Add to Google




http://www.wikio.com

BLN RSS

Twitter



Alternative News,
Information, and Analysis

Rogue Government
What Really Happened
Cryptogon
Raw Story
Citizens for Legit Gov.
Information Clearing House
American Free Press
Global Research
The Peoples Voice
Tom Burghardt
Uncover The News
All Gov.
Media Monarchy
Information Liberation
TPM Muckraker
F. William Engdahl
Cryptome
Narco News
Media Matters
Uruknet
Corbett Report
Common Dreams
Alternet
Antiwar
Aftermath News
Steve Quayle
Wayne Madsen
Truth Out
Etherzone
Online Journal
Lew Rockwell
Dissident Voice
News With Views
Jeff Rense
Strike The Root
Peter Chamberlin
Dprogram
12160
Old Thinker News
Common Dreams
Empire Burlesque
American Exile
CNS News
IntelliBreifs
Electric Politics
Stop The Lie
Amy de Miceli
Crooks and Liars
Rumor Mill News
The Resident
Aangirfan
OpEDNews
The Brad Blog
Conspiracy Archive
Foreign Policy Journal
Counter Punch
August Review
Buzzflash
Truth Is Treason
NewsWires
News Now
My Way News
Reuters Alert Net
1st Headlines
Yahoo News
Ananova
Excite AP
Knight Ridder
Newsday AP
Google News
Swiss Info
ABC Wire
News Interactive
US Newswire
World News Network
United Press Int.
Associated Press
Excite News
MSN News
PR Newswire
Reuters
Scripps Howard
Xinhua
ZD Net
Online Only
Natural News
Real News Network
VOA News
Huffington Post
World Net Daily
Drudge Report
Newsmax
Boing Boing
Short News
Small Government Times
Capitol Hill Blue
Global Post
Business / Economics
Seeking Alpha
Market Watch
Bloomberg
Wall Street Journal
RTT News
CNN Money
Forbes
Business Week
Funny Money Report
Market Oracle
Money Morning
The Street
Shadow Stats
Economist
Financial Times
Fortune Magazine
Kitco
Gold Eagle
Max Keiser
321 Gold
Stock Charts
Zero Hedge
Washingtons's Blog
The Daily Reckoning
Energy Business Review
Milplex / Intel / Defense
Danger Room
Washington Technology
Defense Industry Daily
Global Security
Geopolitical Monitor
Defense Link
Stratfor
Space War
Jane's
Defense Tech
Strategy Page
Military Info Tech
Major US Newspapers
New York Times
New York Post
New York Daily News
Washington Post
Washington Times
L.A. Times
USA Today
Science / Tech News
Wired
Blast Magazine
PHYSorg
Science Daily
Popular Science
Engadget
New Scientist
Technovelgy
Singularity Hub
H+ Magazine
Science Magazine
Seed Magazine
CBR Online
Science News
SlashDot
Scientific American
Spectrum IEEE
Technology Review
io9
ZD Net
Technology News
The Register
Tech News World
VNU Net
Satire & Animation
Onion YouTube
Reptile God
Wahoos Mopar Grave Yard
Royal Canadian Air Farce
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Mark Fiore
All Hat No Cattle
Mack White
Propaganda Remix Project
Internet Weekly Report
Kontraband
Holy Lemon


oracle broadcasting









AddThis Feed Button
FKN NEWZ Texas Team Speak
Add to Technorati Favorites
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional







U.S. to Send Up to 45,000 More troops to Afghanistan
Published on 10-15-2009Email To Friend    Print Version
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Source: Telegraph

President Barack Obama's administration is understood to have told the British government that it could announce, as early as next week, the substantial increase to its 65,000 troops already serving there.

The decision from Mr Obama comes after he considered a request from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send tens of thousands of extra American troops to the country.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said: "I don't want to put words in the mouths of the Americans but I am fairly confident of the way it is going to come out."

An announcement next week could coincide with a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, due next Thursday and Friday.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the claims, after President Obama met with his war council for the fifth time to map out a new strategy in Afghanistan.

"I would not put any weight behind the fact that a decision has been made, when the President has yet to make a decision," he told reporters in Washington.

"I've seen the report. It's not true, either generally or specifically. The president has not made a decision."

But Ministry of Defence sources indicated that the British Government had been told to expect a substantial increase in the number of of American troops.

Earlier Gordon Brown announced the British force in Afghanistan would increase to 9,500 but was told by former defence secretary John Hutton that he should have sent more troops to Afghanistan six months ago.

Mr Hutton said it would have been “much more helpful” to the British mission if the Prime Minister had listened to military calls for a larger force earlier this year.

Mr Brown previously blocked a military request for almost 2,000 extra troops for Afghanistan.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the former Army chief who is now advising the Conservatives, said that decision left the force fighting with “part of one arm tied behind its back”.

Mr Hutton was defence secretary at the time of the earlier troop request. He resigned from the Cabinet in June.

He made it clear that he wanted the earlier deployment plan to go ahead and suggested that blocking it had undermined the British mission. The Prime Minister “should follow the military advice”, Mr Hutton said. “I think it would have been much more helpful had we had the additional troops there six months ago.”

Defence sources disputed this view, insisting that there were not enough trained troops to deploy at the time.

But Mr Hutton’s words overshadowed Mr Brown’s announcement in the Commons that he would increase the force in Afghanistan, taking British numbers there to 9,500.

As The Daily Telegraph reported last week, a total of 1,000 more British soldiers will go to Helmand province. Five hundred will be new troops from Britain. The remainder is a British battle group currently deployed in Kandahar province under international command.

The Prime Minister said the Kandahar battle group was being redeployed “to meet the changing demands of the campaign, which require greater concentration of our forces in central Helmand”.

He said he supported the new deployments “in principle”, saying that before the troops could be sent, certain conditions must be met. Those terms were that soldiers were properly equipped, that the Afghan government promised more forces to Helmand and that Nato allies bore more of the burden in Afghanistan.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, mocked Mr Brown’s “condition”.

He said: “Won’t many people think: isn’t it the Government’s responsibility to make sure they have that necessary equipment? And might they also ask: why is it that after eight years we are still playing catch-up on equipment?”