Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Wants 20,000 More Troops to Fight Taliban
British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase
The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.
British troops in Helmand province recently. Last month was the deadliest for UK forces since the Falklands war. (Photo: The Independent). The demand from General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly lead to more British soldiers being sent to the increasingly treacherous battlegrounds of Helmand, the Taliban heartland, despite growing opposition to the war.
General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.
But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission. Last month saw a record number of troop deaths and injuries in a conflict that has claimed more than 200 British soldiers since the start of the US-led invasion in 2001. British losses rose sharply last month with 22 deaths, making it the bloodiest month for UK forces since the Falklands war. August has been the deadliest month for American troops in the eight-year war. Most of the deaths have come from lethal roadside bombs that Western troops appear unable to combat effectively. For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.
The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted.
Last week, General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, intervened against a backdrop of heightened debate about the UK's military role. He stressed that the objective of the war was "to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida and other extremists".
According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012. These increases are higher than expected, with previous suggestions that the totals would be raised to 134,000 and 120,000 for the army and police respectively.
The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.
Following the withdrawal from Iraq, British military commanders, backed by the then Defence Secretary, John Hutton, had recommended in the spring that up to 2,500 extra troops could be sent to Afghanistan. However, following lobbying from the Treasury, Gordon Brown agreed to only the temporary deployment of 700. Criticism of the decision by senior officers has led, it is claimed, to Downing Street changing its stance.
General McChrystal, who replaced Gen David McKiernan as Nato chief in Afghanistan earlier this year, was originally due to produce his strategic report this month, but decided to wait until after the Afghan presidential election. According to Western and Afghan sources he is continuing to take soundings from various quarters and the finalised document is due out after it becomes clear whether or not a second round of voting is needed to decide the outcome of the poll.
As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.
In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.
Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.
Diplomatic sources have also revealed that plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved. The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.

107 Comments so far
Show AllPlease remove the first word from the title of this article. Us or we do not in anyway at any time want more troops in Afghanistan.
Obama, Rahm, the democrats and the MIC wants more war. Us, we the people, find you all disgusting and repugnant. Our government is quite morally bankrupt. Bail that out A..holes.
I agree with Abe, if the headline was honest it would say the morally corrupt Military, Industrial,Congressional, complex wants 20.000 more troops for Afghanistan!
exactly what i thought when i read that first word also..... a pretty audacious assumption.... as if we had a democracy going on in this godforsaken place, for crying out loud.
Matangicta by "this godforsaken place" I assume you mean the USA.
I agree with honest Abe--We do NOT want our children to die for your schemes--get the f%$# out of other peoples land you murdering bitches. If we do not see a wind down immediately--we are going to wind up and bitch-slap you between your greedy contemptible eyes. You got that war mongers?
The idea of invading Afghanistan was one of Bush's more brilliant ideas (that is sarcasm folks in case you can't guess). It was stupid to try and fight terrorism with a war to begin with and something only an incompetent moron would think of trying. Continuing on with that war that no one believes we can win is even more asinine. Haven't we wasted enough of our wealth on one of Bush's ignorant schemes???? How many young men and women are going to die before they get the same idea the Russian's got in the 80's. It's a complete waste of time, money and lives. It's going to bankrupt us the same way Afghanistan did the Russians. I will continue to keep the bumper sticker on my car 'Support the Troops Bring them Home'
Stupid? Do you think after all the billions that he and his partners in the military & industries made in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush thinks the idea was stupid? That's generations of wealth and comfort for all families involved. Bush thinks that's pretty brilliant, you can drop the sarcasm.
it's no waste of time to the military industrial complex, though..... big profits to be made.... the nasty-spirited philosophy evidently being, live it up now for tomorrow we all suffocate under the weight of this stupidity, so eat or be eaten, suckers..... i wish 'inform the troops we cannot bring them home because they ARE home....EARTH is our home....EVERYONE is a relative.... no exceptions' would fit on a bumper sticker, myself. anybody with white contact paper and sharpies, though, could probably furtively decorate neighborhood hummer bumpers with such, though, eh? careful, though--you could wind up with more severe punishment for such offense than the corporate thieves and war criminals holding our planet hostage ever could.
And most importantly, it will stop the murder of a million Iraqis - and counting - whose only sin is that they were Muslims. It usually amazes me how killing of those others rarely, if ever, pricks our conscience when we talk about why we should stop these senseless wars crimes.
genicon
The only way Obama can stop the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be willing to accept the possibility of ending up like JFK, RFK, MLK.
