Not a Surge, but a Wash, in Afghanistan

[maddezmom]

Sometimes it's just flat-out funny to watch the Bush administration spin when it comes to military operations. The New York Times reported this weekend that the U.S. could see a surge of troops into Afghanistan. Surely, groups like VoteVets.org have to be happy with that, right? I mean, since our inception in 2006, we've put a top priority on taking Afghanistan more seriously.

Except, this isn't a "surge," it's caulk. You know, the stuff you use to fill the gaps.

Here's why. Our NATO allies are slowly pulling out of Afghanistan, leaving forces short. Even as the Bush administration begged them to send more troops, our allies promised a couple of thousand, on a very short term basis. That's a heck of a lot less than the 7,000 we were asking for. Not only that, but those who did promise more troops are planning to pull out completely later this year, or early next year.

So, we're just making up the shortfall. And yet, the administration seems to be pushing the line that the US, after the Afghanistan surge, will have the highest number of US forces there -- 40,000 -- since the initial invasion. Of course it will represent the highest number of US troops -- it has to, now that our allies are bailing. In reality, it's just a wash.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080505/cm_huffpost/100204

[Pharaoh]

1. God Bless George Bush!

He is a military Genius!!:sarcasm: