portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

government | imperialism & war

Nobel Peace Laureate Obama Will Send 40K More Troops To War

Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama has decided to send close to 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan over the course of 2010, according to insiders.
Nobel Peace Laureate Obama Will Send 40K More Troops To War

Pointless "will he, won't he" debates ignore the fact that Obama has already deployed 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan

Steve Watson
Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama has decided to send close to 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan over the course of 2010, according to insiders.

"Informed sources tell CBS news he intends to give General McCrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for," the network reported Monday night.

According to the report, Obama has decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops, bringing the total of new troops to be deployed close to 40,000.
The first troops will arrive in early 2010, and it would take until the end of 2010 before all the additional troops were in position.

The build up is expected to last four years, meaning there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2012 when Obama has completed his first term.

According to CBS, Obama will announce the decision the week before Thanksgiving, just in time to fly over to Oslo, Norway in December to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.
The White House has denied that any decision has been made, calling the reports, "absolutely false".

Watch the CBS report:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMkgYur45m0

Of course, this news is not surprising. While the mainstream media is still pointlessly debating "will he, won't he", the decision to deploy thousands more troops was made back in February with the announcement that 17,000 rising to 30,000 troops would be sent into the country.

At the same time, Obama demand a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs.

"According to the U.S. defense officials, Obama needs USD 75.5 billion for 2009 to cover the cost of the additional troops deployed in to Afghanistan this year and an another USD 130 billion for the rest of fiscal 2009," reports from nine months ago highlighted.

In addition, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, has made it clear that the Pentagon will request supplemental war-fighting funds sometime next year, over and above the $130 billion appropriated by Congress last month.

The combined number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has now reached a higher level under Obama than existed under the Bush administration at any point between 2003 and 2008.

At the height of the Bush administration's 2007 "surge" in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.

According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.

As the Post points out, these figures are also misleadingly low because the number of support troops, at least 13,000, has simply not been announced or noted, despite their authorization and deployment by the Pentagon.

"The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000." The Post noted. "McChrystal's request, which the administration is considering, would be in addition to the troops Obama has approved." the article continues.

These numbers will no doubt go even higher given that McChrystal's top end request for additional troops to Afghanistan stands at 80,000. Even more young Americans are to be pushed through the meat grinder.

Shall we continue to debate whether or not Obama the peace laureate will increase the troops levels in Afghanistan?

In addition, it has become clear that as in Iraq, Obama intends for U.S. forces to stay in Afghanistan permanently. One need only look at the recent headlines regarding construction and infrastructure contracts to recognise this fact.

As Walter Pincus of the Washington Post notes, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."

Just as in Iraq, the Pentagon is setting about building hundreds of huge permanent military bases, expanding the sprawling network of well over 700 bases worldwide. Read journalist Nick Turse's in-depth report for more analysis.

Just as in Iraq, tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan as a residual (read "occupying") force in perpetuity.

Let us not forget that the justification for escalating the war in Afghanistan is to fight "Al Qaeda" insurgents and prevent another 9/11, a notion that has no basis in reality given that, even if you believe the official story of 9/11, no Afghans were involved in the attacks which were planned by Saudi nationals in Europe.

Furthermore, high ranking U.S. security and military officials have openly stated that Afghanistan is not in danger of falling, and that there that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda affiliated fighters currently in the country, presenting no threat to any nation.

Should 40,000 additional troops enter the country, there will be 1,000 or more U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan for every Al Qaeda fighter.

The real reason for military escalation is to dominate the geopolitical region, reap the financial profits from the plentiful supplies of energy and narcotics and suppress the people of Afghanistan in the process.

Barack Obama's election promise to bring "change" to Washington and reverse the juggernaut of rampant militarism, endless wars and occupations has proven to be nothing more than a cruel hoax.

The perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Iraq, the expansion of the fallacy based war in Afghanistan, as well as increased faceless attacks in Pakistan, heightened belligerence towards Iran and refusal to address a strategy to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sum up Obama's foreign policy during his first twelve months in office.

How in anyone's mind can such behavior constitute a move towards peace?

Article with active links to references:  link to www.prisonplanet.com