PDA

View Full Version : Bombshell: 500,000 Troops Will Be Required Over Five Years in Afghanistan




Chieftain1776
09-24-2009, 01:42 PM
This bombshell was dropped by NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday:


The numbers are really pretty horrifying. What they say, embedded in this report by McChrystal, is they would need 500,000 troops - boots on the ground - and five years to do the job. No one expects that the Afghan Army could step up to that. Are we gonna put even half that of U.S. troops there, and NATO forces? No way. [Morning Joe, September 23, 2009]


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-andrews/classified-mcchrystal-rep_b_298528.html

Update/Correction: Andrea Mitchell, the reporter may have misinterpreted the document (http://washingtonindependent.com/60751/correcting-andrea-mitchells-afghanistan-troop-figures):


If Mitchell is implying that McChrystal will ask President Obama to reach those totals ahead of Afghan abilities to reach 500,000, she’s mistaken. The resource request amounts to a debate over whether the U.S. and NATO will need somewhat more than the approximately 103,000 troops already committed to get the Afghan forces up to 400,000.

yokna7
09-24-2009, 01:53 PM
500,000!:eek: The Soviet Union had 112,000 at their peak so I would say that the half million number is accurate, but necessary or possible - no way! Hopefully Obama swallows his words - "war of necessity":(

Cowlesy
09-24-2009, 01:56 PM
Bill Kristol probably had a big slobbering grin on his face when he heard that.

MsDoodahs
09-24-2009, 01:58 PM
Here comes the draft.

TGGRV
09-24-2009, 02:00 PM
Give me 150 000 marines, some tanks and I will wipe the whole country out. Are you joking? 500 000 troops for that crap? Someone needs to fire some generals. :P

yokna7
09-24-2009, 02:04 PM
Bill Kristol probably had a big slobbering grin on his face when he heard that.

Excuse my frankness, but I strongly feel that the neo-conservative foreign policy is deeply rooted in an indifference, if not a desire to exterminate brown peoples.

Chieftain1776
09-24-2009, 02:12 PM
Bill Kristol probably had a big slobbering grin on his face when he heard that.

I don't know if this is good for the neocons. Americans won't sacrifice that much on vague threats abroad. Remember how Wolfowitz got pissed when Shinseki estimated less for Iraq (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/29/wolfowitz-shinseki-wrong/)?


In February 2003, just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. would need “several hundred thousand soldiers” to secure Iraq. Two days later, then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki’s prediction saying it was “wildly off the mark."

If this is correct then the neocon project is dead. Americans might put up with a small part of the population doing the fighting and dying on a credit card but this is immediate pain for what even the neocons can only sell as little gain.

Johnnybags
09-24-2009, 02:13 PM
Bomb the crap out of them until they surrender or get out. No undeclared pussyfoot war is winnable.

yokna7
09-24-2009, 02:23 PM
Bomb the crap out of them until they surrender or get out. No undeclared pussyfoot war is winnable.

They will NEVER surrender.

Pericles
09-24-2009, 02:23 PM
Give me 150 000 marines, some tanks and I will wipe the whole country out. Are you joking? 500 000 troops for that crap? Someone needs to fire some generals. :P

It is one of the places on the Earth that can not be conquered.

Either a dozen nuke strikes or, more realistic, use the CIA to keep warlords at each other to the extent that the Taliban can't dominate the area.

TGGRV
09-24-2009, 02:27 PM
It is one of the places on the Earth that can not be conquered.

Either a dozen nuke strikes or, more realistic, use the CIA to keep warlords at each other to the extent that the Taliban can't dominate the area.

Yes it can. Execute everyone. Obviously, I wouldn't do this, but it is possible to conquer it.

Pericles
09-24-2009, 02:36 PM
Yes it can. Execute everyone. Obviously, I wouldn't do this, but it is possible to conquer it.

At the time, we thought the Soviets were trying that, as their army is not followed around by CBS News.