That's something Obama will never have to worry about. Right-wingers don't kill their own. Plus there would never be not a drop of the decency, honesty and idealism of JFK, RFK or MLK in Barack Obusha in one trillion years.
Ditto.
I wouldn't describe JFK or RFK as decent, honest, or idealistic. Let's keep the magical thinking out of the discussion.
But you're right - the ruling class doesn't "do" assassinations any more. They don't have to - anybody who makes it to the White House is completely vetted for the gig by the wealth-holders.
"Decent, honest and Idealistic" is not magical thinking.
If you got a beef with JFK, RFK and Ted, it is too late. I have respect for others feelings and for those who got killed who were a threat to the War pushers and fear mongers. Respect for the good things they did is not "magical thinking" it is the spirit and common feelings that will help unite us for peace.
I just wanted to point that out because you offended my feelings.
If you are gonna give us a lecture now on why you don't like JFK and his Brothers, this is not the appropriate time.
This is not the appropriate time. I beg to differ. This, above all, is precisely the time. It's time to confront the legacy of these warmongers, and for people to face up to the reality of who they really were and what they really accomplished. If you care in the least about the ideals that JFK and RFK supposedly stood so, then this is the time to defend them. Those who defend the corporate power that Ted Kennedy represented are trying desperately to stifle debate and eliminate the criticism. We must not let them.
Obama is supposedly paying tribute to Ted Kennedy at his funeral. But his real tribute to the family that brought us Vietnam is his announcement that he is escalating another illegal, immoral imperial war. And it will end in the same way, if not worse.
So your down on Obama, so am I, but if Obama pays tribute to MLK according to your crap that makes him a war monger too.
Your argument makes no logical sense because it reasons also if Obama refused to respect the Kennedys, that would mean Obama was OK for you.
You start with your sophmoric "beg to differ" and then are offensive and show no common decency and your spin an JFK is Bull.
JFK started out as a cold warrior, but he learned first hand about the CIA's lies and how the MIC was leading the world to a nuke war with Russia. You need to read and learn. I recommend you read The Unspeakable. His efforts to end the cold war, was making progress and he was goin against the War Mongers and it got him killed.
And i believe that in 1968 RFK was sincere in his change of allegiance and his work with leaders of the Civil Rights movement and the poor peoples movement to create a truly inclusive USA instead of working strictly on behalf of the rulers...
i have not yet read the recent book on JFK.
Yes Webtalk... it is the best one so far with documents and letters not so much on who shot John, the coverup makes that a guess, but why he was killed.
Thank You.
"I just wanted to point that out because you offended my feelings."
Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"If you are gonna give us a lecture now on why you don't like JFK and his Brothers, this is not the appropriate time."
Sorry, Jim. But your declaration is impotent (and rather Bush-league - "now is not the time to criticize: fill in blank")
So you really love JFK? Vietnam was a great war, right? And the Bay of Pigs, well, that was just freedom on the march. Besides, who cares about those minor issues... The Kennedy's all had great haircuts.
"I have respect for others feelings and for those who got killed who were a threat to the War pushers and fear mongers. "
What a lovely fantasy! Please do yourself a favor, and go and read any of Chomsky's numerous responses to this subject. It's a complete fairy tale to imagine that JFK was killed for ending Vietnam when the historical record clearly shows he was escalating it.
CHOMSKY: "While history never permits anything like definitive conclusions, in this case, the richness of the record, and its consistency, permit some unusually confident judgments. In my opinion, the record is inconsistent with the withdrawal thesis throughout, and supports a different conclusion. In brief, basic policy towards Indochina developed within a framework of North-South/East-West relations that Kennedy did not challenge, and remained constant in essentials: disentanglement from an unpopular and costly venture as soon as possible, but _after_ victory was assured (by the end, with increasing doubt that US client regimes could be sustained). Tactics were modified with changing circumstances and perceptions. Changes of Administration, including the Kennedy assassination, had no large-scale effect on policy, and not even any great effect on tactics, when account is taken of the objective situation and how it was perceived. "
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815235701/http://www.connix.com/~harry/chom-jfk.htm
And spare us mentioning RFK and MLK in the same sentence. Are you even aware that it was RFK who signed off on wiretapping MLK on the basis that he had ties to communists? And isn't it nice that Ted Kennedy carried on his brothers assault on civil liberties by voting for and then reauthorizing (2006) the Patriot Act?
Jim, your love of the Kennedy Klan exists in the same realm as people's love for Michael Jackson or Princess Diana. Grow up.
Great post.
