Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan

A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan
Iraq War Limits U.S. Options, Says Chairman of Joint Chiefs
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 3, 2008; A01
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.
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.
Mullen said military commanders are looking at the prospects for sending
additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009, but only if conditions in Iraq
continue to improve over the coming months, which would allow some forces
to be withdrawn and reallocated. The war in Iraq has occupied as many as
20 military brigades during the troop buildup over the past year, reducing
violence there substantially but convincing many officers and experts that
a quick drawdown in Iraq would jeopardize gains.
Recent bleak assessments about the Taliban and a dramatic increase in the
number of attacks in Afghanistan have left military commanders with
nowhere to turn as they seek more troops. The Army and Marine Corps have
been stretched thin by numerous deployments to both war zones, and the
administration has been unable to persuade allies to send more troops.
"The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more
effective and more aggressive in recent weeks, as the casualty figures
clearly demonstrate," Mullen said. ". . . We all need to be patient. As we
have seen in Iraq, counterinsurgency warfare takes time and it takes a
certain level of commitment."
In April, Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United
States was not doing all it should in Afghanistan and that more troops
were needed. At a meeting in Fort Lewis, Wash., two weeks ago, Mullen said
that he needed at least three more brigades in Afghanistan but that troop
constraints were preventing such a move. "We are in a very delicate time,"
he said.
Members of Congress and critics of the Iraq war have argued for years that
Iraq has diverted resources from the fight in Afghanistan. Mullen's
comments underscore the effect of keeping roughly 145,000 troops in Iraq.
Unlike the critics, however, Mullen sees both wars as vital to creating a
stable region and wants to wait for sustained progress in Iraq before
trying to shift resources.
About 60,000 troops from 40 nations are in Afghanistan, 32,000 of them
from the United States.
"We need to make deeper cuts in Iraq to be able to do Afghanistan at
greater strength, but it makes me nervous to accelerate the drawdown in
Iraq," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings
Institution. "It's dangerous to throw away what you've been able to
succeed in doing in one place in the hope that you might help a mission
where you're having relative failure elsewhere."
James Jay Carafano, a military expert at the Heritage Foundation, said it
is clear that the war in Afghanistan needs more troops. He argued that the
only sensible strategy is to hold the line there until brigades can be
moved out of Iraq.
"If you want to deal with Afghanistan, you have to deal with Iraq first,"
he said. Carafano said he thinks the next president could reduce forces in
Iraq significantly by 2011, allowing a "responsible force" to be in
Afghanistan by that time.
Addressing a potential conflict with Iran, Mullen said he strongly favors
diplomacy over military action to deter Tehran from seeking nuclear
weapons. Mullen visited Israeli officials last week but declined to
provide details on his discussions with them.
"Clearly there is a very broad concern about the overall stability level
in the Middle East," Mullen said. For the military, "opening up a third
front right now would be extremely stressful on us," he added. "That
doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be
very challenging, and also the consequences of that sometimes are very
difficult to predict."
Mullen said he opposes a military strike on Iran by either the United
States or Israel.
"My strong preference here is to handle all of this diplomatically with
the other powers of governments, ours and many others, as opposed to any
kind of strike occurring," Mullen said. "This is a very unstable part of
the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 committed to the war in Iraq.
a far cosa? Se l'Iraq non è mai stato così tranquillo...sarà mica che
stanno lì per l'Iran?



Per mettere a punto delle bombe atomiche, ci deve essere 
poco casino intorno!... non è un laboratorio di fuochi artificiali!!!
;-)