|
| |||||||
|
« The 'true' cost of health care reform; $2.6 trillion |
Blog Home Page
| A voice from the past predicts the future »
November 8, 2009 34,000 more troops for Afghanistan?
It appears that President Obama is finally - finally - getting around to deciding what to do about the situation in Afghanistan.
It has taken far too long, of course, But the prospect of the president sending more troops to Afghanistan is almost a reality. Peter Baker and Helene Cooper of the New York Times are reporting that all remaining options the president is looking at involve sending more boots on the ground: The options include Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for roughly another 40,000 troops; a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops; and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Officials hope to present the options to Mr. Obama this week before he leaves on a trip to Asia. Meanwhile, Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef of McClatchy are pegging the number at 34,000: President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to send more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he may not announce it until after he consults with key allies and completes a trip to Asia later this month, administration and military officials have told McClatchy. I realize you just can't load troops on to an airplane and drop them into a combat zone but a year to get what amounts to a Corps into battle? What's with that? If the situation is as bad as McChrystal has been saying, shouldn't just a little more urgency be shown to get those troops to the war zone? Just asking. At any rate, while falling short of McChrystal's recommendation, it far surpasses what members of his own party have been recommending. For that, we should be grateful. Supporting McChrystal as vigorously as possible seems the best policy at this point. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
|