Report: 13,000 Troops Deploy to Afghanistan
13 October 2009 12:05 am by Taylor Marsh
–updated–
They’re called “enablers,” to refer to support troops deployed beyond combat forces, which won’t sit well with anyone just hearing the term. But you can’t have combat forces deployed without them.
But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
[...] The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office.
Troops are not the answer, even for someone like me who supports staying in Afghanistan, but that’s the way it’s been headed for some time.
There’s more intrigue on the Afghanistan front as well, compliments of Laura Rozen, who got a scoop about Holbrooke’s aid restrictions and ideas taking serious incoming from USAID officials in the form of a formal dissent memo. Laura’s got the document that lays out the beef with Holbrooke.
To add, it brings me back to Christiane Amanpour’s interview with Gates and Clinton, who will likely be the decisive front on whatever Obama decides. The New York Times profiles the two “pragmatists,” who I’ve always believed will cut a McChrystal compromise.
