Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chairman Says Possible Buildup in Afghanistan Could Have Major Impact
American Forces Press Service ^ | Jim Garamone

Posted on 01/11/2008 3:49:52 PM PST by SandRat

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2008 – If Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates approves a proposal to send 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan, it could have a significant impact on operations in the country, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here today.

Click photo for screen-resolution image
Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, answers a question from local media during a Pentagon news briefing Jan. 11, 2008. Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Molly A. Burgess, USN
  

(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.
Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen said during a Pentagon news conference that the proposal is on the table and that the secretary has discussed it with military leaders, including the commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill. No decision has been made yet, he said.

The issue of additional forces to Afghanistan speaks to challenges NATO and the United States have faced there, Mullen said. Though there has been a “tremendous amount of success” in the country, it has been uneven, the chairman said.

He said NATO commanders in Afghanistan say their forces have had significant military impact on the Taliban in 2007. “We are in an economy-of-force operation there, and if we are able to create additional forces, we think it can have a big impact,” Mullen said.

The United States has made a conscious decision to economize combat power in Afghanistan. “We do what we can in Afghanistan; we do what we must in Iraq,” said a Joint Staff official speaking on background. “If we had these forces readily available, we would have sent them to Afghanistan already.”

About 27,000 Americans are serving in Afghanistan -- 14,000 as part of ISAF and 13,000 operating under Operation Enduring Freedom. The proposal for 3,000 more troops was a NATO request, but no NATO nation has stepped forward to fill that request. If Gates approves the proposal, the United States would fill that gap.

U.S. ground forces are under tremendous strain, Mullen said, and the current deployment tempo is proof of that. Army forces deploy for 15-month tours and then come back to home station for a year. Marine forces deploy for seven months and are back for six before redeploying for another seven.

“The strain on the force is something that is front and center in my mind all the time,” he said. “It is something we calculate when we get any request for forces from any commander, anywhere.”

Mullen said he is concerned about NATO nations not stepping forward with these troops. “I believe strongly that success in Afghanistan, in ISAF, for NATO, is a bellwether for whether NATO succeeds in the long run as an institution,” Mullen said.

The chairman also addressed the situation in Pakistan and reported that al Qaeda and the Taliban are using the federally administered tribal areas in that country to plan, train and finance operations inside Afghanistan and worldwide.

“We’re mindful that Pakistan is a sovereign country and it is up to President (Pervez) Musharraf and his advisors to address that problem directly,” he said.

The desperate poverty in Afghanistan complicates any security progress made there, Mullen said. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world.

Still, he noted, there have been major infrastructure improvements. Mullen said Afghanistan’s Ring Road connecting the country’s major cities is roughly 80 percent complete, and a dam project in the south promises economic progress to that troubled area.

“But we’ve got an awful long way to go,” he said. “There are 42 contributing countries. In the long run, we’re going to have to lift the economy to help bring a stable and secure environment.”


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; buildup; frwn; impact

1 posted on 01/11/2008 3:49:54 PM PST by SandRat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 91B; HiJinx; Spiff; MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia; clintonh8r; TEXOKIE; windchime; Grampa Dave; ...
FR WAR NEWS!
If you would like to be added to / removed from FRWN,
please FReepmail Sandrat.

WARNING: FRWN can be an EXTREMELY HIGH-VOLUME PING LIST!!

2 posted on 01/11/2008 3:50:15 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Hmmmm. I thought the President said if the commanders in the field said they need more troops he would get them. Let’s see how this plays out.


3 posted on 01/11/2008 4:13:57 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

So, even though the USA is busy fighting another war, and even though the USA already has more troops in Afghanistan than all other countries combined, NATO still looks to the good ole USA to supply still more troops. NATO is a joke.


4 posted on 01/11/2008 4:31:47 PM PST by ETCS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Heard the number 6,000 this morning.


5 posted on 01/11/2008 4:33:03 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETCS

The other countries should be participating more, no question, especially since the good old USA won’t be able to make up the difference if the Middle East oil is cut off again like they did last time.


6 posted on 01/11/2008 4:35:03 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Ultimately, we’re going to have to go into Pakistan.

Unless the current government changes policy or changes leadership for the better.

Either option is unlikely short term.


7 posted on 01/11/2008 4:36:38 PM PST by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

The troops ARE for Pakistan. Period.


8 posted on 01/11/2008 8:09:45 PM PST by ImaGraftedBranch (...And we, poor fools, demand truth's noon, who scarce can bear its crescent moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch; airborne; SandRat; All

Check out post #s 22 24 25 27 in “Musharraf’s Threat” thread. It will scare you.


9 posted on 01/11/2008 8:17:31 PM PST by NordP (Such tough choices ahead, I'm now a "middle of the road" voter--somewhere between RUSH & Savage ;-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

Musharraf’s Threat: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952338/posts


10 posted on 01/11/2008 8:19:20 PM PST by NordP (Such tough choices ahead, I'm now a "middle of the road" voter--somewhere between RUSH & Savage ;-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NordP
We need to neutralize those warheads as soon as we possibly can.

The Bhutto assassination was intended to upset US/Pak relations and make way for a coup from radical Islamists.

Sounds like it’s working, judging by the knee jerk reactions from even supposedly well informed people.

11 posted on 01/11/2008 9:49:26 PM PST by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson