^^MSNBC is reporting 8,000 marines and 9,000 army for 17,000 total.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242187/

/shrug

Doesn't seem like enough people.

Either way... i'm sure with economic times getting worse army enlistments will rise.

I was afraid he was going to deliver on his campaign promise to increase troop levels by such a small amount. This infinitesimal troop increase coupled with the perpetuation of cross-border drone attacks and the revelation that the US is actually operating inside Pakistan indicates that the US is going to pursue a losing strategy in the region.

Err...what was the point of that?

I think he's just trying to satisfy his queue of campaign promises, even if he doesn't put forth much effort into completing each one. This move, if anything, makes me think that Obama will deliver on nearly all of his campaign promises. They may, however, not be satisfactory.

He said he would end major military operations in Iraq and remove all but a small force.

He said on the campaign that he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

some clarification on the discrepancy courtesy of FNC:

President has approved 17,000 troops.

Pentagon has only identified 12,000.  The remaining 5,000 are still being deployed but the Pentagon can't or won't identify them.

Ummm, did you guys notice that there are currently 38,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan. 17,000 more is about a 45% increase. I doubt Obama just pulled this number out of thin air either. I imagine he consulted with a lot of people to see what they thought was the appropriate response.

Yes, but a "surge" of 17,000 troops in Afghanistan is nothing. In Iraq, which is over 200,000 sq km smaller than Afghanistan and has a smaller population, the US added 20,000 troops to a force of over 100,000 troops. Not to mention Iraq did not suffer from the myriad problems facing Afghanistan-lack of wealth, lack of infrastructure which hampers logistics, and a porous border in which the enemy operates (WNFP, FATA, and the increasing Talibanisation of Balochistan). As I said earlier, this paltry surge coupled with other policies (cross-border attacks) is a recipe for disaster. If the surge was markedly larger and featured a change in policy in other areas, I would approve of it.

I noticed when I saw the thread title that it was a "small" increase but that it was actually rather large percentage wise. In short Jackson50 is pretty much in line with my thinking on this issue, it is a step in the right direction but it's still not enough to meet the needs we have there imo and, iirc, is actually less than half of what was requested by the commanders on the ground.

I recognize that many of the folks who were really involved with his campaign probably won't be happy with the move either way which is why I think he should have done it right or not at all...but maybe he honestly thinks this is enough, which if he does I really disagree that it is. Still, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given his access to the information but only going with half of the recommendation seems like he was trying to hit the exact right number rather than what I think is the far more important goal of making sure we have at minimum the right number (ie err on the high side to make sure you don't under-staff).

The big benefit for him of aiming high is in the fact that he can figure out what is excess over the next 6 months and he gets to bring some troops home once the "proper" amount is determined in the field rather than trying to guess it in some policy meeting. This gives him the opportunity to play up the fact that they are having success now that Afghanistan is properly staffed and that they can already scale back as a result.

oh well I was totally off. When it said "small troop" increase, I thought Akuma was referring to sending lots of oompa loompas out there.


/badum ching!