A very simple graphic: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama:

[Poll_Blind]

Original is from this page from today on CNN. If you visit that link, be sure and click on the "Casualties in county" tab to see how casualties have risen, accordingly.

PB

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Can't get much more clear than that.

:(

[Yupster]

25. The original idea was to take Afghanistan with just a few

CIA guys on the ground because Afghans would never accept foreign troops inn their country.

Then we put in combat troops but only in the mountainous border region far from ther cities because Afghans wouldn't accept foreign troops.

Then we brought troops into the cities.

Then we brought in larger and larger numbers of troops.

Then we renamed the operation, Operation Mission Creep.

[nonperson]

2. That graphic should be backwards

But it isn't because the U.S. is backwards.

[OhioChick]

3. Wow n/t

[Brickbat]

4. The problem with supporting "change" is that it's pretty vague.

If you're not careful, you end up with the chart shown above.

[Richardo]

7. It's one change he was not at all vague about.

He explicitly promised he'd send more troops to Afghanistan.

[Schema Thing]

12. What a silly, fatuous comment.

The rise it troop levels was part of Obama's campaign platform.

[JoePhilly]

5. Yes, Bush forgot Afganistan on his way to fight the wrong enemy.

And sent 140,000 troops into Iraq in the process.

I'm curious ... what would a similar chart of Iraq look like over the same period?

[kirby]

8. Chart...

The Iraq chart would look pretty flat during the Bush years. There are about 47,000 American troops in Iraq now, down from an October 2007 peak of 166,000. So it would trail off during the Obama years.

[JoePhilly]

13. Right, it is a flip of the Afgan chart.

[JackRiddler]

38. ALL Iraq troop withdrawals to date have occurred as agreed upon in the SOFA...

The Status of Forces Agreement reached with the Iraqi government by the Bush regime in 2007.

Under the SOFA, all US troops must be OUT of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

Right now, the Obama admin is trying to negotiate delays and the continued stationing of US troops past the SOFA deadline.

Most Iraqis are against that, including a number of powerful armed factions who will rise up if US troops are not ALL out by Jan 1, 2012.

There is no disguising the basic continuity in matters of war between Bush and Obama, and the several escalations that Obama's time has featured (in Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya).

Again, Obama is not responsible for any withdrawals from Iraq that were not previously agreed and scheduled by the Bush regime.

[jakeXT]

48. Don't forget Pakistan, this could get ugly

10:17AM BST 17 May 2011
Nato helicopter attacks Pakistan army post
A Nato helicopter attacked a Pakistani army post near the Afghan border, injuring two Pakistani soldiers in an incident that could further increase tensions following the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani intelligence officials said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8518101/Nato-helicopter-attacks-Pakistan-army-post.html

Pakistan accuses NATO of airspace violation
(AFP)

18 June 2011
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan hit out at the United States on Friday over what it said was an incursion into its airspace by a NATO jet that attacked a military post.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/June/international_June713.xml§ion=international

[EFerrari]

54. Bush forgot to bomb innocent people in Afghanistan

on his way to bomb innocent people in Iraq.

[treestar]

55. Exactly, it is silly to expect this talking point to float

Obama simply did things the way Bush should have. Concentrated on Afghanistan.

[yurbud]

57. the right enemy? the seal team taking out bin Laden was the right enemy

Now we're just killing illiterate goatherders who don't even know why we are there so we can make sure the right people profit from pipeline routes, poppies, and anything else of value there.

What Obama did with bin Laden would have been the beginning and end of the war on terror if this was really about fighting terror or even avenging 9/11.

[Richardo]

6. What's the Iraq graph look like?

[truebrit71]

9. Good question...

...Afghanistan is where the primary focus on this bogus war on Turr should have stayed from the beginning...

[Arkansas Granny]

52. And had that happened, we wouldn't even need an Iraq graph.

There's a good possibility that the Afghan graph would look very different, also.

[Fla Dem]

11. Meanwhile major troop reduction in Iraq, some of those troops redeployed to Afghanistan.

Where they should have been since 2002 and maybe we wouldn't still have to be there.

[JoePhilly]

16. +1

Bush let Afghanistan stagnate as he chased Iraq folly.

[JoePhilly]

14. I ask the same question above ...

Bush got distracted and went to Iraq, Obama has tried to clean up Bush's negligence in Afghanistan.

[JackRiddler]

41. See post 38.

Iraq troop reductions are not due to a policy decision by Obama.

Afghanistan escalations ARE due to policy decisions by Obama.

[NYC Liberal]

53. Like this:

[ProSense]

10. When Bush left office, there

were 177,000 troop deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Currently, there are 146,000.

WH: Facts and Figures on Drawdown in Iraq

<...>

Bases

As part of the drawdown in Iraq, U.S. forces are also closing or transferring military bases in Iraq.

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

The Big Picture: U.S. troops “Boots on the Ground” (BOG) in Iraq and Afghanistan

Several facts illustrate both the size and scope of the drawdown, and the shift in focus as we end the war in Iraq, and focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

- In January 2009, there were about 177,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: 144,000 in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan. In July 2010, there are about 169,000: 81,000 in Iraq and 87,000 in Afghanistan. In September 2010, there will be about 146,000: 50,000 in Iraq and 96,000 in Afghanistan. So even with the surge in Afghanistan, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have been reduced from 177,000 to roughly 146,000. In addition to those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 28,000 U.S. service-members deployed supporting Iraq and 17,000 supporting Afghanistan. They are deployed in other locations, such as Kuwait, Qatar, and afloat in the Persian Gulf.

