Followup: US troops in Iraq vs Afghanistan

I’ve always said you learn a lot more by piecing two articles together than you do by reading either of them separately. With that in mind, let’s follow up on what I just wrote about troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. First, the US arguing with NATO about troops in Afghanistan.

The United States will press its European NATO allies to send more troops to Afghanistan’s violent south in response to Canada’s call for reinforcements, but the Pentagon said it will not commit any more of its own forces there.

…

U.S. defense officials have also regularly complained about the unwillingness of European allies to dedicate more combat troops and equipment to Afghanistan.

All right, take a moment to let that sink in. Now let’s head over to Iraq. What’s the problem there?

The Bush administration is sending strong signals that U.S. troop reductions in Iraq will slow or stop altogether this summer, a move that would jeopardize hopes of relieving strain on the Army and Marine Corps and revive debate over an open-ended U.S. commitment in Iraq.

Well, at least that explains why we won’t be sending any troops into Afghanistan, right?

Afghanistan could become a “failed state”

If Bob Scheiffer was angered that no one’s focusing on the Iraq debacle, I wonder what he thinks about Afghanistan’s complete disappearing act from the national debate. In fact, that’s a part of why an independent study concluded that Afghanistan could descend to “failed state” status, and be labeled the “forgotten war”.

Afghanistan stands at a crossroads,” concludes the study, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. “The progress achieved after six years of international engagement is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country.”

A major issue has been trying to win the war with “too few military forces and insufficient economic aid,” the study adds.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave the entirely predictable White House line that everything’s going just fine, but what nearly had me laughing was that when talking about more troops being needed there, he said they would be “certainly not ours.”

So, let’s review. Increasing American troops in Iraq, where there are no terrorists who organized 9/11 and where the world agrees we should be out of soon: good. Increasing American troops in Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda was harbored and where no one suggests we should leave without getting the job done: bad.

Excellent work, fellas!

Florida primary numbers: Clinton, GOP too close to call

Sure not all precincts are in yet (in fact, not many are), but on the Democratic side it looks like they’re already calling Clinton to take it. She’s got a commanding lead over Obama, in fact she’s got over Obama at the moment what Obama had over her in the last vote.

I’m currently watching FOX on this one, and what I found most amusing was their giant chiron: GIULIANI BEHIND ROMNEY AND MCCAIN. That’s how you can tell a network has a favorite candidate. Giuliani has always been behind those two. All that’s impressive is that he’s topping Huckleberry for the first time. And it’s not even close. Giuliani’s hovering around 16%, the other two are in the 30’s.

So it looks like Clinton’s going to take the nomination. She’s railroading every primary save one so far, but who knows who’ll get the GOP nod. My guess is McCain, actually, since he’s polling well against the democrats.

Granted, no delegates are awarded here, but momentum is pretty big for something like this.