Troop Increase

Britain will increase its troop strength by 1,000 in southern Afghanistan to bolster NATO forces battling Taliban militants, news media reported days after Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was pulling some troops out of Iraq. Defense Minister Des Browne confirmed that a deployment would bolster the more than 5,000 British troops already in Afghanistan, but he would not provide a number.

As they prepare to roll out a new Afghanistan policy to a skeptical U.S. audience, Obama administration officials are starting to replace their grim public assessments of the battered country with praise for the skills and idealism of its officials and its progress in important areas. The message is aimed in part, officials say, at trying to build domestic support for a troop increase that President Obama is expected to announce Tuesday. Obama's decision comes at a time when most Americans have turned against the mission, and some Democratic leaders in Congress have concluded that it is hopeless.

President Bush confirmed Sunday that he would be sending thousands of new support troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the previously announced "surge" of 21,500 combat troops. At a news conference in Colombia, Bush said that an increase in support troops for Iraq had been anticipated from the start, and that his initial figure referred only to combat troops. "Those combat troops are going to need some support," Bush said.

As President Obama prepares to unveil his long-deliberated war strategy, the Taliban's supreme commander declared Wednesday that U.S.-led forces would find only defeat, dishonor and "a bed of thorns" in Afghanistan. The statement came as the White House announced that Obama will deliver a televised speech about the war Tuesday from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is expected to announce higher troop levels for Afghanistan and detail a plan for ultimately withdrawing U.S. forces.

Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani said Wednesday he would consider increasing U.S. troops in Iraq if the head of military operations there, Army General David H. Petraeus, requested them. "If he said the strategy was working, and we needed more soldiers to make it work," Giuliani said in an interview, "of course I'd look at that and consider that." Giuliani, 63, said he knew such a decision would be unpopular.

President Bush said in an interview Tuesday that the increase in the number of troops in Baghdad would "more likely be successful" than the alternatives. Bush said that withdrawing from Baghdad "would be expedited failure" and that continuing the course he followed in 2006 might have led to "a slow failure."

The White House sent its strongest signal yet Thursday that it is searching for an eventual way out of Afghanistan even as it considers sending thousands of additional troops to join the war there. Emphasizing the importance of timetables for U.S. involvement, administration officials stressed that President Obama is concerned about how long American troops will remain in the country and wants to avoid an "open-ended" commitment. "We have been there for eight years, and we're not going to be there forever," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

The Army is likely to make a temporary 30,000 increase in troop numbers permanent as it struggles to ease the burden on forces strained by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army general said Thursday. The general, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the boost in the Army's ranks had become necessary for the military to meet its growing overseas commitments. A year ago, Defense Secretary Donald H.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, an Orange County conservative, and Rep. Barbara Lee, a Bay Area liberal, are about as far apart ideologically as anybody in Congress. Yet both oppose a troop increase in Afghanistan. As President Obama ponders a new war strategy and members of Congress stake out their positions, Rohrabacher and Lee have become the political odd couple. "Sending in more U.S. combat troops is not the answer," Rohrabacher said in a speech on the House floor last week, breaking from his fellow Republicans, most of whom back a troop increase.

As they prepare to roll out a new Afghanistan policy to a skeptical U.S. audience, Obama administration officials are starting to replace their grim public assessments of the battered country with praise for the skills and idealism of its officials and its progress in important areas. The message is aimed in part, officials say, at trying to build domestic support for a troop increase that President Obama is expected to announce Tuesday. Obama's decision comes at a time when most Americans have turned against the mission, and some Democratic leaders in Congress have concluded that it is hopeless.

As President Obama measures the potential burden of a new war strategy in Afghanistan, his administration is struggling to come up with even the most dispassionate of predictions: the actual price tag for the anticipated buildup of troops. The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama's budget experts size it up at twice that much. In coming up with such numbers, the White House and the military have different priorities as well as different methods.

The White House sent its strongest signal yet Thursday that it is searching for an eventual way out of Afghanistan even as it considers sending thousands of additional troops to join the war there. Emphasizing the importance of timetables for U.S. involvement, administration officials stressed that President Obama is concerned about how long American troops will remain in the country and wants to avoid an "open-ended" commitment. "We have been there for eight years, and we're not going to be there forever," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

President Obama traveled overnight to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans killed in military service this week, the height of the bloodiest month for the U.S. in the war in Afghanistan. The president flew unannounced to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware by Marine helicopter to be present for the arrival of the fallen troops. The solemn visit was the first of its kind for Obama and came as he is withdrawing troops from Iraq but contemplating a troop increase in Afghanistan.

On a day when 14 U.S. servicemen and drug agents were killed in helicopter crashes in Afghanistan, the largest such toll in more than four years, momentum continued to build to send more troops to the war zone. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a Washington address that he would support a decision by President Obama to "send some additional troops" provided improvements are made in Afghan troop training and government, and civilian aid efforts are increased.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, an Orange County conservative, and Rep. Barbara Lee, a Bay Area liberal, are about as far apart ideologically as anybody in Congress. Yet both oppose a troop increase in Afghanistan. As President Obama ponders a new war strategy and members of Congress stake out their positions, Rohrabacher and Lee have become the political odd couple. "Sending in more U.S. combat troops is not the answer," Rohrabacher said in a speech on the House floor last week, breaking from his fellow Republicans, most of whom back a troop increase.

President Obama and his top advisors are moving toward a strategy on Afghanistan that defines Al Qaeda as a greater threat to U.S. security than the Taliban, a view that could help them avoid the major troop increase sought by military commanders. The evolving strategy represents a subtle shift for the administration, which has considered Osama bin Laden's network its top enemy while viewing the Taliban as a close ally of Al Qaeda that supports its ambitions. White House officials now are taking pains to make distinctions between the two groups, branding Al Qaeda a global terrorist group and the Taliban a local movement.

As President Obama measures the potential burden of a new war strategy in Afghanistan, his administration is struggling to come up with even the most dispassionate of predictions: the actual price tag for the anticipated buildup of troops. The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama's budget experts size it up at twice that much. In coming up with such numbers, the White House and the military have different priorities as well as different methods.

President Bush's speech outlining his troop increase in Iraq provoked several potential presidential candidates to stake out a position, including some Republicans who had avoided addressing the controversial proposal that could be a touchstone issue in the 2008 campaign. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, ended weeks of dodging questions on the issue by announcing Wednesday that he would support a troop increase. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.

Key Democrats on Capitol Hill warned Thursday that a decision by President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan could trigger an uprising within the party, possibly including an attempt to cut off funds for the buildup. "I believe we need to more narrowly focus our efforts and have a much more achievable and targeted policy in that region," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Otherwise, he said, "we run the risk of repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam and the Russians made in Afghanistan."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is preparing to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, including counter-explosives units to help fight the growing threat of roadside bombs in the war zone. Defense officials Friday would not say how many troops might be sent in the deployment, which would be separate from any formal request from commanders for new forces. Such a request is expected in coming weeks. Gates plans to send additional route-clearance and ordnance-disposal teams, units that specialize in finding and defusing roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.