2 U.S. Troops Found Dead In Afghanistan

I have to say i wonder what our military advisors are thinking and our President. Were right back where we started out at almost in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. Yet were winning hearts and minds? Where? Sounds to familiar to two other wars.


Two U.S. special forces soldiers who went missing in eastern Afghanistan a week ago have been found dead and one rescued, but the whereabouts of a fourth remains unknown, the U.S. military said on Tuesday. The bodies of the soldiers, part of a four-man Navy SEAL reconnaissance team that went missing during fighting with militants in Kunar province, were found during a combat operation there on Monday, a military statement said.

My guess was the 4 man recon called the 16 man strike that got shot down. That led to the bombing, tough business, but the worst is that leaves one still mia. And the Afgans yelling we killed a bunch of women and kids. I wonder what kind of women and kids took out a Navy Seal Recon Team?

From our military.

The U.S. military, under stress from fighting in Iraq and protecting America from terrorism, is debating whether it can remain ready to fight two big wars at once, according to defense officials.
The discussion is part of a broad Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), in which the Pentagon will propose a new strategy and budget to Congress next February to shape the superpower's forces for years to come.
The civilian and military officials, who asked not to be identified, confirmed a report in Tuesday's New York Times that top Defense Department planners were challenging longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at once.
Instead, the newspaper reported, they are weighing whether to shape the military to mount only one major conventional war while devoting more resources to defending U.S. territory and to global antiterrorism efforts in the wake of the 2001 attacks on America.
"The QDR debate on two wars is over risks. Risks can translate into lives," one senior military official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters on Tuesday.
"The questions being debated: Are we really trying to create a one-war strategy and build a force to it? Or are we just changing the strategy because we know what we can realistically afford to spend?" the official said.
He and others said Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, who will soon become chairman of the Pentagon's military Joint Chiefs of Staff, was pushing the war-readiness debate because of growing U.S. military missions worldwide burden and the cost of anti-terrorism operations at home and overseas.
A senior Army officer noted that many of the more than 1,700 U.S. troops who lost their lives in Iraq died because the military had not anticipated the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on armor to protect military vehicles against improvised explosive devices.
BULLET-PROOF VESTS
Another official noted that extra money is being spent on bullet-proof vests for guerrilla warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If you have to spend that kind of money in phase four (the cleanup) of one war, how much will it cost to prepare the military to be ready in all areas for two wars," the official said.
Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, suggested to reporters on Tuesday that the two-wars issue was among a wide range of subjects under discussion. But he refused to go into detail and stressed that no decisions had been made.
"I don't have any quarrel with what was written there" Whitman said of the Times article, based in part on an interview with Ryan Henry, principal deputy U.S. under secretary of defense for policy.
Senior Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita denied in a later Defense Department briefing on Tuesday that top officials were leaning toward changing the two-war strategy.
"They (the talks) have no desired outcome" so far, he said.
But the Times stressed that the debate reflected a growing recognition that the current burden of maintaining forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the other demands of the global campaign against terrorism, may force a change in assumptions that have been a foundation of military planning.
One Navy official told Reuters that, even if the United States can no longer fight two wars at once, publicly backing away from the strategy was risky because it might tempt potential adversaries China, North Korea and Iran.
"If we say that we can only do one and then we get engaged in one that's not on the horizon now, does that offer North Korea, China or Iran a chance to say 'Well, they're going to be engaged for five years, that gives me a leeway with what I want to do because they don't have the force structure for two major combat operations'," the official said.

Next headline will be, "We can't afford to be ill prepared! Raise taxes , Draft! Draft! Draft! " What do you think? No one thought Bush was gonna do all this other , stuff that was caused by being fed false info [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], I wonder if this info will be false too, . At least our oil companies are in good shape. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Ripped from MSNBC_ Nine days after the ambush and subsequent downing of a U.S. special forces helicopter with 16 troops aboard, U.S military officials in Kabul and Washington are starting to draw a clearer picture of what happened and have revealed some details..... Seal story