100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan during 2011-2013 (Updated with denials)

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:09


President Obama will increase the American military presence in Afghanistan yet again:

Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops.

This is going to bring the total number of United States troops deployed to Afghanistan over 100,000 by the start of 2011:

The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.(...)

The buildup would be expected to last about four years, until McChrystal completes his plan for doubling the size of the Afghan army and police force.

With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.

This matches up pretty well with the corresponding withdrawal from Iraq.  Between now and next August, about 70,000 troops will leave Iraq (from 120,000 to 50,000), but add about 30,000 in Afghanistan. Given that 34,000 troops were sent to Afghanistan earlier this year, this means there will not be a significant decrease in overall American troop deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan until near the end of 2011.

Even though America will have zero troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, current plans are to keep troop levels in Afghanistan high until the end of 2013 (assuming the four-year build-up counts 2009).  As such, Obama will run for re-election with about 60% of the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan (100,000) as Bush typically did (about 160,000, apart from the original 2003 invasion and the subsequent 2007 escalation).

(Hat-tip: rayj in quick hits)

Update: The Obama administration is denying that they have decided on a long-term troop increase in Afghanistan of this level.  I guess we still have to wait and see, but I bet it actually happens.

Chris Bowers :: 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan during 2011-2013 (Updated with denials)

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
for whatever it's worth (0.00 / 0)
Here's the denial from NSA advisor Jones that a decision has been reached.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...

Personally, I think at a minimum it's a trial balloon and more likely the report is correct.  

As I noted at Blue Jersey, NBC/WSJ polled on this exact question and sending 40K was the least popular choice, with 49% saying it is "unacceptable."


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


As I said in the Quick Hit (0.00 / 0)
Keep in mind here that Jones isn't denying the 40k figure at all. He's only saying that Obama hasn't made up his mind as to whether it'll be exactly that high. My guess is that it'll be around 35,000-37,000 or so in the end, which again is twice as big as the Iraq surge. Between this, the Stupak Amendment and Obama pushing hardcore Chenyism with regarding to the state secrets privilege, it's enough for me to just lock myself in the basement with a bottle of tequila.

[ Parent ]
The veracity of the report doesn't matter (4.00 / 1)
It should be shouted down.  It doesn't matter whether Obama wants to do this, or is thinking about it, or if someone within his administration is trying to pressure him. It should be shouted down.

Of course, these decisions should be made by Congress, and Congress has the power to limit or prevent these increases.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


The veracity of war should be shouted down. (4.00 / 2)
We are constantly being told how much the troops fighting overseas do for "us" and for our "freedom." Bullshit. Not to dismiss the courage, sacrifice and altruistic intentions of most of our service members, but wars are generally waged for the benefit of rich people. I challenge anyone to make the case that either of our current wars have helped the working class in this country in any way. Perhaps it's time to get over our collective fear of not "supporting the troops" long enough to actually support them by speaking truth to power and getting their asses home safe and sound.

(This is just a general rant directed at people on TV, not at anyone at this site.)

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 4)
There is no overseas enemy who threatens American freedom (though perhaps some who threaten the bottom line for some stateless multinationals the MSM and the Dems lyingly call "American" corporations).

Rather, the enemies of American freedom are 100% domestic, and it's domestic activists who are fighting them. (Or failing to fight them, in more and more cases.)


http://attempter.wordpress.com


[ Parent ]
we need a War Tax (4.00 / 4)
we've just heard endless bloviating about the turrible debt we're loading onto The Children and such. but it's a funny thing: that only ever comes up in connection with government services for the general public.

these wars aren't free. we should bring that home.

it seems to me this would be an ideal Progressive Caucus demand. most of them are probably opposed to an expansion and an open-ended commitment anyway. asking for an "exit strategy" hasn't worked out very well in the past because 1) it truly is difficult to make guarantees about future events and b) they'll just make shit up in any case.

we don't want a draft. so let's hit these bastards in their next nearest and dearest target - their wallets. a progressive surtax that starts out steeply at a new top bracket or two, sliding down to zero for the lowest bracket (or lowest two). if the Moustaches of Understanding and the Beards of Seriousness think this is so important, let them prove it. pay for it.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


great idea (0.00 / 0)
Then when the elected corporate whores in both parties oppose the "war tax" to keep on borrowing the funds for endless war, their "concern" regarding the debt will be more exposed as the lie it really is. Haveing another blatent example of their hypocrisy can't hurt next years election chances for our cantidates.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
Obama hearts Gates... (4.00 / 1)
Isn't that enough reason to waste more people and money on this useless war?  

Brilliant plan! (0.00 / 0)
Pres, Obama has come up with a brilliant plan to continue fighting with no goals defined, no mission to accomplish, and a brilliant way to put aside the irrelevancy of the utter corruption of the Afghan police and government. We don't need Afghanis. We'll do it all ourselves.

Obama has brilliantly adopted the tactical approach of Al Queda - continue fighting to not lose, but never expect to win.

At least we now know why we are in Afghanistan - to not lose. We have become another permanent Afghan tribe.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox