Democrat troop cuts of the 90s hampering Afghan effort
The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq.It is becoming clear that the enemy has switched his main effort from Iraq to Afghanistan. But if the Democrats had not done the draconian cuts of the 90's there would be adequate troops for both theaters. The Bush administration should also have increased the size of the military after 9-11. As the draw down in Iraq begins this fall, more forces will be freed up for Afghanistan. The Marines who were sent there have had a very positive effect and I expect to see more Marines there in the coming months.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."
Mullen has raised similar concerns over the past several months, but his comments yesterday were more pointed and came amid rising concern at the Pentagon over the situation in Afghanistan, where insurgents have regrouped in the south and east.
Mullen and President Bush also addressed the possibility of a conflict with Iran in separate appearances yesterday, with both saying they favor diplomacy over the use of military force. Asked directly about the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran, Bush, in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden, said: "I have made it very clear to all parties that the first option ought to be solve this problem diplomatically." But he refused to rule out the use of force in the standoff over Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Bush also promised to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by the end of the year. He acknowledged the increasing violence there, saying that "we're going to increase troops by 2009," but did not offer details.
...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but ALL troop cuts from the plan designed by Defense Secretary Cheney in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the lessons learned from the First Gulf War were carried out by agreement by the Congress and the Clinton Administration, with little change in the overall Cheney plan, as per an agreement to reduce the deficit and reap what was called a "peace dividend."
ReplyDeleteAnyone who served or had any kind of knowledge of that fact can tell you that. It was not a "democrat" or "republican" initiative--it was an agreed-upon peace dividend that both parties used to their political advantage.