as he had anticipated and engaging with tribal areas in remote parts of Afghanistan could be central to future operations.

"We may have overstated the focus on the ability of the central government to have the kind of impact that we wanted given the history here in Afghanistan," Mullen said.

Mullen also said at the same time, more must be done to boost economic development in Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, and to make the Afghan government more effective.

"No amount of troops, no amount of time will provide a solution here without development," he said.


Up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan by summer | International | Reuters

[HAIDER]

Its all to keep NATO intact, otherwise EU is slipping away. Govt opposition parties are not supporting to keep troops in Afghanistan anymore. May be they see no outcome that's why. This must be news for Russia also, who is attempting to re- emerge as USSR bear again, who went long sleep after Reagan dose.

[roopesh]

Simple Question:
Is this going to help pakistan as they can move their military to kashmir side? (Pak prefers it i believe).

On the other side US army might increase the border violations more and killing innocent pak ppl?

[Silverfalcon]

This is the change our dear Obama was talking about. Moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan

The last 4 years were about Iraq and Afghanistan

The next 4 years are going to be about Pakistan ( destabilizing it ), the sooner we realize it the better the better it will be for us.

[Captain03]

poor afghanis
may god help them

[HAIDER]

According to unknown Russian General " Afghanistan is blackhole " it sucks inn everything and make it disappear from existence .

[Silverfalcon]

This has more to do with Pakistan then Afghanistan actually
All the 30,000 troops are being sent to get killed from the hands of Pakistan army and Mullah Omars men.

By sending the troops to Afghanistan , they indirectly mean sending the troops to Pakistan.

[Neo]

Afghanistan could get up to 30,000 new US troops

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan – The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 — the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south. But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan.

Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.

"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," he told a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul. "We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."

Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.

"The Taliban and extremists are more sophisticated and effective," Mullen said. "They haven't won any battles but they certainly have increased the level of violence, and we're very focused on that. That's why the additional forces are so important, to be able to provide security for the Afghan people so these other areas can be developed."

U.S. officials already have plans to send four ground brigades and an aviation brigade to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of the aviation brigade, defense officials told The Associated Press. And 10th Mountain Division forces will deploy next month to two provinces that neighbor Kabul — Wardak and Logar, which have seen an influx of militants over the last year.

Mullen said that after the additional U.S. troops are added over the next eight months, only improvements in Afghanistan's governance and economic situation will affect the strength of the insurgency.

But the chairman conceded that the U.S. may have misjudged the central government's ability "to have the kind of impact that we wanted."

Afghanistan, Mullen said, has never been run by a strong central government, and the U.S. may look to communities and tribes in the country's provinces to take on a greater role in future strategy.

He called U.S. goals in Afghanistan "moderate," and said the long-term U.S. vision is for a country that can govern itself while respecting international law, while providing both material and economic security for its people.

[SSGPA1]

Things will not improve in Afghanistan even if these troops are brought in today.

Afghans need hospitals, schools and other necessities so increase of troops will not help the situation.

Increaseof trrops will increase the rate of casualties for the US forces. Currently these 31,000 or so troops can hide in the bases but doubling the number will only expose them to the Talibans and others.

[Shiny Capstar]

A good move, yes it is hardly enough for a country like Afghanistan but it is better than before. With proper integration between NGO's and NATO forces more progress would be made, that is what is needed and even on the very small scale cooperation I have been involved in I have seen its benefits and what it achieves. If this was done on a wider scale with increased troop levels and general improvements to the ANA, (training, numbers and equipment etc), the Taliban movement could well be reduced somewhat, combined with some ideas coming out of the US eventually this could reduce it to a level where it is no longer a strategic threat the Government of Afghanistan. Only if more moves are made and more effort put in though.

[Mark Sien]

They secured Iraqi interests...they got the oil and their construction firms are feeding off it...now they need to focus on Pakistan.

[Shiny Capstar]

Originally Posted by SSGPA1

Increaseof trrops will increase the rate of casualties for the US forces. Currently these 31,000 or so troops can hide in the bases but doubling the number will only expose them to the Talibans and others.

It depends on the way you look at it, you say exposing more Americans to the Taliban. I say exposing more Taliban to the Americans.
In my experience and those who I have talked to it is not the Taliban who win the battles, even when they initiate fights on their terms.

[roadrunner]

30,000 is nothing. Not enough.

The Taliban are guerillas. The Soviets won most of the battles. The war was lost though. That is the nature of guerilla warfare.

[Jihad]

This will definitely involve and affect Pakistan, in a rather negative way..
Allah na kare..

[koolio]

Yeah to top it off more logistical supplies would be needed to feed more soldiers ammunition, sanitation and medical supplies because the only viable route is through Pakistan other routes through northern Afghan corridor will quadruple the expenditure and flying their supplies through Air is out of question its simply unaffordable.