Yea, the "liberals" just can't handle getting reality checked about their fantasy figure icons. On some blogs, the Kennedy is already being referred to as "EMK." Stick a spork in me now, for chrissakes.
It's all magical faith-based thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Put your faith in some liberal capitalist. The same folks did it with Obama. They had spittle dribbling down their faces just talking about Obfraud during the campaign. It's okay with them to have a wealthy class and a ruling class of capital owners as long as the working stiffs get thrown a bone now and then. Why? Because these people would rather identify with the ruling class than with immigrants, workers, the poor, the exploited. It doesn't even occur to them that they have more in common with these groups than they do with Obama, Ted Kennedy (sorry, "EMK!"), or the CEO of Citibank. They just want to believe they have a shot at that life someday.
Magical thinking.
I just got booted off another site for daring to criticize Ted Kennedy in the "live blogging the funeral" thread. LOL!
"I just got booted off another site for daring to criticize Ted Kennedy in the "live blogging the funeral" thread. "
I would have booted you off too for not having the grace to shut up when the time is right and not being smart enough to know when that is.
pudepoh,
You didn't read what I said, I never said he was killed for ending Viet Nam and you are the only one I have heard to tell that whopper.
Chomsky does point out some important things though and I am Glad you gave me the article to read.
What Chomsky does not mention in his article on just Viet Nam is that JFK was getting the MIC pissed at the fact that he just ended the nuclear confrontation with Russia over the Cuban Missile Crises which made it more likely that you would be able to twist what I said about JFK since that War would have ended everything.
A huge blunder for peace in Nam was tacitly going along with the coup in Nam and a few days before JFK's assassination, Chomsky does not mention, JFK recorded his regrets of going along with that. Diem was killing Buddhist demonstrators and was very corrupt which made it hard for him to support Diem's wanting to negotiate with the North.
But that is what he should have done anyway.
Another thing Chomsky does not mention is that nobody said JFK was going to withdraw without victory. This is the main Straw Man Chomsky's article creates because nobody is saying that.
It was a gradual wind down of troops that was his withdrawal plan but he also being a politician thought he could not commit to that publicly before the election. His adversaries like Bush in Texas and Goldwater accusing him of being a Commie tool coward for not going all the way in Cuba and Viet Nam.
I wish we had a president who knew Empire and a never ending War economy must end.
It seems all presidents want to win war instead of ending War. That does not work because ending them is a double win.
Ending War is harder than you think and we can learn much from his mistakes. I hope Obama learns from his too.
Peace, if you can find it.
"You didn't read what I said, I never said he was killed for ending Viet Nam and you are the only one I have heard to tell that whopper."
First, sorry for misinterpreted this quote as applying to JFK
"If you got a beef with JFK, RFK and Ted, it is too late. I have respect for others feelings and for those who got killed who were a threat to the War pushers and fear mongers. Respect for the good things they did is not "magical thinking" it is the spirit and common feelings that will help unite us for peace. "
Although, you should have been clearer, it DOES seem like you are including JFK RFK and Ted in this. But since you have offered clarification I apologize.
Second, Oliver Stone believes JFK was killed for trying to end the Vietnam War. It's actually a popular theory.
"which made it more likely that you would be able to twist what I said about JFK since that War would have ended everything."
Not following your logic here (or your accusation of twisting your words).
"Another thing Chomsky does not mention is that nobody said JFK was going to withdraw without victory. This is the main Straw Man Chomsky's article creates because nobody is saying that."
I think you are a little confused here. The "strawman" argument (which it is) is an actually argument being made (around the time of the film JFK) to which he is responding. By yes, I agree, and Chomsky would too, that "nobody said JFK was going to withdraw without victory." That is actually central to the argument against JFK being killed for trying to get out of Vietnam.
"It was a gradual wind down of troops that was his withdrawal plan but he also being a politician thought he could not commit to that publicly before the election."
This is a really uselss point, since you've acknowledged that would happen ONLY AFTER VICTORY. In any war there would be "a gradual wind down of troops "
following victory.
"I wish we had a president who knew Empire and a never ending War economy must end."
Hey, we agree! Isn't it funny to think that the closest we came to an acknowledgment of that situation was Eisenhower's farewell speech. It took a former military man to tell the truth (much like Smedely Butler).
"Ending War is harder than you think and we can learn much from his mistakes."
Ending the Vietnam would not have been hard for Washington, any more than it would have been hard for Hitler to end the Holocaust (and the proof is that it wasn't when we did it). However, it is extremely hard for the people to end a war controlled by the elites.
"I hope Obama learns from his too."
