Tue, 11/24/2009 - 12:15am — lambert
McClatchy. Fortunately, we've got at least one Friedman Unit to play with:
"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said. ...
It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.
Well, naturally. Of course, if we were "starting from scratch...." Oh, never mind.
NOTE Has the administration ever articulated a reason why we're fighting in Afghanistan? If so, I can't remember it. No doubt, Hillary gave one. Comes with the job and being a team player. Sigh.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
..we've seen this movie before
There are 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan bringing the total to 102,000 US troops. Barack Obama has called this "a war of necessity". The U.S. Army's estimates that Afghanistan would require about 600,000 US troops. Putting aside whether you support, or don't support Obama's expansion of the Af-Pak war, if he thinks this is "a war of necessity" shouldn't we fight it as one? Leaving aside that we have seen the "escalation" pony earlier in our lives, shouldn't we remember since Alexander's time [~350 B C], empires have march in and tattered countries have straggled out of the mountains of south Asia.
In every area that he has focused this administration, Obama has created future disaster.
Obama is Bush's third term...we've seen this movie before, why wait, impeach now.