"A dozen NATO countries have pledged a total of about 2,000 troops, according to senior NATO officials...Senior alliance commanders in Afghanistan have said they need about 10,000 more troops.

Only one country so far has actually begun preparing more troops to deploy: France, which is sending 700 to Afghanistan, NATO officials said."
=============

French Fries/Toast are back on the menu

Mr. Bush, at a Rose Garden news conference this week, appeared to be laying the groundwork for a long-term mission in Afghanistan.

"I wish we had completely eliminated the radicals who kill innocent people to achieve objectives, but that hasn't happened yet," he said Tuesday. "And so I think it's very much in our interests to continue helping the young democracy. And we will."
===============

"I wish ...hasn't happened yet," = war on terror
seems the WAR President can't get it done

The world is wrong and the Pentagon is right. What a disaster.

Mr. Bush has long faced criticism that the Iraq war distracted the country from confronting the Qaeda threat in Afghanistan, and Democrats as well as Republicans have expressed general support for shifting more attention to Afghanistan.
==================

RAY...the president chose the time, mission, force size and the tactics...

with a little help from his friends...

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,"...

says it all...

you have to go to war
mmike


Actually you don't.

But if you do you don't start a second war ignoring the first on pipe dreams.

Way too little, way too late.

"But if you do you don't start a second war ignoring the first on pipe dreams."
================
ZAP...agreed


"Way too little, way too late.+
=================

MORRIS...agreed, but Afghanistan/Pakistan must be settled...there is no such thing as the WAR in Afghanistan, Pakistan MUST be added to the equation.

"...government of President Hamid Karzai faces a resurgent threat from the Taliban and remnants of Al Qaeda."
============

Because WAR President GB failed to complete the "mission" Afghanistan/Pakistan could be the "100 years war."

Dammed candyassed republicans!

Have a draft, go to war, get it over with.

Else bring "em home.

Quit screwing around.

George & Dick's "Excellent Adventure"

It is amazing that the party with the kick you butt reputation can't get er done...

I'm not surprised the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on European Affairs has done nothing to get NATO to step up to the plate.

Maybe we should elect the chairman of that committee as president?

I'm surprised the President of the United States, who is charged with seeing that such policy matters are developed and implemented, hasn't done more to get NATO to step up to the plate.

But, then, it could be European leaders possess better historical memories about what happens to forces that attempt to invade Afghanistan than the top hand of Prairie Chapel Ranch.

"...hasn't done more to get NATO to step up to the plate."
============

"In February, when lobbying NATO countries to pledge more forces to Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, "Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan."

DOC.
Why should NATO commit while the US shows a lack of interest?

MMIKE -

I'm not saying NATO should commit. My post was in response to one that suggested Obama should somehow get NATO to "step up to the plate" when, as chair of a Senate subcommittee, he is neither empowered nor responsible for doing anything of the kind. I also noted that one of the reasons European powers may shy away from dipping their folks into the Afghan cauldron is that their leadership might just possibly possess better historical memory of what has happened to so many forces that attempted to dominate Afghanistan.

MMIKE -

Just another thought. Your observation about the US showing a lack of interest is, I think, telling. If you look at the arc of George Bush's life, one of its notable features is his inability to accept responsibility for his fuck-ups (which are legion) and a pronounced tendency to expect others to clean up the messes he creates.

When it comes to Afghanistan, my guess is that Bush just isn't interested in it anymore. It's too long, too complicated, too boring. Let the next guy or gal figure it out.

Iraq, of course, is much the same situation when it comes to Bush's loss of interest, inability to accept responsiblity, and desire to make his problem someone else's.

"Let the next guy or gal figure it out."
=================

Doc agreed,

Afghanistan troop increase are for 2009
Iraq troops still there in 2009
Deficit/debt for our grand and great grand kids
Energy independence ?

A lot more can be added to the list however, GB seems to have the rational if it doesn't culminate on his watch it's not his fault even if he was the instigator.

I guess that's how he (rationalizes) protects his legacy

Mmike -

In his own mind, he's a great man.

I'm sure that's what his sycophants tell him every hour of every day.

"...he's a great man."
===============

DOC it will say so in his LIE-brary

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in...to kind of catapult the propaganda." GB 05/24/05

And if that does not work re-write history.

The dr left chastised the US for pulling troops out of Afghanistan, now they rip em for sending in troops. At least you all are consistent, dudes....

Why would you send more troops to Afghanistan after the Taliban was so thorougly routed like the Bushtards claimed years ago?

*thoroughly*

"The dr left chastised the US for pulling troops out of Afghanistan, now they rip em for sending in troops."
=================

DTW...speaking for myself the problem is not that GB is thinking of putting in more troops for 2009, he never should have pulled them before the mission was done.

Dave, what do you think the world would be like if the resources spent in Iraq was used in Afghanistan?