CAMP LEATHERHEAD, Afghanistan, June 8, 2009
7,000 Marines Join Fight In Afghanistan
Troops From Camp Lejeune Are 1st Wave Of Obama's "Surge", To Total 21,000 This Summer
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
Fast Facts
Afghanistan
Learn about the people, economy and history.
The Marines represent the first wave of 21,000 troops ordered to Afghanistan this summer by President Barack Obama. Most of the Marine buildup will occur in Helmand, the world's largest opium poppy-growing region and Afghanistan's most violent province. Helmand borders Pakistan, where the Taliban's top leadership is believed to be based.
"This is where the fight is, in Afghanistan," 1st Sgt. Christopher Watson, who like many here has also served in Iraq, said Monday. "We are here to get the job done."
Some 7,000 Marines from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, are now in the country, Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Abe Sipe said. The forces have brought fighter aircraft, transport helicopters, artillery and the infrastructure needed to support what will ultimately be a force of around 11,000.
The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 because the country's extremist Taliban leaders were sheltering Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the Islamist terror group behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
The forces quickly defeated the Taliban, pushing the militants out of Kabul and their southern base in Kandahar. But the international coalition and Afghan government have been bedeviled by a guerrilla war ever since, one that turned dangerously violent in 2006.
Along with this summer's troop buildup, the United States is training more Afghan security forces, increasing its spending on aid projects and working to strengthen government institutions, vital elements in a plan to stabilize the country and allow foreign forces to one day withdraw.
But adding troops also risks adding to the resentment of Afghans, especially if it brings about more civilian casualties, long an hot-button issue in this impoverished country. There are also fears that the new forces, which will bring U.S. troops levels to about 68,000 around the country, will simply push the Taliban elsewhere.
Most of the newly arrived Marines are now stationed at Camp Leatherneck, a small base in the center of Helmand expanding by the hour as workers build permanent structures. Some Marines have moved out to smaller outposts and are patrolling Helmand's deserts under a harsh summer sun.
Commanders warn that U.S. deaths are likely to increase this summer, the traditional fighting season in Afghanistan.
At least 70 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year, according to an Associated Press count, a 75 percent increase over the 40 U.S. troop deaths through the first week in June last year. A record 151 American forces died in Afghanistan in 2008.
The Afghan government controls some of the major towns and roads in Helmand, but most of the province of around 1 million is under the sway of the Taliban. Thousands of British forces have been deployed in Helmand since mid-2006, but there have been too few to provide security and counterinsurgency operations for the entire province.
Taliban militants and the drug lords they protect are believed to reap hundreds of millions of dollars from Afghanistan's drug trade. U.S. and NATO troops have stepped up attacks this year on drug labs after concluding the drug trade and the insurgency are intertwined.
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from World
-
Video
Travel Ban Challence
-
Video
Iran Protests Not Over
-
Video
Shark Week: Endangered Predators
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 73 CommentsAGAINST WHAT????
AGAINST WHAT????
Posted by WayAround at 3:04 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...... against the perception that Obama is soft on 'the war or terror'. It doesn't matter whether there is a war or not, Americans always need a war to give themselves a sense of identity.
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain at 3:44 AM : Jun 8, 2009
===============================================
YOUR attempt to rewrite history would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic!
First, how dare you TRY to portray Bush as the master tactician in his failure to ascertain the location of bin Laden or his capture and/or death! You make it sound as if it was pure genius
to determine he couldn't be found, and when he wasn't, he therefore pulled out the troops!
Wrong!
Second, SOME troops were withdrawn because extended deployments had been reached OR exceeded, troop morale was low, the public was clamoring for it, and Congress was nervous THEY'D be the recipients of the "fallout"! So, this is why some troops came home.
Third, your quotation of 30,000 dead al Qaeda is questionable, too! Your figure is probably based on what the C.I.A. says?! That's troubling---when have they been correct about anything during the Iraq-Afghanistan war(s)? Was the leadership killed there in the past? Is that why this No.1, that No.2, supposedly were just recently killed?
Fourth, I hadn't heard the 'crazy arab/muslims' were trying to get Pakistani nukes! I presume you mean Arab/Muslim al Qaeda? Don't mix the good in with the bad! There's a HUGE difference! You know---you could have gotten a job with the State Dept. in the Middle East Section, probably as a division chief!
Fifth, it's clear you didn't approve of President Obama's speech! It was an attempt at diplomacy---to acknowledge beliefs---to extend an olive branch---to try to heal grievous wounds inflicted by the Bush administration. OR, maybe you would have preferred he
go there and continue to insult the Arab world like Bush and Cheney did?! Will that might
give you a lot of personal emotional satisfaction, it wouldn't do the U.S. a lot of good, now would it?!
