‘Surge’ Rhetoric Not Universal
Despite criticisms of the efficacy of the "surge" in Iraq, a US commander in Afghanistan has dared to say that a planned "surge" in Afghanistan would in fact not help U interests in the country The commander did make sure not to completely deweaponize the Bush administration's rhetoric, suggesting instead that a different type of surge is needed.
Despite criticisms of the efficacy of the “surge” in Iraq, a U.S. commander in Afghanistan has dared to say that a planned “surge” in Afghanistan would in fact not help U.S. interests in the country. The commander did make sure not to completely deweaponize the Bush administration’s rhetoric, suggesting instead that a different type of surge is needed.
Rooted in Truth.CNN:
A troop “surge” is credited with stemming violence in Iraq, but could a similar strategy work in Afghanistan? A top U.S. military commander isn’t counting on it.
In 2007, as part of the surge strategy, President Bush sent roughly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq in an attempt to improve security.
That effort coincided with a drop in violence, and, now that the troops in Iraq are returning to pre-surge levels, the Army is identifying combat units that could go Afghanistan to fill the need for 10,000 additional troops, military officials said.
But a different type of surge is needed in Afghanistan, said Gen. David McKiernan, the top NATO commander there.
Independent by Design.
Your support helps ensure that rigorous reporting, thoughtful analysis, and investigative journalism remain accessible to everyone.
Support independent journalism.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.