Obama to deploy 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, report says

By John Byrne
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 -- 7:53 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

troops blue afghanistan Obama to deploy 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, report saysThe White House on Tuesday signaled the end of months of deliberations on US strategy toward Afghanistan, announcing that President Barack Obama would reveal his decision within days.

"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

And that troop increase is likely to be large. According to veteran intelligence reporter Jonathan Landay at McClatchy's Newspapers, the White House plans to dispatch some 34,000 additional troops -- slightly more than half the number requested by Afghan commander Stanley McChrystal.

"President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called 'a war of necessity' in Afghanistan," officials purportedly told the newswire.

"Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire," Landay adds. "The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House."

Story continues below...

Late on Monday Obama held the ninth and last in a series of meetings with top commanders to examine the troubled war effort.

The results of those discussions are now widely expected to be made public next Tuesday, although a White House official said "nothing had been confirmed" about the timing of the announcement.

Obama has been weighing requests from the military top brass for tens of thousands of extra troops to be deployed.

"As it now stands," McClatchy writes,"the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.

"In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police," he adds.

With AFP.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • Prattvictory
    Someone pick a date for the march on Washington against the war. I'll be there.

    This isn't what I voted for. I am so over Obama.
  • glenn_uk
    Say it ain't so, O !
  • thebigmouth
    Obama took the bait; he'll be gagging on it before he lives office.
    These deaths will be on his hand, and years in Afghanistan with another trillion.
    Change we can believe in, and war forever!
  • thx1138a
    AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, I wanted to talk specifically about the kind of branding that you begin your introduction with in No Logo at Ten, how branding has changed. Give us some specifics.

    NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I mean, it’s—it always—branding is expert at absorbing its opposition. So, I gave a couple of examples of companies that had gone “no logo,” an example of Absolut vodka taking their label, their logo, off the bottle. And Starbucks opened, interestingly in Seattle, a store without their brand on it at all. They’re trying to make their brand disappear. So, you have this evolution in corporate branding.

    But, what I decided to focus on is not how corporate—the latest gimmicks and techniques of corporate branding, but, rather, how politicians were—and, indeed, how government has absorbed the techniques honed by the corporations in the ‘90s in creating and selling their super brands. And now they’re being used by political parties, by politicians really, to sell themselves.

    And I’m afraid, I think, that that’s where Obama fits in, that he really is a super brand on line with many of the companies that I discuss in No Logo. And he has many of the same problems as the companies that I discuss in No Logo, like Nike and Apple and all of these—Starbucks—all of these, sort of 1990s, sort of, lifestyle brands that co-opted many of the, you know—the iconography of the transformative political movements like the civil rights movement, the women’s movement. And that was really the hallmark of 1990s branding.

    One of the things in this—you know, a large part what I write about in No Logo is the absorption of these political movements into the world of marketing. And, you know, the first time I saw the “Yes, We Can” video that was produced by Will.i.am, my first thought was, you know, “Wow. A politician has finally produced an ad as good as Nike that plays on our, sort of, faded memories of a more idealistic era, but, yet, doesn’t quite say anything.” We think we hear the message we want to hear, but if you really parse it, the promises aren’t there, it’s really the emotions.

    And, you know, I think that that explains in some sense the paralysis in progressive movements in the United States where we think, Obama stands for something because we—our emotions were activated on these issues, but we don’t really have much to hold him to because, in fact, if you look at what he said during the campaign, like any good super brand, like any good marketer, he made sure not to promise too much, so that he couldn’t be held to it.
  • Prattvictory
    I think Gil Scott-Heron is going to have to rewrite the words to some of his songs.

    It isn't about "whitey on the moon." For most of us no matter what color, we may as well be on another planet. Our government not only doesn't care unless you're a partner in Goldman Sachs but you don't even exist.
  • thx1138a
    .
    Unfortunately, Goldman Sachs IS our government.

    The business of America is business -- and they OWN U.S.

    The SoulLess Republican Maw of Fascist Rapacious Evil.

    Materialism vs. Spiritualism.

    Truly the primordial reptilian mind at work.

    When will we ever evolve.

