Top Trump Advisors Propose Expanding 15-Year Afghanistan War
Military advisors want to boost troop numbers in longest war in U.S. history
America's longest war isn't ending anytime soon--in fact, it's about to expand.
President Donald Trump's top military advisors have put forth a plan to boost U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000, the Washington Post reported late Monday. The U.S. currently has 8,400 troops in Afghanistan.
"The definition of insanity is repeating the same strategy and expecting different results. Decades of the military approach by the U.S., NATO, and Russia and others before have never worked," said anti-war group Peace Action. "Why would Trump want to continue wasting American blood and treasure in Afghanistan?"
"I cannot believe this is an actual headline in the 16th year of the longest war in the history of the republic," tweeted MSNBC's Chris Hayes in response to the news.
The plan also empowers the Pentagon, rather than the White House, to unilaterally decide on troop numbers and how to use those troops in the battlefield.
Furthermore, it would "give the military far broader authority to use airstrikes to target Taliban militants. It would also lift Obama-era restrictions that limited the mobility of U.S. military advisers on the battlefield," wrote the Post.
"The plan comes at the end of a sweeping policy review built around the president's desire to reverse worsening security in Afghanistan and 'start winning' again, said one U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations," the Post reported.
The increase in American troop numbers may be accompanied by a rise in NATO troop levels as well, added the New York Times: "NATO nations would also be asked to send thousands of troops, and the precise number of American forces deployed would probably depend on what those allies were prepared to do."
The White House has yet to approve the plan.
On Twitter, journalists, politicians, and commentators condemned the new plan. They also speculated that it could in part be an attempt to distract from Trump's ongoing Russia scandal, and noted that Trump's voters--many of whom supported the president's campaign trail promises to shrink U.S. military involvement around the world--may not be pleased by the latest war news:
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
America's longest war isn't ending anytime soon--in fact, it's about to expand.
President Donald Trump's top military advisors have put forth a plan to boost U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000, the Washington Post reported late Monday. The U.S. currently has 8,400 troops in Afghanistan.
"The definition of insanity is repeating the same strategy and expecting different results. Decades of the military approach by the U.S., NATO, and Russia and others before have never worked," said anti-war group Peace Action. "Why would Trump want to continue wasting American blood and treasure in Afghanistan?"
"I cannot believe this is an actual headline in the 16th year of the longest war in the history of the republic," tweeted MSNBC's Chris Hayes in response to the news.
The plan also empowers the Pentagon, rather than the White House, to unilaterally decide on troop numbers and how to use those troops in the battlefield.
Furthermore, it would "give the military far broader authority to use airstrikes to target Taliban militants. It would also lift Obama-era restrictions that limited the mobility of U.S. military advisers on the battlefield," wrote the Post.
"The plan comes at the end of a sweeping policy review built around the president's desire to reverse worsening security in Afghanistan and 'start winning' again, said one U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations," the Post reported.
The increase in American troop numbers may be accompanied by a rise in NATO troop levels as well, added the New York Times: "NATO nations would also be asked to send thousands of troops, and the precise number of American forces deployed would probably depend on what those allies were prepared to do."
The White House has yet to approve the plan.
On Twitter, journalists, politicians, and commentators condemned the new plan. They also speculated that it could in part be an attempt to distract from Trump's ongoing Russia scandal, and noted that Trump's voters--many of whom supported the president's campaign trail promises to shrink U.S. military involvement around the world--may not be pleased by the latest war news:
America's longest war isn't ending anytime soon--in fact, it's about to expand.
President Donald Trump's top military advisors have put forth a plan to boost U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000, the Washington Post reported late Monday. The U.S. currently has 8,400 troops in Afghanistan.
"The definition of insanity is repeating the same strategy and expecting different results. Decades of the military approach by the U.S., NATO, and Russia and others before have never worked," said anti-war group Peace Action. "Why would Trump want to continue wasting American blood and treasure in Afghanistan?"
"I cannot believe this is an actual headline in the 16th year of the longest war in the history of the republic," tweeted MSNBC's Chris Hayes in response to the news.
The plan also empowers the Pentagon, rather than the White House, to unilaterally decide on troop numbers and how to use those troops in the battlefield.
Furthermore, it would "give the military far broader authority to use airstrikes to target Taliban militants. It would also lift Obama-era restrictions that limited the mobility of U.S. military advisers on the battlefield," wrote the Post.
"The plan comes at the end of a sweeping policy review built around the president's desire to reverse worsening security in Afghanistan and 'start winning' again, said one U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations," the Post reported.
The increase in American troop numbers may be accompanied by a rise in NATO troop levels as well, added the New York Times: "NATO nations would also be asked to send thousands of troops, and the precise number of American forces deployed would probably depend on what those allies were prepared to do."
The White House has yet to approve the plan.
On Twitter, journalists, politicians, and commentators condemned the new plan. They also speculated that it could in part be an attempt to distract from Trump's ongoing Russia scandal, and noted that Trump's voters--many of whom supported the president's campaign trail promises to shrink U.S. military involvement around the world--may not be pleased by the latest war news: