So once again, the US will suck up the majority of a force request in Afghanistan (from Fox News).
THE PENTAGON — A request has been made by top commanders in Afghanistan to send 3,000 Marines to the country, FOX News has learned.
The goal would be to have the Marines in the region by April, the time of year when offensive actions by the Taliban usually pick up after the Spring thaw.
Senior Defense Department officials say International Security Assistance Forces Cmdr. Gen. Dan McNeil made the request, which has to be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates will receive the proposal on Friday, but not like make a decision on that day.
The plan calls for sending one ground and one air Marine contingent plus one battalion for a “one-time, seven-month deployment,” Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morell said Wednesday.
Defense officials are not calling this a surge, rather a specific increase for more troops. Currently roughly 26,000 American troops are in Afghanistan, under NATO auspices. NATO commanders have asked for 7,500 more troops, but Gates has called on allies to contribute the additional forces.
How many countries are in NATO? How many actually want to do something?
How many want to sit back while we do all the heavy lifting?
I still think it was a mistake to let NATO take the lead for the Afghanistan conflict. We should run it lock, stock and barrel with our own forces. No excuses, no silly ROE, no fighting only during daylight hours.
***Charlie says: Dammit, beat me to this. Here’s my take:
I’ve always wondered why we allowed the Taliban to conduct yearly “spring offensives,” instead of just dropping a division of troops in the southern mountain regions of Afghanistan to stop it before it starts. Now the Marines have their shot to do just that. Recall a few weeks back, the Marines requested to take over the OEF mission entirely. That got shot down, but perhaps this is the opportunity for the Marines to do what they do best, now that the Anbar province has quieted down.
Also, if they start calling this a “mini surge,” I’ll go crazy.
“I still think it was a mistake to let NATO take the lead for the Afghanistan conflict. We should run it lock, stock and barrel with our own forces. No excuses, no silly ROE, no fighting only during daylight hours.”
Yep, absolutely right, because spending $15 billion for current ops and having to support more than 200,000 US forces in theater isn’t enough work for us. If the US govt can’t make the case for a robust international coalition with shared goals and strategy, then we’ve got no one else to blame when the bills come. It appears that SecDef Gates is certainly concerned about the potential costs of such a venture.
They’re sitting back because they don’t feel compelled to be lectured to as if they were students in the university. Of course, most of them got tired of the Bush administration’s “father knows best” attitude a few years ago. We’re lucky the Brits and Canadians feel some old ties to support us, otherwise things would really be uncomfortable.
Here’s the real question. Aren’t we duplicating the Iraq strategy and resulting quandry? That is, given an increase in military forces in Afghanistan, do we have any reasonable expectations that the government will take advantage of the security to make gains? I somehow doubt it.
QUOTE:Also, if they start calling this a “mini surge,” I’ll go crazy.
On the other hand, the benefits of a post surge afghanistan would be much needed right now. If the violence takes a nosedive next year, it gives the UK, Canadians and Dutch governments more arguments to stay.
In Canada especially, it’s a minority government, with all of the opposition united in an ending of the mission.