Former Marine Officer Resigns over Afghanistan

[Polk]

Here ya go...

The real question we should be asking in Afghanistan is not "Do we need a surge?" but rather "Do we need a third surge?" The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacity—the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.

In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.

Zakaria on a Third Surge in Afghanistan | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

 

[Si modo]

Here ya go...

The real question we should be asking in Afghanistan is not "Do we need a surge?" but rather "Do we need a third surge?" The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacity—the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.

In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.

Zakaria on a Third Surge in Afghanistan | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

Thank you. Bush is responsible for sending (according the Newsweek) over 50K and BHO sent 17K.

The military tells BHO before Labor Day they need an additional (that means you add this number to those already deployed, BTW) 40K.

And, BHO does nothing to help those in harms way. He is a hack as CiC, and the subject Marine is one who knows that.

 

[Xenophon]

Barry might fight the war, if the poll numbers for it increase.

He lacks the balls to do the right thing, end it now.

 

[Si modo]

Barry might fight the war, if the poll numbers for it increase.

He lacks the balls to do the right thing, end it now.

Hell, he lacks the balls to even decide what to do.

 

[Polk]

Here ya go...

The real question we should be asking in Afghanistan is not "Do we need a surge?" but rather "Do we need a third surge?" The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacity—the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.

In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.

Zakaria on a Third Surge in Afghanistan | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

Thank you. Bush is responsible for sending (according the Newsweek) over 50K and BHO sent 17K.

The military tells BHO before Labor Day they need an additional (that means you add this number to those already deployed, BTW) 40K.

And, BHO does nothing to help those in harms way. He is a hack as CiC, and the subject Marine is one who knows that.

Two things...
1. If the first two increases haven't helped, what reason is there to expect a third one to do so?
2. If you read the former Marine's letter of resignation, you'd see he was making exactly the opposite point. Namely, that our current involvement in Afghanistan lacks a purpose. That's not because of who is in the White House. It's because there isn't a clear sense of what our continued presence will accomplish.

 

[Si modo]

Here ya go...

Thank you. Bush is responsible for sending (according the Newsweek) over 50K and BHO sent 17K.

The military tells BHO before Labor Day they need an additional (that means you add this number to those already deployed, BTW) 40K.

And, BHO does nothing to help those in harms way. He is a hack as CiC, and the subject Marine is one who knows that.

Two things...
1. If the first two increases haven't helped, what reason is there to expect a third one to do so? ....

Read the recommendations from McChrystal and you might understand the rationale. Of course, with the apologists for the adored one, comprehension certainly is no given.