..or just a re-shuffling of current forces or will NATO allies be able to cover the numbers? Your thoughts on this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16666549/
2007-01-17 00:17:39 · 5 answers · asked by Sun Spot 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To be more accurate, it is the US commander that is asking for more troops based on an expectation of increased Taliban activity.
And, per the article, US troops are still there. 11,000 are serving under NATO command, and another 12,000 to 13,000 as an independent unit hunting down the Taliban. An increase of less than 10% has been requested for the independent force.
I don't have much expectations from a NATO-led force - the hard fighting will be done by the US troops.
As for the earlier call to put all US troops into Afghanistan, let's just nip that in the bud. There's a thing called "logistics". It concerns support of the fighting units with food, water, ammo, medicine, weapons, vehicles, etc. Afghanistan cannot sustain significantly more troops than are there now. All equipment and supplies have to be flown in, there are no ports. The size of the forces there are inherently limited by the airlift capacity that supports them. This is a basic fact, not a point of debate.
2007-01-17 00:50:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would definitely support a troop surge in Afghanistan. In fact, let's move all the troops (phased withdrawl, mind you) from Iraq to Afghanistan. I've recently seen some of those hour-long reports about Afghanistan on the news channels -- it looks like they need help rebuilding, like Iraq.
Afghanistan's #1 export is the poppy -- but there's not enough equipment & too much money comes from it to do anything about it.
Afghanistan harbored the 9/11 terrorists, so we should definitely have focused on them, but we should have continued to, not switch focus to Iraq. U.S. Troops in Afghanistan = Good, U.S. Troops in Iraq = Bad.
2007-01-17 08:29:04 · answer #2 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The British run Afganistan now. The majority of soldiers there are British. The americans all but left. Any surge would come from Britain and all we need is better equipment not more soldiers.
2007-01-17 08:40:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the US Commanders are asking for more troops then by all means, send them. They aren't asking for more NATO troops. They are asking for US troops. There is a reason for that.
2007-01-17 08:36:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is common for any country including democratic the rulers get replaced by the public , in Afgan also it is applicable
2007-01-17 08:29:48 · answer #5 · answered by david j 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