|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 24, 2008 - 8:32am.
US commanders in Afghanistan have requested three more combat brigades, or about 10,000 troops, to deal with growing insurgent violence in the eastern and southern parts of the country. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said improving security conditions in Iraq have raised the prospect for freeing up troops for Afghanistan next year, but Iraq remains the Bush administration's top priority. "It looks as though this government is going to work to provide additional forces for Afghanistan next year," Morrell said. "How many, whether it is the three additional brigades that the commanders want I think is a question for the next administration." Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has vowed to make Afghanistan the top priority if elected. His Republican rival, John McCain, argues that success in Iraq is more important, but has said he would send more troops to Afghanistan. President George W. Bush met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military chiefs in a secure conference room at the Pentagon to review progress on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Morrell said efforts were underway to figure out what forces or military assets could be sent to Afghanistan in the near-term. Whether additional forces can be diverted from Iraq to Afghanistan "is going to be the fundamental issue before the military leaders, the civilian leaders in this building in the coming months," he said. But Morrell said providing additional combat brigades would require a more rapid drawdown of US forces from Iraq or the mobilization of guard and reserve troops. "Obviously we don't have the means to send three BCTs (brigade combat teams) to Afghanistan at this very moment, without making some very hard choices," he said. "You can't snap your fingers and make this happen." Morrell's comments were striking because they came just a week after Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed vivid concern about the rising violence and deteriorating security in Afghanistan. Gates said the Pentagon was looking for ways to send additional forces to Afghanistan "sooner rather than later." There are currently 37,000 US troops in Afghanistan, versus 148,000 in Iraq. "As to what that 'sooner' means, if it were possible to do it this year we would certainly look to doing it this year," Morrell said. "But those are among the things that are being discussed right now. What is possible? What additional forces can be provided and how soon?" Morrell also sought to cast the situation in Afghanistan as less dire than portrayed in the media, telling reporters that Gates believed it was "a mixed picture." "The secretary has heard from commanders on the ground, who tell him that the enemy action that we are seeing in various parts of Afghanistan are disconnected from one another," he said. "So there is no cohesive enemy offensive that is threatening the Afghan government, but there clearly are problems, real problems, and more forces are needed to do that," he said. Last week, however, Mullen portrayed the insurgency in Afghanistan as having grown stronger in sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas. Insurgents appeared better trained and were employing increasingly sophisticated tactics, he said. According to Mullen, militant groups that previously had not operated together now appeared to be coming together. The Pentagon's apparent backtracking on Afghanistan coincided with an intensifying debate in the presidential campaign over whether US interests were greater in Iraq or Afghanistan. Morrell defended the administration's view that Iraq remain the top priority. "That is the war we have focused on, that is the war we are now winning. And now that we have seen gains there, the dividends from those gains we are looking to see if they can be applied to Afghanistan. It's a question of how soon," he said. Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
The Pentagon is unable to send additional combat brigades to Afghanistan this year because of constraints imposed by the war in Iraq, leaving a shift of forces to the next president, a spokesman said Wednesday.
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon
Submitted by pollchecker on July 24, 2008 - 12:27pm.This is BS! Whatever happened to "we will hunt for Osama Bin Laden and we will get him no matter where or what!"?
How many good American's will die in the next few months in Afghanistan because we did not support those troops.
The mission in Iraq has long been accomplished even by our own fearless leader's words. GW is just copying his Daddy's lame ass efforts in Somalia.
There is no other way to put it. This is pure unadulterated BS! It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that NOTHING this self absorbed narcissitic A-hole has ever said has been the truth. So that means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HE SAYS or those that support him say is true. It's all out and out lies...every bit of it.
I know we said we would be civil but when it comes to valuable unreplaceable American lives, this action is obscene and must be addressed at its own obscene level.
How dare he deprive some family of their loved ones because of his arrogant ego. How dare he do this!
War in and of itself is
Submitted by woody188 on July 24, 2008 - 1:57pm.War in and of itself is obscene. However it is sometimes necessary in defense of our own well being. This was not one of those times.
I firmly believe that any troop reduction in Iraq will result in more violence. I think al-Sadr is but biding his time as he is emboldened after defeating the combined US/Britain/Iraqi forces at Basra with his Mahdi Army militia.
Leaving our soldiers in Iraq will also result in an increase in violence against them as Iraqi nationalism increases.
Either way, we lose and our soldiers are stuck in the middle of an impossible mission they should never have been asked to undertake.
Mr. Bush just wants to ride out his term and leave the mess and the blame to someone else because he knows there will be no positive outcome. At best he is one of the worst leaders in American history, if not a treasonous, lying, torturing war criminal.
