The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq. to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that
Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said insurgent Taliban and extremist forces in Afghanistan have become "a very complex problem," one that is tied to the extensive drug trade, a faltering economy and the porous border with Pakistan. Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, with June the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001.
"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon. "Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."
This is what Iraq costs. We can't fight the actual terrorists because we're presiding over a civil war. We can't even hope to draw down in Iraq and spend the time and effort to destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan until 2011.
The best part is Bush promising something will get done in 2009 and there will be more troops for Afghanistan. Well, way to put your balls on the line George. You'll hopefully be in the early stages of prosecution in 2009, but you definitely won't be in charge. As for more troops, unless you're holding on to a third wish (1st wish: be President, 2nd wish: jam with Skynyrd) we still don't and won't have the numbers to fight either war properly.
No comments:
Post a Comment