    Humans are a very primitive race.
    .
  • Eyeball_Kid
    Well, I guess that the "sanctity of life" crowd (We only care about abortions.) can't hear the news that Obama wants to escalate the Afghanistan War when he was really supposed to focus on al Qaeda in northwest Pakistan. Oh.. And Obama doesn't even know about the Blackwater drone killings in Pakistan, either, because it's all done on a need-to-know basis. And Obama doesn't need to know.
  • thx1138a
    "Pro Life" = Pro Executions + Pro War
    ...Pro Freedom = Pro Rendition + Pro Torture
    ......Pro Capitalism = Pro Corporate Welfare + Pro Bailout
    .........Pro God = Pro Hate + Pro Violence

    Makes perfect sense. Tortured logic indeed. Such childishness. If it weren't so deadly, it'd be funny.
  • nader paul kucinich gravel
    HOME NOW.
    We will not accept any more blood on our hands ~
    Who will be the last to die for this failed Imperial Empire?
  • thx1138a
    .
    NEW WORLD ORDER INFORMS OBAMA OF HIS NEXT MAJOR DECISION

    --U.S. Military Industrial Energy Cabal Checks Latest Item Off Xmas Wish List--

    --Illuminati Move Troops on Hasbro World Domination Board, Protect TransAfghan Pipeline--
    .
  • nader paul kucinich gravel
    "Treating people just like pawns in chess
    Wait 'til their judgement day comes"
  • joedee1960
    This war is all about money now. There is no meaning to it. While we suffer with no jobs they wage war! For everyone who has had a hard time,read this poem and pass it around:

    http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/11/poetry-lets...
  • joblo
    He did stay true to what he was saying in the primaries, that afghanistan needs refocusing.
    patriot act renewed
    telecom "retro-active" immunity established
    afghan war
    paki war
    iraq contractors still in iraq
    health care bailout
    same washington crooks in cabinet
    torture photos blocked
    ASSASSINATION ring continuing
    drone bombing continued
    TARP funds?
    more of the same
  • rickpetes
    And the only reason they can send more soldiers over there is that the economy has tanked so bad that people enlist out of economic desperation. It's almost like it was planned...
  • dennycrane
    Here is the win/loss record for afghanistan: 236-0. The betting people of Bimbo will take your bets, willingly. And whose son/daughter will be known as the "last" fatally of this "vertical" trench war when we retreat.
  • mcc
    when will we ever learn... this is a bunch of sadness. The only hope is that we will start the draft up again. Then, for sure the people rise up and say enough is enough. The law is: for ever action there is a reaction. Soon enough all the distruction we caused in life and in the material world will be in the face of those who still can't see...M
  • Savantster
    .
    we're not at war, so there will be no draft. these are "peace keeping missions", officially. We call them war to make a sound of urgency, but no one has declared war because a) you can't declare war on a tactic, and b) it would disrupt social life in America and that would foment dissent (wide spread dissent).

    this scam is just that, a scam. And you're right, we'll never learn because the vehicles of education (the media) have been corrupted and serve to further the scam.
    .
  • jimthebeam
    Though I understand the argument to reinstate the draft (it actually has never been repealed) I 100% oppose it. If we had the draft we would have 500,000 troops in Iraq now ala Vietnam. We would likely have well over 100,000 in Afghanistan. We must turn off the resouce required to run a war. That is money and people.
  • robertsfinnegan
    That is exactly why they will not reinstate the draft. Instant revolution.

    Robert S. Finnegan
  • Subrational
    (I don't care about party affiliation vote them OUT. Fire every incumbent in congress...) I wish. The American public is brainwashed into believing that Repubs and Dems are the only viable parties. Goebbles would be proud of our system and its "political parties"
  • moxaman
    Well, if this is true, I will work tirelessly to defeat Obama in the next election. This is just disgusting.... the USA is bankrupt and Obama uses our precious resources and tax dollars to conduct this illegal, immoral, and insane fake war on terror to enrich the oil companies and MIC. F U OBAMA!
  • mledford27613
    So much for ending the wars.....GO OBAMA!!!!! Another promise broken. I actually think Obama may be a good thing for the American People in the long run. ALOT of people are starting to realize Republicons and Demorats are one in the same. Maybe now all those that voted for him including myself will start voting for anything other than the two criminal parties and hopefully something will actually change. We have to stop keeping these people in power if the dont do what is best for our nation, vote em out, I don't care about party affiliation vote them OUT. Fire every incumbent in congress and continue to do so until they start actually representing the people.
  • Savantster
    .
    He campaigned on staying in Afghanistan. he said we're getting out of Iraq.
    .
  • Democratic_Socialist
    KUCINICH 2012!
    DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER!
  • Democratic_Socialist
    Single-Payer = NO
    War and Death = YES

    Obama in 2012!!!
blog comments powered by Disqus