Fortunately, I think your interpretation of his trip and speech is more critical and extreme
than the way the majority of Americans see it!
Keep your chins up, your heads down, your eyes moving, your fingers on the trigger, don't "park it" in any one spot too long, and MAKE SURE to bring your a*r*s*e*s back home to your spouses, family, and friends! Carry on!
to determine he couldn't be found, and when he wasn't, he therefore pulled out the troops!
Wrong!
Posted by stn_sage at 4:32 AM : Jun 8, 2009
I don't agree with you at all. First, who said anything about "pure genius", the other poster didn't. Second, our Military felt OBL escaped into Pakistan and the decision came down to "do we invade Pakistan?" or "do we send our men and women into Pakistan like sitting ducks to kill a figurehead that has already made his mark, whose death WILL NOT diminish the War on Terror?". That was the choice, a veritable bloodbath in the waiting for our men and women in the mountains or keeping him holed up in the mountains and methodically "Drone Hit" the hidey-holes that our special forces sniffed out.
I've got to say how dare you, because in 2001 an invasion (boots on the ground) in Pakistan by Bush would have been met with an UPROAR from Democrats who would have labeled Bush a bloodthirsty monster for attacking a country for no reason!
ps The death toll of Al Qaeda that you questioned and dismissed earlier made me wonder if you bought all the Iraqi death toll numbers as carved in stone, as absolute fact?
While I'm not glad to see all the terror the jihadists are conducting in Pakistan, I'm glad they finally showed their evil faces and turned on their people. The Taliban in Pakistan remained fairly quiet during the Bush Administration, certainly not enough to attack them, but now they have their guns a blazin and the People of Pakistan WILL NOW BE FORCED to deal with them. I mention this because this is the very reason that Afghanistan is portrayed as "a no win", the constant supply from Pakistan (and the Gov. not addressing "their terror groups") has been seeing to that for too long.
Posted by promaclaura at 5:57 AM : Jun 8, 2009
That's BS.
The entire country was with Bush in the months following 9/11, and we would have supported invading ANY country in the region if we thought they were harboring bin Laden.
Bush's ONLY goal since taking office, was removing Saddam Hussein from office, and the war on terror was subsequently ignored. Hell, Bush should have made "removing Saddam Hussein" his 2000 presidential election campaign's main theme. That's ALL he was concerned with.
Posted by afrazier1
This may work in the short-come, but the Taliban "an army with no uniform" easily blend back in with the population to fight another day (hence the resurgence in southern Afghanistan). Pakistan must remain diligent and use a sledge hammer on the Taliban if we can ever envision peace, the first thing to go should be the radical schools that breed the Taliban.
The entire country was with Bush in the months following 9/11, and we would have supported invading ANY country in the region if we thought they were harboring bin Laden.
Bush's ONLY goal since taking office, was removing Saddam Hussein from office, and the war on terror was subsequently ignored. Hell, Bush should have made "removing Saddam Hussein" his 2000 presidential election campaign's main theme. That's ALL he was concerned with.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 6:17 AM : Jun 8, 2009
No way! Democrat's would have "freaked out" if Bush had attacked Pakistan who ALREADY packs nukes and they were already weary of Afghanistan (lets all recall the Democrats whining about bombing innocent villages!). Wake up, Obama doesn't want to go into Pakistan either because of the bloodbath it represents. Our military already call Afghanistan "Iraq on steroids" and Pakistan makes Afghanistan look like tiddly winks. So, you would have an argument if Obama puts boots on the ground in Pakistan, until then your theory is washed up.
Posted by promaclaura at 6:34 AM : Jun 8, 2009
Then explain the 91% approval rating that Bush had in the three months after 9/11. Bush should have invaded Afghanistan, and when bin Laden and the Taliban fled into Pakistan, they should have been told - "Hand him over, or we're coming to get him!"
The whole country was with Bush, the whole world was with America, and Bush used that support as a spring board to jump into Iraq. He had the support of MOST people IN THE WORLD, and squandered it.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 6:17 AM : Jun 8, 2009
It would have been incredibly irresponsible to NOT have a plan on Iraq and Saddam. Gee, an evil dictator that we flew a no-fly zone around and he STILL was able to conduct his nefarious deeds in the surrounding countries. So for you, Bush was just supposed to run the no-fly zone as a forever policy with us surrounding the country and wait for Saddam to lob bombs before we did anything. Please, we had more reason to rid the world of Saddam then we had reason for attacking Pakistan, remember OBL is not a government official of Pakistan and does not represent them, but Saddam made sure he was head honcho and used his office to conduct "terror" on his people and the world at large.
