Lack of Money Will Hamper Our Military Operations In Afghanistan

U.S. Army soldiers and Afghan Border Policemen walk along a mountain trail during a patrol near Combat Outpost Herrera, Paktiya province, Afghanistan, Oct. 13, 2009. The soldiers are assigned to Apache Troop, 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith

Afghanistan -- Few New Troops and Shrinking Dollars -- Ares/Aviation Week

Future operations in Afghanistan are offering a lot of indigestible options.

The top numbers for a U.S. military buildup are less than the Army’s planning manuals call for. Yet even the smallest increment is not financially sustainable for more than a few years, says Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), a West Point contemporary of Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal and an opponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Iraqi surge of 2007.

“There is a likelihood that [Afghanistan] could use additional combat forces,” Reed says. “I don’t know what number. If we had better intelligence of what is going on in [Pakistan], that also would help. Adding troops and maintaining a surrogate government by handing out money is not a solution.”

Read more ....

My Comment: This short and concise article summarizes the problems that President Obama has when it comes to sending extra soldiers to Afghanistan. Bottom line .... the money is not there to implement even a minimal program for sending troops to Afghanistan. Because of this "reality", the debate that is probably happening now is on priorities .... is the U.S. domestic situation more important than Afghanistan, a country and war that has the potential to consume hundreds of billions of dollars with no guarantee for success.

From my perspective .... probably not. But then again .... I am not the President with the access that he has in regards to intelligence/military advice and information.