More US Troops in War Now Than During Bush's Surge

[tekisui]

As Obama slipped in another 13,000 troops to Afghanistan, he surpassed bush on total number deployed to war.

The troop increase approved by Obama means that there are more US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan than during the peak of the surge in Iraq in late 2007 and early 2008.

About 65,000 US forces are currently in Afghanistan and about 124,000 in Iraq. At the height of the Iraq surge, 26,000 US troops were in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, according to a troop count by The Post.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/obama-approves-13000-more-troops-to-afghanistan-20091013-gvtk.html

No further troop reductions will occur in Iraq until after the January elections. Then, it will only be done if 'possible'. Best case scenario will be 50,000 troops left in Iraq for, ahem, 'advice and support'. I'll believe there will be only 50,000 in Iraq when I see it.

A decision on McChrystal's troop request appears to have been postponed for a few weeks. Any extra troops will come as a result of a parallel reduction in the number of US troops in Iraq.

A US military planner told the Army Times: "We've increased forces in Afghanistan before we've reduced forces in Iraq in a meaningful way. If they want forces sooner than 2010, there are no additional forces available. You'll have to pull them from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan."

The US spokesman in Iraq, Brigadier General Stephen Lanza, said yesterday that the number of US troops in Iraq will be down to 120,000 by the end of the month, down 23,000 since January. But any further large-scale reductions will have to wait until after Iraqi elections next January.

He said the aim was to get all combat troops out of Iraq by August, leaving 50,000 troops to advise and support the Iraqis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/obama-afghanistan-troop-deployment

As for Afghanistan. 68,000 by the end of this year(plus the 13,000 done under the radar). 81,000 before Obama acts on McChrystal's request for up to 60,000. We will be looking at potentially 120,000+ in Afghanistan.

Wars without end.....

[Buzz Clik]

1. "Deployed to war." What does that mean?

[tekisui]

4. They are in the theaters of war.

Whether pulling triggers or providing support. They are in war zones.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Some people here are intentionally creating the wrong impression that Obama is sending combat units

I'm glad you are not part of that deception.

[MarjorieG]

2. The 13K were non-combat, future escalation undecided, Iraq is winding down, moving massive equipment

and coffee pots taking at least 20K currently. Appreciate your disgust, but I think we don't know. Really.

[tekisui]

6. The 13K were non-combat,

but they are there to support the combat. It makes no difference to the people being occupied. Larger footprints mean more mistrust and disgust from the Afghani people.

We will see on Iraq.

[paulsby]

7. makes NO difference?

i disagree.

which makes more of a difference to a local population- a soldier who is actively engaged in combat, or a REMF who is barely even seen?

sorry, but (assuming it is true these are support personnel) a boot on the battlefied DOES make more of a difference to people being occupied than one who is in a support role.

[tekisui]

10. If you had seen a family member die from an occupiers gun,

would you see a difference? I wouldn't. They dress the same and are there for the same reason. They may have a different task, but the same objective. I would, if I were in the local population, be opposed to every soldier there, every contractor working for the soldier and every foreign suit sent to manage the personnel. I would also be as aware as possible when numbers increased.

[paulsby]

13. but that's not the same thing

the point is that the support personnel have less visible negative impact on the population. they aren't the ones behind the triggers.

it's a perception thang.

which causes more of an impressioN? 50 detectives sitting in an office that you never see, or 50 patrol guys cruising the streets?

[Buzz Clik]

12. Supporting the combat? Not necessarily.

Keep in mind McChrystal's philosophy of handling this war -- it is not always a combat mission.

[AllentownJake]

3. Besides all the ethical questions about war

What about the fact we are currently running a 1.8 trillion dollar budget deficit. When are the people in Washington going to wake up we can't afford their misadventures right now.

[Mari333]

5. yep!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The New Strategy in Afghanistan. "When in bottomless pit..dig deeper.".

[Mari333]

9. k

[Clear Blue Sky]

14. Great. Some dividend to the Nobel "Peace" Prize...

[slay]

15. K&R

meet the new boss... :(

[earth mom]

16. Afghanistan is becoming Obama's Vietnam. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. It certainly is. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. And he apparently doesn't mind that it is. One term is fine by him.

Fine by me too. Why did he even bother?

[earth mom]

21. I hear ya. I think he wanted to be prez because of ego and all that goes with the title. nt

[Flaneur]

18. Maybe he can get two Nobel Peace Prizes next year.

[timeforpeace]

20. He has to send in a few thousand more troops to qualify for two.