The whole country was with Bush, the whole world was with America, and Bush used that support as a spring board to jump into Iraq. He had the support of MOST people IN THE WORLD, and squandered it.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 6:49 AM : Jun 8, 2009
The country was united for Afghanistan, not Pakistan. You are way off because there was no way we could get Bin Laden guaranteed, and I'll restate what I said before, the Democrats were ALREADY WEARY OF AFGHANISTAN BACK IN 2001! I remember the cries about Bush dropping bombs on innocent villagers, and we WERE in pursuit of OBL then.
For heavens sakes, you vent your spleen about going into Iraq after one evil man and turn around and become the cheerleader for invading Pakistan for one evil man. Yep, you're pretty messed up and don't recognize it.
ps We had a war already with Saddam, we ran a billion dollar no-fly zone for the guy, our U.N. is on the take with Saddam, we have well documented atrocities committed by Saddam...and so on...and so on.....and so on...and you still think Saddam should have remained in power. Whew, so far you are really making a lot of sense, not!
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 6:17 AM : Jun 8, 2009
He made it his 2004 Presidential election campaign's main theme and won on it.
Posted by State_Run_Media at 6:59 AM : Jun 8, 2009
Really?
I thought we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein 20 months before the 2004 election.
©John Prine
Sam Stone came home,
To his wife and family
After serving in the conflict overseas.
And the time that he served,
Had shattered all his nerves,
And left a little shrapnel in his knee.
But the morphine eased the pain,
And the grass grew round his brain,
And gave him all the confidence he lacked,
With a Purple Heart and a monkey on his back.
Chorus:
There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes,
Jesus Christ died for nothin' I suppose.
Little pitchers have big ears,
Don't stop to count the years,
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios.
Posted by promaclaura
=============================================
Like Cheney said last week. Sadaam had no WMD's,and was not connected with 911
We only attacked Iraq out of fear Sadaam would join the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.
This asinine fear cost 4300 men and women their lives. Perfectly good troops killed for the irresponsible actions of 2 of the dumbest people ever elected to office.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 6:17 AM : Jun 8, 2009
Exactly. Well said.
Posted by user_29454968452640747582 at 7:06 AM : Jun 8, 2009
Oh goodie, I get to use the "inherited" from the previous administration theme. Clinton's Presidency was rife with Saddam and Al Qaeda, he handed them over to Bush like a hot potato. Clinton, a man truly ineffective in protecting our country, letting evil doers build their forces as he played with interns in the oval office. How selfish, maybe Bush wanted to play with cigars in the oval office with Laura instead of having to deal with what Clinton left him.
We only attacked Iraq out of fear Sadaam would join the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.
This asinine fear cost 4300 men and women their lives. Perfectly good troops killed for the irresponsible actions of 2 of the dumbest people ever elected to office.
Posted by Livinontheedge at 7:11 AM : Jun 8, 2009
Honestly, I don't believe they should have left Saddam in power from the 1st Gulf War, that was the MISTAKE. I would have supported Clinton removing him instead of running a no-fly zone that let Saddam do his dirty deeds through the black market. We can't pretend that Saddam was going away, and didn't have ambitions to become a larger threat. Jeez, just like Iran we could not let Saddam get ahold of nukes and he certainly made it known his hate of the U.S. and his wish for our demise. Also, I never believed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and the WMD was a moot point for someone who already felt that Saddam should be gone. What I did believe was that Saddam had more power, more weapons at his disposal and posed a greater threat than the ragtag Al Qaeda who was able to pull off a "terror attack". At that point I thought, good God, if this group can do this just what the heck is Saddam capable of? Gee, I didn't want to wait to find out. Will we wait to find out for Iran and North Korea? Hmmm.....
Keep your chins up, your heads down, your eyes moving, your fingers on the trigger, don't "park it" in any one spot too long, and MAKE SURE to bring your a*r*s*e*s back home to your spouses, family, and friends! Carry on!
Posted by stn_sage at 4:41 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!!!!!!!! Keep your heads down and your fingers OFF the trigger, and come back home without killing anyone.
THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION FACED
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS
That's a laugh! Gee, Saddam was running strong under a no-fly zone and Al Qaeda was stirring their evil brew when Bush took over, yeah Clinton did so much to address the removal of these threats! I find it strange that you think that Bush should have attacked Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 based on info from the CIA, intelligence reports based on theories/info from the field that aren't really able to show "absolute proof".
Yep, I'm sure you would have been all for sending in the troops before 9/11, right? I'm pretty sure you would have been clubbing Bush over the head as a "warmonger" and saying we had no "real" proof that Al Qaeda was going to hit our country and look what big, bad Bush did to the poor people in Afghanistan.