Al Sadr wants to be the
Submitted by pollchecker on July 24, 2008 - 4:37pm.Al Sadr wants to be the president of Iraq. He is playing a political game and will not do anything to jeopardize his position.
He can not accomplish his goal as long as US forces are in Iraq. So he has deliberately limited his actions except to show strength.
Bush's ALWAYS leave messes behind for someone else to clean up! ALWAYS! It doesn't matter which Bush or what industry it's in. They are like locusts except worse. They smile and play nice the entire time they are stealing the kitchen sink.
I don't care about politics. I care about brave American lives that will be lost because GW Bush is not supporting our troops. Isn't that what the lie, cheat and steal REpublicans used in 2002 to take over the Congress?
Well I say that anyone who does not stand up against this ridiculous policy, anyone that says we must remain in Iraq, while we are losing in Afghanistan, is a liar and a murderer and that includes the Republican nominee for POTUS!
I will not play nice when Americans are dying when there is no reason for them to die except some A-hole's political motivation! I WILL NOT!
If wrong is not wrong, then anarchy prevails. If Anarchy prevails, well it's not going to be pretty. I repeat if the POTUS and his administration do not have to follow the rule of law or the Constitution, etc. then NOT ONE single citizen of this country, should have to do the same.
Pollchecker, I couldn't
Submitted by Ladywolf55 on July 24, 2008 - 4:55pm.Pollchecker, I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for having the guts to say it.
Amazing .. truly
Submitted by BlackAsCoal on July 24, 2008 - 7:51pm.Amazing .. truly astounding.
I am forever amazed by the American mind. Nurtured by Hollywood, we are an invented people.
Can't decide which war is the good war when in fact you'd have to be an American not to see that neither Iraq or Afghanistan is a good war and neither has any purpose other thsn to do the bidding of our corporate puppetmasters.
Chasing ghosts.
War is a racket .. USMC Major General Smedley Butler, 1939
The Bush administration has
Submitted by Direct Democracy on July 24, 2008 - 8:21pm.The Bush administration has used this same tactic over and over since Day 1. They announce they're going to do something REALLY SCARY and then later they backpeddle and say that they're going to do something a little LESS scary, even if it's still patently insane.
And everyone says "Whew, that's not so bad."
We can do better than that!
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Here is the REAL reason that
Submitted by pollchecker on July 25, 2008 - 2:49pm.Here is the REAL reason that Bush won't withdraw from Iraq! I think we should investigate as to how much money these same companies have contributed to Bush and McCain's campaigns over the past 8 years as well as the Republican National Committee! That might be an HONEST eye opener.
Halliburton -- The first name that comes to everyone’s mind here is Halliburton. According to MSN Money, Halliburton’s KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone. This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBR’s total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year.
Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp --At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary. The primary service DynCorp has provided to the war efforts is the training of new Iraqi police forces.
Please note that there is a 2nd company also paid to do this. Bush has repeatedly said that troops were needed in Iraq to train these forces.
Washington Group International -- The Washington Group International has parlayed its expertise the repair, restore, and maintenance of high-output oil fields into $931 million in Iraq-related revenue from 2003-2006.
Environmental Chemical -- The privately held Burlingame, California company has stockpiled $878 million by the end of fiscal 2006 for munitions disposal, calling upon its “decade of experience planning and conducting UXO removal, investigation, and certification activities.”
Aegis -- Aegis has done the United Kingdom proud after reeling in a contract to coordinate all of Iraq’s private security operations. The Pentagon contract is good for $430 million (incredibly lucrative by any standard) but it has landed Aegis in some hot public relations water.
International American Products -- International American Products has stuck their neck out and collected a cool $759 million in just 3 years for its efforts.
Erinys -- London-based Erinys has so far scored $136 million for its effort in securing Iraq’s precious oil reserves.
Fluor -- Fluor scored a monster $1.1 billion contract in 2004 to build, service, and manage water/sewage systems in Iraq.
Perini -- Perini (controlled by financier Richard Blum) is one of the more controversial companies to have scored big-time Iraq war money. That’s because Blum’s wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, appears to have used her seat on the Military Construction Appropriations subcomittee to steer the $650 million environmental cleanup deal in his favor.
Apparently cronyism is not limited to REpublicans (wink)!
URS Corporation -- Long known as one of the nation’s major defense contractors, San Francisco-based URS has collected $792 million in environmental cleanup fees in Iraq war zones.
Parsons -- Few Iraq contractors have come under fire as much as Parsons, who reportedly mismanaged the construction a police academy so poorly that human waste dripped from its ceilings......Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the Pasedena-based firm from making off with $540 million in U.S. government funds for the poorly executed reconstruction projects at Iraq’s healthcare centers and fire stations.