In 1980, I was in a room where Ted Heath (former Prime Minister of the UK) said "We British have fought 3 wars in Afghanistan and lost each of them. I would be terribly disappointed to think that the Russians will win on their first attempt."

And now it is our turn.

TGGRV
09-24-2009, 02:49 PM
At the time, we thought the Soviets were trying that, as their army is not followed around by CBS News.

In 1980, I was in a room where Ted Heath (former Prime Minister of the UK) said "We British have fought 3 wars in Afghanistan and lost each of them. I would be terribly disappointed to think that the Russians will win on their first attempt."

And now it is our turn.

If the Russians were doing that, why were any villages left standing? They weren't doing that.

Chieftain1776
09-24-2009, 02:49 PM
Andrea Mitchell most likely misinterpreted the document. See OP. Still that amount of trained, unified, and patriotic Afghan security forces is a pipe dream.

Cowlesy
09-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Yes it can. Execute everyone. Obviously, I wouldn't do this, but it is possible to conquer it.

Hah! I'll start a chip-in to send you, Objectivist and the Ayn Rand Institute scholars over there with Bushmasters, some MREs and helmets. Go nuts!

Mitt Romneys sideburns
09-24-2009, 03:35 PM
some dumbass called into a radio show yesterday saying "we just need to send in 5,000 marines. Thats it. Send in 5,000 marines and they will get the job done"

There seems to be a lot of dumbasses out there who completely overestimate military personnel.

devil21
09-24-2009, 06:50 PM
Sounds like everything is going according to plan. By 2012, the Afghan war will be such an onerous topic that a lot of Republicans will be back to 1999/2000 GWB style campaigning of no nation building and no policing the world. Hmm, what might trigger that? Oh....I bet a draft initiated by Obama would do it. Rinse and repeat cycle starting all over again.

Is it really that predictable?

Todd
09-24-2009, 06:57 PM
the military has completely done a 180 on the policies that encouraged a larger force. We are now not accepting the same lower standards as easily as the Bush years, there is no longer a "stop loss" policy in place, and people are being discharged for medical reasons that were not a bother 4 years ago. I doubt this number could be sustained even with those things in place.

Pericles
09-24-2009, 08:57 PM
the military has completely done a 180 on the policies that encouraged a larger force. We are now not accepting the same lower standards as easily as the Bush years, there is no longer a "stop loss" policy in place, and people are being discharged for medical reasons that were not a bother 4 years ago. I doubt this number could be sustained even with those things in place.

With unemployment at 10%, recruiting becomes much easier.

bunklocoempire
09-24-2009, 09:51 PM
I don't know if this is good for the neocons. Americans won't sacrifice that much on vague threats abroad. Remember how Wolfowitz got pissed when Shinseki estimated less for Iraq (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/29/wolfowitz-shinseki-wrong/)?



If this is correct then the neocon project is dead. Americans might put up with a small part of the population doing the fighting and dying on a credit card but this is immediate pain for what even the neocons can only sell as little gain.


Americans won't sacrifice that much on vague threats abroad.

That is a bit worrisome. Having a "vague threat" turning into something a little closer to home. I believe Afghanistan and 500,000/five years can be sold to the public, it just has to have the right sales pitch.:(

Heck, maybe it doesn't even have to be sold -government will just do it.:mad:

Bunkloco

dr. hfn
09-24-2009, 10:03 PM
all the institutions in this country support and promote the idea of interventionism. we must be the resistance and the voice of the founders and the republic and the constitution!

devil21
09-24-2009, 11:02 PM
Considering the serious amount of history that demonstrates what happens when a "super power empire" goes into Afghanistan, would it be safe to say that invading that country is an intentional move to destroy the super power from within?

I just can't believe that so many empires have been beaten down and broken in that part of the world, even from the times of Alexander The Great, to Britian, Russia, and now the US, and STILL no body has learned anything. Is Afghanistan where empires go to die?