WHY DO YOU EVEN MENTION HIM
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS
So why did we run a no-fly zone that cost us billions for someone that was never a threat, why did Clinton, the Democrats, and the 90's media barrage us with stories about evil Saddam and his high tech bunkers (CBS and 60 Minutes leading the charge)? Why did we set up shop in Saudi Arabia (which pi$$ed off OBL) and in Kuwait for the "no threat" in charge of Iraq? Hmmm? If anyone wants to mention oil, I'll remind you that this all happened under Clinton, was he the original President that wanted to control Iraq's oil, but bided his time so the next President would have to do it and be smeared by nutso libs instead of himself?
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS at 7:55 AM : Jun 8, 2009
because spending and "taking" money is all the Democrat's care about, learn to think.
But anyhoo - GO MARINES! You guys rock!!!
THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION FACED
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS
He sure did!! He cut Intel spending by 7 billion over 4 years, gutted the military.....google "Clinton Peace Dividend". Not all Democratic Presidents are saints - and the Bush administration had to rebuild what Clinton had torn apart. Any Democrats think Republicans drink kool aid and wear tinfoil hats? I think we all keep passing them back and forth, actually :o)
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS at 8:06 AM : Jun 8, 2009
No, it's all about the Democrat lies that you slurped up hook, line and sinker to win an election, that is what it's about. How's those prosecutions of the Bush Admin. going for you? Oh that's right, Democrat's aren't going to do anything to the boogyman they created, now are they? Could it be the liberal propaganda machine pumped out a bunch of BS that couldn't hold water, couldn't stand up in the wash? Certainly looks that way, you'll be scratching your head for along time over this one, Bush was painted as a war criminal by the Democrat Party and then they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, HA!
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS
SchoolBoy ! wrong, take a peek at what your Democrat leaders said:
Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Bill Clinton February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq''s weapons of mass destruction program."
Bill Clinton February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
Chuck Schumer October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein''s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
Democrat Senator John Edwards February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we''re going to allow this man who''s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we''re going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it''ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
John Kerry February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East
Posted by NY-Joe-5 at 8:12 AM : Jun 8, 2009
We are so lucky that the Democrats were so vocal in the 90's about the threat of Saddam, oodles of quotes to choose from. Yep, Saddam was throughly demonized by the Democrat's in the 90's and then switched their focus to President Bush from 2000 on, demonizing him for removing the man they demonized in the 90's. Very strange.
you might be a member of the Jihadist Movement:
1. You wipe your arse with your bare hand, but
consider bacon unclean.
Posted by NY-Joe-5 at 8:15 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You like jokes? You'll like this one..............................
How many American tourists does it take to change a light bulb?
Fifteen. Five to figure out how much the bulb costs in the local currency, four to comment on "how funny-looking" local lightbulbs are, three to hire a local person to change the bulb, two to take pictures, and one to buy postcards in case the pictures don't come out.
Do you want some more insulting ones?
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS at 8:29 AM : Jun 8, 2009
No, what's un-American is to vote yes on an issue and then turn on the President like a rabid dog for the very issue YOU voted yes on. It's un-American for elected officials and our media to become the propaganda machine for Al Qaeda! Gee, when Al Qaeda was doing their budget, did they cut out funding for propaganda saying the "Democrats have taken care of it"?
Relying on stereotypes and insults is a sign of ignorance.
Posted by NY-Joe-5 at 8:45 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course it's not funny to you, it's not supposed to be!!!! YOU AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB!
Posted by NY-Joe-5 at 8:59 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
................. keep on digging!
Posted by NY-Joe-5 at 9:10 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You don't even understand what I mean by "keep on digging", do you? Go on......... admit it and ask me. Perhaps you might learn something.
Posted by TNisgoodenoughforme at 9:26 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you think god should bless the people of Afghanistan too? Are they in your thoughts and prayers?
Posted by hower4 at 9:30 AM : Jun 8, 2009
what country are you from ?
Posted by BENNINGSSCHOOLFORBOYS
Some 7,000 new U.S. troops ordered to Afghanistan by President Obama
Posted by TNisgoodenoughforme at 9:55 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's odd that you didn't mention "the innocents" until you were prompted, and then you mentioned them last of all. Don't you think you should pray for them first? Especially as they are the most likely to be killed or maimed. Or do Americans always come first?
Posted by TNisgoodenoughforme at 10:21 AM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they stayed at home to do just that then nobody would be complaining!
If you don't want to be at war ( & I don't) then get on Obama case about it. Write letters/ email, I do.
Hearing of anyone getting hurt or killed is sad, but my son has a job to do. His boss is Obama. If you don't like it tell him. War is hell. Bad mouthing the men & women who don't get paid much is sicking. I say bring the draft back so people like you can eat your words.
Posted by hower4
Nobody was complaining when American troops liberated several countries from oppression all over the world at one time or another.
Posted by TPS2 at 12:56 PM : Jun 8, 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
................. and when was the last time????????
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 73 Comments