- The drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq since January 2009 comprises roughly three times as many troops as the President ordered to Afghanistan last December.

As of the end of this year, there should be about 87,000. By the end of next summer, there will be about 64,000.

Hey, Bush was fighting the illegal and wrong war.

[fascisthunter]

15. WOW.... can't claim to be anti-war after this

[Tx4obama]

31. He has never claimed to be anti-war.

Quote:

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war..." - Barack Obama October 2, 2002

[dflprincess]

35. This is a dumb war. n/t

[JackRiddler]

46. So what? Starting war is crime, a politician thinking otherwise doesn't change that.

[MilesColtrane]

17. Not surprising since he campaigned on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

[dflprincess]

22. Campaign Obama said he'd increase troops by two brigades

He never told us he would double the number of troops there and that at the end of his first term there would be more troops stuck there than when he took office.

[Tx4obama]

30. No. He said "AT LEAST" two brigades.

"Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve," Obama said in a speech on Aug. 1, 2007. "As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/

[dflprincess]

34. You're right

After having lived through Johnson's and Nixon's attempts to mislead the public about Vietnam I should have listened more closely and never trusted Obama to keep troop levels low or to end this fiasco before it bankrupted the country.

[amborin]

18. K&R who was the "war" president?

[grahamhgreen]

19. Those who support these wars are morally bankrupt, IMHO.

[Pterodactyl]

20. Wow!

[somone]

21. The Peace Prize made him do it

:sarcasm:

[SidDithers]

23. And the corresponding graph for Iraq is where?...nt

Sid

[Change has come]

33. Why not create it?

Instead of these sarcastic images?

[JackRiddler]

39. Irrelevant because that graph so far is a function of the SOFA reached under Bush!

[LooseWilly]

24. It's OK, they're Democrat Troops now...

It's all good now.

Shhhh.....

It's OK.

Shhhhhh......

Democrat troops.

Nnnnnn...

It's ok. Ok. Ok. :) All good.

[Tx4obama]

26. Obama campaigned on the issue of an INCREASE of troops in Afghanistan, and ...

a DECREASE of troops in Iraq.

That is exactly what he has done.

It should not be a shock to anyone that was listening during the 2008 campaign.


Edited to correct typo.

[madinmaryland]

28. And most DUer's for five years wanted that to happen until Obama got elected.

[ieoeja]

58. I was beginning to think I was the only person who remembered that.

Posts criticizing Bush for moving troops out of Afghanistan used to be a regular mainstay on this site.

I think most DUers are like me and just gave up on the anti-war posts. If a person is anti all war, there really isn't any common ground for discussion. So why bother pestering them.

[MrScorpio]

29. That's what I remember him saying

Why are people surprised this?

[coalition_unwilling]

42. So when our empire founders on the shoals of the AfPak morass, we

can lay that catastrophic defeat right at Obama's door, correct? It's Obama's war now, baby, for better or worse.

[Tx4obama]

44. You can not call getting Bin Laden defeat. You can not call getting some of the top Al Qaeda in ....

Afghanistan and Pakistan defeat.
If we were not in Afghanistan we'd have no access to Pakistan and we would not have gotten Bin Laden.
You got a problem with that?

[coalition_unwilling]

51. Yeah, I have a general problem with extra-judicial executions, no

matter who is carrying them out.

Don't you?

[madinmaryland]

27. Incompetence of the Bush misadminstration is what led us into the hell-hole.

I find it curious that we have forgotten what we were saying eight years ago that we were fighting the wrong war and why were we not going after bin laden.

[Poll_Blind]

32. Telegram for you: We GOT Bin Laden. The stated goal of America in Afghanistan is...

...to prepare the Afghani forces to take over their country, just the exact (and I mean to the letter) explanation about why we're in Iraq.

Except neither countries can keep their shit together enough to hold so much as a bake sale without a suicide bomber.

Or, in other words: Get used to growing older watching us continue to fuck around in Iraq and Afghanistan long after even the silliest pretext for being there has been exhausted.

PB

[dflprincess]

36. Yes, the policy in both countries is now "Vietnamazation". n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

43. Pretty soon we'll fall back on that all-encompassing rationale that

we can't leave or other countries will start to question our credibility and 'staying power' (same rationale used in latter stages of Vietnam War).

The more things change . . .

[western mass]

37. ...and incompetence of the Obama admin is what keeps us in

this hell-hole.

Although to be fair, it's not all about "incompetence." Corruption and right-wing pandering play a big part.

[Tx4obama]

45. Please post facts regarding any incompetence by the Obama administration

and provide links to support your argument.

[JackRiddler]

40. No, actually. The criminal wars of aggression under Bush led US into the hell-hole, and...

the unfortunate failure of Obama to prosecute the perpetrators and end (not escalate!) the criminal wars has kept US in the hell-hole.

Obama can still change that.

[JackRiddler]

47. In other words, "incompetence" has nothing to do with it. Intent is what matters, and crime.

Incompetence is no defense for bank robbers who fuck up and kill a bunch of people. All that matters is that they wanted to rob the bank.

[Poll_Blind]

49. +1

PB

[lonestarnot]

50. +10!

[Wind Dancer]

56. +1000