About 25,000 Troops May Be Needed in Afghanistan After 2014, Planners Say

[Daniel537]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/05/02/151854753/about-25-000-troops-may-be-needed-in-afghanistan-after-2014-planners-say

When President Obama on Tuesday signed a 10-year security agreement with Afghan President Karzai, it wasn't announced how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan past 2014 — the year Afghans are supposed to take over full responsibilty for security there.

American military officials say that the planning figure is 25,000 troops, commanded by a three-star general. They would include trainers as well as thousands of Green Berets and other special operations troops who would work with Afghans on counter-terror missions. NATO would be asked to contribute troops, but it's likely that the U.S. would contribute the bulk of those forces.

[frazzled]

1. That's about what we have in South Korea still (28,500)

And that war ended in 1954. I'm just stating a fact, not particularly making a point.

[Daniel537]

3. It would be quite sad if we still had troops in Afghanistan in 2082.

But then again we've had them in Cuba since 1902. Getting this country to actually fully withdrawal from a foreign land is like winning the lottery. It might happen, but it probably won't.

[TedBronson]

2. Lots of integration into local areas...

Some of those big ol FOBs are going to go buh bye along with all the smaller ones along the routes in between.

[ProSense]

4. This is

"it wasn't announced how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan past 2014 "

...a ridiculous article. It wasn't announced because it's more than a year and a half away.

It's also highly offensive:

One U.S. officer says that not only can many Afghan soldiers not read or write, but many can't even count. The U.S. tries to get around that in some novel ways. In some cases trainers draw a rectangle in the dirt for Afghan commanders who can't tell how many soldiers they should have. The Americans say that if the soldiers standing at attention fill the rectangle, that's a full complement.

What the hell does that have to do with ending the war?

[MadHound]

6. Your outrage is duly noted

Meanwhile you conveniently left out the part about, "American military officials say that the planning figure is 25,000 troops, commanded by a three-star general. They would include trainers as well as thousands of Green Berets and other special operations troops who would work with Afghans on counter-terror missions. NATO would be asked to contribute troops, but it's likely that the U.S. would contribute the bulk of those forces."

When you have plans that call for tens of thousands of troops, commanded by a three star general, you can be pretty damn certain that will come to pass. You know that, I know that, most of the country knows that. Hell fifty five years ago a president warned us all about that.

But the fact that Obama is just as much in thrall to the MIC as the rest of our post-WWII presidents simply galls you. Meanwhile, the proof in dead and wounded continue to prove your denials wrong.

[MadHound]

5. Well, keeping the MIC well fed and cared for is a long term, bipartisan affair

This is just the latest ploy in an ongoing strategy to keep the MIC sucking all the money out of the room. Gotta milk this war for all it is worth.