130,000 US Troops are in Iraq with a new 21,000 troop surge planned. All the while, these troops were drained away from possible use in Afghanistan, the Real War on Terror. Acountry that was a proven terrorist threat and has remained so with active Al Qeada presence. Now, the Bush admin. plans a belated troop surge in Afghanistan that should have been much larger, much earlier if US troop strengthhad not been drained to invade Iraq - a non-threat nation. The following is a good summary of the situation. The number of troops in Afghanistan is now only up to 24,000 after 5 years and worsening security - a backwards strategy. Initial troop levels should have been High with draw down as objectives were achieved. The following sums up the situation well.
Quote:
In Afghanistan U.S. troop levels started at rock bottom and have steadily risen over the past five years, even as security has worsened.
[/align]
I thought in the other thread you said that troops were redeployed from Afghanistan, the real war on terror, to Iraq, the war based on lies. Obviously a false statement, since troop levels in Afghanistan have steadily risen since the war on terror began there.
Just as a refresher, here is what you said in the other thread:
Quote:
I'm sure that funneling troops away from the real war helped our efforts there, that's some unsound logic you seem to be implying here Aught.
You don't win a fight or hold real estate by moving assets to an unrelated conflict.
Quote:
If they retake some more towns, we can just pull out more troops and send them to Iraq to solve the problem right?
Quote:
If Afghanistan hadn't been drained of troops to invade Iraq, a non-threat nation with no Al Qeada links, Afghanistan would be secure.
The implication of your statements is that troops that were deployed to Afghanistan are being pulled out of Afghanistan and being redeployed to Iraq, thereby leaving smaller and smaller contingents of U.S. troops to fight the "real war on terror". Obviously, your statements are false, since troop numbers in Afghanistan are rising. What do YOU call that when someone disseminates false information?
I don't have a dog in that fight, but Ifferd makes sense to me. Looks like he meant that the troops used in Iraq could have been used in afghan but weren't. That's a kind of drain on limited troops supply.
Come on Frost, he specifically said Afghanistan was drained of troops to invade Iraq. That means troops were there and they were pulled out, leaving the Afghanistan effort undermanned. That is clearly not what happened. Typical case of someone making stuff up in orderto bash the adminstration. Bush has made enough mistakes on his own without the bashers fabricating stuff out of thin air.
Come on Frost, he specifically said Afghanistan was drained of troops to invade Iraq. That means troops were there and they were pulled out, leaving the Afghanistan effort undermanned. That is clearly not what happened. Typical case of someone making stuff up in orderto bash the adminstration. Bush has made enough mistakes on his own without the bashers fabricating stuff out of thin air.
Nope, just a matter of opinion, and I see what he meant. Could be taken both ways. Using troops elsewhere is a drain and not nec means taking them out of country which he never said specifically. Looks like you've got sour grapes and want to pick a fight. He's got a point and I agree. Don't take it so personal. No need to split hairs on soemthing that could be taken either way. As for fabricating, I don't think that's the case. He clarified what he meantso why doyou keep reaching?
It's not a reach at all. He stated it several times in other threads and got called on it. So, he started a new thread, and changed what he was saying.
He gets to sit at his computer all day, bashing Bush and the "necons" (sic) and claiming they make stuff up and lie. But, when it's pointed out that he's doing exactly the same thing, suddenly it's "sour grapes", "trying to pick a fight", "personal attacks". Fine, whatever.
Why does anyone even think that Afghanistan can even be secured? The soviets committed a large number of troops to the area in the 80's and ended up leaving with their tail between their legs. Yes, the U.S. military is better trained and better equiped, but the soviets had huge numbers at their disposal and after several years in the region had become skilled in combating in that environment.
10th mountian is obviously a light-infantry heavy division, so if part of the "increase," it makes sense. What other troops are going to be sent/retained as part of the increase as well? For all anyone knows it could be a larg influx of troops in non-combative MOS's.
[Deleted]
