President Barack Obama approved the deployment of 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan on February 17, a decision that will increase U.S. troop strength in the mountainous Asian nation by more than 50 percent, from 33,000 to 50,000. The U.S. currently has about 14,000 troops serving with a NATO force and 19,000 troops under sole U.S. command. The additional force will be made up of 8,000 Marines, 4,000 Army soldiers, and 5,000 enabling forces and will be deployed in the south of Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgents have been most active and violent.

In a statement posted on the White House website, Mr. Obama said, in part:

The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.

To meet urgent security needs, I approved a request from Secretary [of Defense] Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer. This increase has been requested by General McKiernan and supported by Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Central Command....

This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.

"The decision was communicated to the Pentagon yesterday. The orders were signed today," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters traveling with Obama in Denver on February 17.

The new units to be deployed are the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, an Army Stryker brigade from Fort Lewis, Washington. Stryker brigades are equipped with eight-wheeled, 19-ton Stryker vehicles, which are more heavily armored than Humvees, but more maneuverable than tanks.

Agence France Presse reported that the Afghan government welcomed Obama's decision. "It's a positive move," Afghan defense ministry spokesman Mohammad Is'haq Payman told AFP. "But we have our own conditions. We want these troops to be deployed in areas where they could play a positive role in suppressing terrorists," he said.

And yet, as noted in "Obama's Afghan Problem," an article by Thomas Eddlem posted at TheNewAmeican.com, during an interview with the CNN show "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on February 14, Afghan President Hamid Karzai suggested that no agreement on additional U.S. troops in his nation had yet been made.

Was Karzai blindsided by the decision and invited to embrace it only after the fact, as would a junior partner? We do not know, but Karzai did express irritation during the interview and asserted that the U.S. government had tried to tarnish the image of his government as "part of a political pressure tactic."

The Obama administration, for its part, is still pursuing the same line used by the Bush administration ever since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Note that Mr. Obama said: "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border."

This last statement refers, of course, to Pakistan's announcement on February 16 that it had agreed to accept a system of strict Islamic law, or sharia, in the Malakand region of its North West Frontier Province (NWFP), as well as a suspension of military operations in the area, effectively abandoning it to the Taliban insurgents.

The Taliban, of course, are the regime that ruled Afghanistan and gave Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda a base from which to plan their 9-11 attacks. Many people believe bin Laden is still hiding in that same border region.

As our involvement in the area increases, and threatens to eventually involve areas of Pakistan, and possibly Iran, it is evident that many of those who voted for Obama for president missed half of his promises. Perhaps out of wishful thinking, they focused on the part about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Many apparently missed his parallel commitment to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. Is American blood, shed in Afghanistan, any less red than that shed in Iraq?
 
But what alternatives does the United States have? With troops in Iraq, with a buildup of troops underway in Afghanistan, our military hardly has the resources to extend the war on terrorism into Pakistan, as well.

Our current situation (like that in Korea and Vietnam), provides excellent insight into why the authors of Constitution insisted that only Congress can declare war. In order to marshal the support required from Congress for such a declaration, there must first be a clearly identifiable enemy, and following that declaration, it is rather easy to gain the support of the nation to fight the war to victory. The last time this happened was during World War II.

Going into war absent such a declaration and its accompanying clear-cut objectives, especially (as in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) under the auspices of the UN or one of its subsidiary agencies, is a recipe for an everlasting no-win war.

One would think our leaders would have learned their lesson by now. We either have a national propensity to elect very stupid leaders — or very smart leaders whose objective is an Owellian "perpetual war for perpetual peace."

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Dave B said:

I expect more from JBS JBS is known for exposing deceptions by our government. Larry McDonald was the bravest of the JBS leaders as he took on the CFR. Investigation clearly shows ample evidence (AE for Truth, 911 Truth, etc, etc), to doubt the whole basis of the 911 attack. JBS must show some bravery to take on this issue. If not, we will slip into total Fascism and JBS will have to admit their timidity and accept responsibility. Larry McDonald (nephiew of the great General Patton), would not have stood for this. The war on terror is in all probability a fraud.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 20, 2009
Votes: +2

danwhitehead1 said:

Still more of the same Again, I wonder why I'm not at all surprised at this development and am waiting with bated breath to hear what excuses will be puked up by the Democrat supporters who are ignorant and/or stupid enough to blame all the nations problems on the Republicans. Both parties are completely and thoroughly corrupt and are merely different sides of the same corrupt, ugly coin. Why not deplete the protection of the home front and national resources even further? What better way to deliberately bring the nation down? Make no mistake about it, this is being done deliberately. Daniel 4:17 clearly states that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." I'd say that the nation has had the basest of men in positions of authority for a very long time now. We get the government that we deserve, no?

report abuse vote down vote up

February 20, 2009
Votes: +3

danwhitehead1 said:

	One more thought By shipping so many of the young and strong out of the country, those who are probably the most able to rise up and crush an overreaching, out of control fedgov, it seems that it would make a much safer environment for the fedgov to go about its mischief with much less interference.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 20, 2009
Votes: +2

MarkGlen said:

	Move troups out of Germany We have 1.4 million active military personnel. We have 75,603 military personnel in Germany. We have had troups there since 1945, 64 years. Why not bring them home or send them to Afghanistan. If we brought them home look at the money they would spend in the US. Why should Germany get those dollars?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 22, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Marcos said:

	Iran's not next, Pakistan is! I thought everyone knew that we are building up in Afghanistan to get ready to Invade Pakistan. Now that we don't need them no more, the Illuminati want to go into Pakistan and divide it up into 10 sub states. This is part of an agreement we have with Indian.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 26, 2009
Votes: +0