The LA Times Reports

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama ordered his first major deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country.

The deployment will double the number of American combat brigades in the nation at a time of tension with Afghanistan's weak government over civilian casualties of the campaign against the increasingly bold Taliban, and concern over neighboring Pakistan's ability to fight Islamic militants based there.

In a statement announcing the troop increase, Obama directed veiled criticism at the Bush administration, noting that a request from Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had been pending for months.

"This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said.

In undertaking the "solemn duty" to dispatch troops to war, Obama also delved into one of the main issues of his long presidential campaign. While denouncing the Iraq war as a mistake, Obama repeatedly pledged to refocus on Afghanistan.

Though fulfilling requests submitted by U.S. commanders, Tuesday's order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics unanswered until a strategy review is completed in April. In a hint that his strategy would include more than military power, Obama said he would "employ all elements" of U.S. government resources to meet achievable goals, with help from U.S. allies.

In dispatching the troops for duty in Afghanistan, Obama also expressed concern about the threat from extremists elsewhere in the region, including in havens in Pakistan.

Debate has raged for months about the possible effectiveness in Afghanistan of a "surge," the term used for the 2007 troop increase in Iraq that has been credited with helping stabilize that country.

Military officials have been careful not to use that terminology for the current increase in Afghanistan, arguing that additional troops could be needed there for years.

For the full story, go to,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-troops18-2009feb18,0,1590275.story

If only Bush had put more troops into Afghanistan instead of going into Iraq.

Situation in Pakistan is not good. All terorist organisation are enjoying control over Pakistan foreign policies and decission take by US President is correct....

If US backs out from resposibility then trust me you will witness world war soon.

Responsibility? Since when US become responsible to be a world police?

Now stop that, before all these guys get mad because Obama isnt the pacifist wuss they claimed he was for the last year-and-a-half..

Oh NOooooooo,,
Maybe he's sending them there under guise, and then when they are there he will suddenly use them to aide his Muslim brothers..

LMAO!!! Sorry I cant help myself!!!

all I can say is my sister and bro in law complain that america isn't the world police and shouldn't act like it...then they change to "oh...he can't just stand by and do nothing"

I give

What he is doing is lumping together those who wanted war, and those who opposed war, in order to prompt them either to appear weak explaining themselves which would be seen as a sign of guilt, or fall prey to side arguments and bait and switch tactics while explaining that they are in fact two different groups. Either way, he wants to make war on anybody, anywhere. The only thing that matters is that Obama leads it. Obviously, this contradicts the very premise of Obama supporters, but this is the key. You can't seriously expect yourself to win a debate while you know yourself being wrong, and not twist your own position backwards at the same time.

Just a little debate gaming.

You mean someone might actually get bin laden finally??!!!!

Yes, since Santa didn't come all these years, makes it only all the more likely to come this year.

Bush screwed the pooch in Afghanistan and honestly I wonder why. Was it arrogance? Misinformation? Recklessness?

We will never truly know I suppose.

We all know we have a huge mess on our hands.

Ask the Russians...this mess was at their own geographical back door and they had to shut down the road show and go home.

I don't see any real resolution in the area.

I do see the U.S. responsibility in Afghanistan but I don't think it is one that can be resolved militarily.

Why are we responsible? Look at what we did when we were more than happy to let Afghanistan serve as a thorn under the the Soviet saddle. We funded and trained the fighters...and when the super powers were done playing in their backyard we left there people twisting in the wind.

If we are going to find a solution it's essential that we first look honestly at the problem right?

It's another campaign promise being kept!

Boy, he's refreshing.

All too often we get involved in affairs we should just say the hell out of.

If we hadn't started the Taliban, mayb they wouldn't have attacked us. If we hadn't put Saddam in power, maybe we would have never saw the need to take it over.

One mistake after another.

Obama is making the same mistakes Bush did.

History repeats itself.

drivin...isn't that like a shoulda woulda coulda? I know personally I have done things that later I thought...what was I thinking. lol ok that tends to happen alot

no one can predict the future (maybe some can dunno) but you are right. we have to learn from the past so history doesn't repeat itself

I just posted the past. MISTAKES,,,

Show me one place, so far, where Obama is repeating Bush's BS!

Many on here want him to, not you driven, but so far he hasnt.

Yep, he did say he was going to do it.

we put Saddam in power??

you mean we made him assasinate the Iraqi President and take over the government?

I was talking in general...not specifically