I hope you learn that saying that makes EXACTLY as much sense as saying it about Bush.
Apology accepted,
My point was just that since Viet Nam was in the larger picture, part of the cold war with Russia, JFK by making progress with Russia on peace was in a better position to end the War later. The withdrawal plan was very weak but it was at least a slow start in the direction. Well never know for sure what would happen if he lived.
No problem since we agree on peace whether it is easy as you say or not, lets keep workin on it. Hope is not enough unless it combines our anger with the courage to do something.
Compared to Obama, yes, JFK or RFK had decency, honesty and idealism. But I didn't say JFK or RFK were 100% decent, honest, or idealistic.
[Right-wingers don't kill their own.]
I'm not so sure about that. The rhetoric used by righties about Obama is geared to drive someone to assassinate him. I'm not sure Obama ever really had a chance to turn the course of the usa away from the disaster of the neo-con making(indeed if he really ever wanted to change that course). Say what you will about the man, if he is assassinated the reaction to that from the minorities in the states will be explosive. Seems to me that the rightwing commentators want to incite the same sort of thing that Charles Manson once tried to bring about; a race war.
The Glenn Beck crowd is too stupid and unprepared to carry out the assassination of a president successfully, even though I'm sure they dream about it constantly.
A successful assassination of a president requires the means and backing of powerful forces on the Right, and the last thing the Right wants now is to see Obama gone, darn it they put him in power, and he's the best thing going for them.
[A successful assassination of a president requires the means and backing of powerful forces on the Right]
Really? Garfield was assassinated by a lone gunman. A very nutty gunman from what I read online. Lincoln was assassinated by a plot, one that had nothing to do with powerful forces on the right. McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who had very few ties to the powerful classes of his day. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, in spite of the fanciful theories of his being killed by cubans, the mafia or the rightwing of his day.
Of the four successful assassinations the one most relevent to what the Beck crowd wants to recreat would be the McKinley one. That shooter was supposedly influenced by an anarchist speaker...
That is of course only talking about us presidents. There have been other assassinations in history, most of them (when successful) result in really bad things happening. When a Russian Tsar (Alexander II) was assassinated in 1881, his goal of building a representative government in Russia was destroyed. The reestablishment of Tsarist Autocracy led to the Revolution of 1917 and the rise of Lenin...
In 1914, a Serbian gunman linked to a group of terrorists shot the Archduke Ferdinand. The result was the First World War.
God, I hate the word Assassination. It's a bugger to spell...
Saturnalia August 30th, 2009 1:02 am...........Lawd, forget the "official stories" and do some research and thinking on your own.
Which official stories do you disagree with, and why? I'm far more familiar with the results of the assassinations in other countries than the usa. But those aren't the only examples I could have chosen; Sadat, Ghandi and many other people have been killed by assassins.
There aren't conspiricies that exist to explain every event. It might be nice if there were, but crap happens.
You're talking about assassinations in the stone age, I'm talking about the present. With night vision, GPS, snipers, etc. it's much more difficult today to trump the Secret Service, especially if you want to keep the shooter and his masterminds unidentified.
I don't see the lunatics who listen to Glenn Back or Michael Savage capable of it.
[I don't see the lunatics who listen to Glenn Back or Michael Savage capable of it.]
To a point I agree with you, but still think that Beck and Savage would rejoice if Obama was assassinated because of what they've been talking about.
The stone age was over 7000 years ago, all the assassinations (god I hate the word) I mentioned happened within the last 150 years. When Mckinley was shot the secret service was more worried about the big black guy behind the shooter than the shooter himself.
Anwar Sadat was shot by a member of the Army, who was also a member of an Islamic terrorist group. I'm not sure if you can call them 'right wing' or 'left wing', but we should agree they're wingnuts as they want to build theocratic states...
With assassinations the shooter doesn't often plan to get away. They expect to be caught, if they wanted to prevent the state from finding out who was involved, they'll have poison with them.
Saturnalia,
The lone Gunman theory was never proved on JFK and here is what the cover-up does not tell you.
Two men were seen in the "snipers nest"
The second Oswald was being looked for by State Dept and FBI while Lee was still in Russia.
There was Lee Oswald who was killed by Ruby and Ruby recorded that nobody will find out why he was put in a position to do it because of the involvement of Higher-ups. He wanted to get out of Texas so he could talk but Allen Dulles who knew Oswald was a counter intel false defector would not allow it.
There was a look a like double Oswald taken out the side door of the Texas theater by Dallas cops while Lee Oswald was taken out the front door.