First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting -- First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting is another example of the apparent cronyism that has gone into the process of awarding Iraq war contracts. It now seems that the company has succeeded on the strength of its ties to Bush Administration officials than its business merits. Rival companies have been extremely vocal in their displeasure at First Kuwaiti being awarded $500 million to build a United States Embassy in Baghdad.
“First Kuwaiti was not the lowest bidder”, complained Framco senior vice-president Gilles Kacha.
Armor Holdings -- Since combat commenced in 2001, the company’s revenue has skyrocketed by a mind-blowing 2,247%, up to $634 million.
L3 Communications -- L3 Communications has carved out a neat $359 million slice of Iraq’s security screening needs as of fiscal 2006. The New York-based company has been charged with overseeing the screening and training of law enforcement personell for the growing all-Iraqi security force
NOTE: GW bush has repeatedly told us that our troops are needed in Iraq to train Iraqi law enforcement personnel. Apparently just another Bush lie since obviously we are paying this contractor to do that mission!
AM General -- The renowned maker of extra-wide all terrain vehicles (shown below) has seen its Pentagon revenues soar by 92%, a phenomenal leap for any business. This placed Renco sixth in a 2005 analysis of the fastest growing contractors by dollar amount, and sixth in an analysis of fastest growing contractors by percentage.
HSBC Bank -- Already the third largest financial institution on the planet, HSBC has seen its fortunes brighten beyond its wildest dreams since the start of combat. It has purchased a controlling stake (70%) of the newly created Iraqi national bank, Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, which, though small, has already amassed assets of $91 million.
Cummins -- “Cummins Power Generation is proud to be the first generator set manufacturer to establish a distributorship in Iraq that covers the whole country.”
MerchantBridge -- The investment banking group has ambitiously targeted marketshare in Iraq’s developing construction, telecommunications, financial services, real estate, hotels, and information technology industries, all of which have been made easier by being the “lead advisor” to Iraq’s Ministry of Industry.
GlobalRisk Strategies -- Risk management is a lucrative business the world over, and the stakes are nowhere higher than the high-pressure war zones of a foreign nation. GlobalRisk Strategies has capitalized on the bewildering uncertainty to the tune of $24.5 million, which it has primarily earned by advising U.S. and Coalition forces on the risks of various counter-terrorism strategies.
ControlRisks -- While Iraq has recently begun to cool down in terms of insurgent violence and infighting, the region should provide opportunities for companies like ControlRisks to profit for years or even decades to come.
CACI -- Susan Burke, an attorney working on the case on CCR’s behalf, was quoted as saying “We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money.”
Bechtel -- Bechtel is yet another Iraq contractor who seems to have benefited from close ties to the Bush Admistration. How else would a company recommended by the man who oversaw the Big Dig disaster possibly be awarded a $2.4 billion, no-bid reconstruction contract for Iraq’s infrastructure?
Custer Battles -- Custer Battles has the dubious distinction of being the first Iraq war contractor to be found guilty of fraud.
Nour USA -- Of all the companies on this list, Nour USA might be the only one who actually did not exist until the Iraq war got underway. Since its opportunistic opening, the company has recieved $400 million in Iraq-related contracts, including a gigantic $80 million deal to secure the nation’s oil pipelines.
General Dynamics -- According to a Washington Post report in July of 2006, General Dynamics is one of the big-name defense contractors that has gotten the biggest monetary boost from the Iraq war.
Find out more about who they are, what they are doing in Iraq and how much of our tax dollars they are lining their profit sheets with, click on the following link.
The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
OUTSTANDING research effort
Submitted by ekaton on July 25, 2008 - 10:03pm.OUTSTANDING research effort Pollchecker! Thank you. One more thing ... look into a company known as "SAIC" -- pretty scary.
-- Kent Shaw
Brzezinski: Surge In
Submitted by pollchecker on July 25, 2008 - 4:36pm.Brzezinski: Surge In Afghanistan Risky, Some McCain Backers Want World War IV
This is a very interesting perspective on Afghanistan by a former politician who knows what he is talking about and NOT affiliated with the current administration.
Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor who in an famous 1998 interview with France's Le Nouvel Observateur, admitted his own role in funding Afghanistan's Mujahadeen in 1979 who ultimately defeated the Soviet Army with covert assistance to the tune of billions of dollars from the US. This guy has some acceptable ideas.
Sometimes, a politician nails it. Check this out!
I think Chuck Hagel would be an excellent Secretary of Defense especially after his recent comments after going with Senator Obama to Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't want a single solitary person associated with Bush in a cabinet position, period, end of story!
Brzezinki may have a foreign name and he might have worked for a politician at one time...but he's hit the nail on the head this time when talking about Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda's plan has been all along to bankrupt the United States in a military conflict just like we trained them to do to the Soviets two decades ago.