U.S. Troop Levels in Afghanistan by Year

[tekisui]

U.S. Troop Levels in Afghanistan

Troops
2001 N/A
2002 5,200
2003 10,400
2004 15,200
2005 19,100
2006 20,400
2007 23,700
2008 30,100
2009 50,700

Now 68,000
2010 100,000+

How many more?


http://www.nationalpriorities.org/newsletter/2009/12/01/Afghanistan-fact-sheet-numbers-behind-troop-increase

[joecool65]

1. We would not have had to worry about troop escalations

if we had more troops there in the first place.

[tekisui]

2. How many do you think are needed to do the job?

Do you really think that 100,000 will be able to do what 68,000 could not do?

[mike_c]

4. we wouldn't have to worry about troop escalations...

...if we'd not invaded Afghanistan in the first place! The decision to attack Afghanistan was made on Sept. 10, 2001-- the day before 9/11-- to depose the Taliban and pave the way for a friendly government-- read puppet-- that would allow international energy companies to construct a natural gas pipeline across southern Afghanistan. That attack was meant to be clandestine, however, at least initially. The 9/11 attacks conveniently gave a pretext for attacking openly, but the mission in Afghanistan has always been imperialism and murder for profit.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

[Bluerthanblue]

12. i think you are wrong with your dates- the decision to attack Afghanistan was

made much earlier in 2001- not just the day before Sept.11. The plans are believed to have been in the works even while President Clinton was in office.

Not a pretty fact, but a fact none the less. Once Bush was installed, plans began to be implemented. 9/11 did give Bush an unexpected cover.

[mike_c]

14. oh I agree-- the order was formalized Sept 10...

...but you're right, it was a done deal at the end of the Clinton administration, needing only ratification and formalizing by Bush. My point was that the invasion of Afghanistan was never justified, even under the dubious cover of 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Special Activities Division paramilitary teams were active in Afghanistan in the 1990s in clandestine operations to locate and kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. These teams planned several operations, but did not receive the order to execute from President Bill Clinton. These efforts did however build many of the relationships that would prove essential in the 2001 U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan.

In August 2001, U.S. State Department official Christina Rocca met with the Taliban, at their last negotiation over U.S. energy giant Unocal's planned oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan. She is reported to have said, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted on September 9, 2001, had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the September 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaeda, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.

According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11, one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."

This is a blueprint for aggressive war, a crime against humanity under international law.

[WeDidIt]

15. Bingo

Dipshit fucked it up and screwed the pooch.

Obama is fixing yet another of dipshit's fuckups.+

[Arctic Dave]

3. Causalities not including contractors.

Afghanistan Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

Year US UK Other Total
2001 12 0 0 12
2002 49 3 17 69
2003 48 0 9 57
2004 52 1 7 60
2005 99 1 31 131
2006 98 39 54 191
2007 117 42 73 232
2008 155 51 89 295
2009 300 99 87 486
Total 930 236 367 1533

[berni_mccoy]

5. Your Data is FUD

First, those are FY, not actual years.

Second, you neglect the Iraq Troop Drawdown. From the Congressional Research Report:



After Pres. Obama's plan, the FY2010 number should be at 80,000, which will be an overall troop reduction in both Afghanistan and Iraq toward 2012 with continued drawdown in Iraq and planned drawdown beginning in 2011.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Details don't matter.

[berni_mccoy]

8. They rarely do when ppl are yelling "Obama=Bush" and "WARMONGER!"

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. True, but this will calm down as soon as all these losers

realize that their bullshit is getting them nowhere.

[Flaneur]

17. You should really try working on your persuasive skills.

Being a rude asshole typically doesn't get people very far.

[mike_c]

19. that's why that DUer is known as "Ignored...."

:rofl:

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. I'm a rude asshole to rude assholes,

and you would be surprised just how far being a rude asshole will get you in the right situation.

[tekisui]

7. I know the are fy.

What does Iraq have to do with it?

[berni_mccoy]

9. Your claim "2010: 100,000+" is baseless crap.

[tekisui]

11. There will be over 100,000 there in the summer of 2010.

What fiscal year will that be? :shrug:

[Flaneur]

18. What? You mean it will only be 98,000 or something?

[berni_mccoy]

21. 80,000 to be exact. That's a far cry from the OP's made up number.

[tekisui]

25. Are you saying our troops levels in Afghanistan at the

height of the surge will be only 80,000?

There are 68,000 now. Plus 33,000 equals 101,000.

[Flaneur]

16. This thread is not about the number of troops in Iraq.

[berni_mccoy]

20. You're right, this thread is total B.S. Just thought I'd put it in context.

[mike_c]

23. utter obfuscation....

The Afghanistan numbers are outdated and the Iraq numbers are both irrelevant to this thread and a projection of possibilities, not reality. If the Iraq deployment troop strength is really below 5000 in 2012 that will be long overdue-- but it's still speculation at this point and it's still not relevant to the Afghanistan deployment.

[TexasObserver]

13. Recommend

[mullard12ax7]

24. K&R, just because the pro-corporate health insurance frauds are yelling at you

The frauds are pro-war too, I wonder if their sick kids will ever go fight and come back brain dead or just sit behind their keyboards and shill?