Oswald's CIA handler was a friend of Bush, and the Texas Oil CIA group of assets and Domestics contacts, George Demohrenshildt.
He also knew Oswald was a patsy and wrote about it, but was found dead from a shotgun blast to the head right before he was to be interviewed by the congressional investigator in 77. He wrote CIA Director Bush months before his death for help about the net around him and death threats he assumed was FBI, Bush just wished him luck.
All this had to be covered up for Bush to get elected to anything and continue the coverup which is still goin on with this "lone gunman theory".
More than 3 shots were fired.
Since I was in Texas that day and I was told of the plot before it happened, this stuff confirms what I saw that day and more.
A good book of many on Bush's role is Family of Secrets by Russ Baker.
Your computer has more than the Official version. If you are interested, Google it.
I knew I shouldn't have mentioned JFK. There are many conspiricy theories about that event, but no proof yet exists that it was not just one man who was a good shot. Perhaps when the archives of the usa are opened to scrutiny that evidence will be found, until then however, there was one gunman.
I am urging that all the files be released.
If Obama could stop the killings of thousands by sacrificing his life I would encourage him to do so.
But of course that is wishful thinking, only a fervent rejection of all that is war will result in the ending of this or any war.
The British have yet to kill Gunga Din and will keep on giving it a go.
Sounds like Vietnam all over again. According to many credible intelligence reports, there are approximately 40 million Pashtuns that sympathize with the Taliban, but just like the whore press never mentioned the millions of Vietcong that were sympathizers with the communists and Hoh in the north, they are not telling the Americans the truth again. The whore MSM promoted Vietnam and helped to murder 50,000 of our brave and patriotic but brainwashed soldiers, not to mention some two million communist sympathizers. From my perspective, the only way to stop this insanity, is to expose the egregious, shadow government that really runs American foreign policy. O BOMB A: you can bomb the world to pieces, but you will never bomb it to peace!
Brought to us by the "antiwar" candidate.
Obama was never anti-war. He was in favour of keeping the Afghan war going, in spite of the fact that it was not a necessary war. Both candidates were in favour of war, one of them wanted to expand the fight to Iran, one wanted to limit it to Afghanistan. Both were delusional about being victorious.
True, but he was quick to use some statement he made in his past about how wrong it was that we invaded Iraq. I think he milked that for quite a while. Of course, his positions gradually flip-flopped as he got closer and closer to the White House during the election.
I for one could not believe people could vote for him after hearing during the debate that he would be escalating war over there. He came right out and said it and people still voted for him.
Wasn't the alternative worse? How good of a job do you think McCain't would have done as president? Sure, I suppose you could have voted for a third party... But without some electoral reform, one which fixes some of the problems with the 'first past the post' system we use now, I wouldn't hold out hope for them.
It would have been nice if Obama was a liberal rather than a conservative. But a real liberal would never get elected to the presidency in this day and age. The ownership of the media would never allow them to get that close to the reins of power.
If there is one thing that Americans can agree on is not providing health care for all but starting wars so that they can be patriotic and "support our troops". Iraq and Afghanistan wars will still be raging 10 years from today and nobody will be shouting at town hall meetings about the cost of the war and its profiteers. Mark my words.
I'm not sure you can continue to pay for these wars. They aren't profitable, you're not looting the countries of Iraq nor Afghanistan of gold, oil or food. The economic engine of the usa is running on fumes, even with the boneheaded way the fed bailed out the people responsibe for the crash.
This can't be happening; somebody please wake me up.
I wish I could wake up and find this was a dream as well. Unfortunately, I feel we have still only seen the overture. The rest is coming.
Travesty here, but I think (hope, pray) the folks in the UK and Italy will not be pleased, and will let it be known. As a USAn, I've given up all hope after Obama. Am I crazy? The death toll is consistently rising.
20,000 more War Criminals to crush the Pastun Tribal resistance to corporate imperialism.
Thats what Mchrystal " The Butcher of Fallujah" wants.
We have no idea whats going on in Afghanistan, the USA kept secret the dropping of more bomb tonnage on Laos than in all of WWII. What do you think the USA's top assassin Mchrystal is doing?
Everyone who enables a criminal war is a war criminal; no excuses possible.
Just like he promised during the presidential campaign.
Where are all the Obama dolts who argued last year that he was anti-war? Oh yeah . . . they were mostly corporate PR hucksters just posing as progressives. Mission accomplished.
Remarkable how in the White House it looks as though there is no free will: the determinism of Empire works there like an iron clad law of nature.
Obama is totally SUBJECTED to the necessity of Empire.