US to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after 2014 - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75131000/jpg/_75131423_75131271.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27593518[/url] [quote]President Barack Obama is seeking to keep 9,800 US troops in Afghanistan after the US ends its combat mission in the country at the end of this year. The US plan calls for troop levels to be reduced from its current force of 32,000 by the end of 2014. The remaining US military presence would train Afghan forces and support counter-terrorism operations.[/quote] [quote]Initially, the US military presence would continue around the country in 2015, but be halved by the end of the year and consolidated around Kabul. After 2016, the US would seek to keep 1,000 military members to staff a security office.[/quote]

For those wanting a comparison. The attacking Allied forces at Omaha beach was 43,000 men. The casualties that the Allies suffered during the battles of Normandy alone was 120,000+. The casualties that NATO has suffered during the entire Afghan operation is 3,441. Normandy was roughly 2 1/2 Months. Operation Enduring Freedom has been 13 years.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44923515]For those wanting a comparison. The attacking Allied forces at Omaha beach was 43,000 men. The casualties that the Allies suffered during the battles of Normandy alone was 120,000+. The casualties that NATO has suffered during the entire Afghan operation is 3,441. Normandy was roughly 2 1/2 Months. Operation Enduring Freedom has been 13 years.[/QUOTE] Not comparable, the Taliban were never the premier fighting force of the world like the Nazis were.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44923515]For those wanting a comparison. The attacking Allied forces at Omaha beach was 43,000 men. The casualties that the Allies suffered during the battles of Normandy alone was 120,000+. The casualties that NATO has suffered during the entire Afghan operation is 3,441. Normandy was roughly 2 1/2 Months. Operation Enduring Freedom has been 13 years.[/QUOTE] I don't even see why you would compare dday to this but ok

US military personnel overseas, by country: Japan- 51,000 Germany- 40,000 South Korea- 29,000 Kuwait- 11,000 Italy- 11,000 UK- 9,000 Over 160,000 US military personnel are stationed outside the US. Leaving ten thousand personnel as advisers to train the new government of Afghanistan is not a lot and you don't need WW2 comparisons to make that case. It's the best chance that government has of being able to stand on its feet after we stop combat operations altogether and it poses very low risk to the Americans stationed there.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44923515] The casualties that NATO has suffered during the entire Afghan operation is 3,441.[/QUOTE] 'Casualties' should also include the thousands of very badly wounded. Military medicine has advanced a bit since Normandy.

If they want us there I'm completely fine with us having advisers.

I understand leaving some troops but 10000 is way too much.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;44925539]I understand leaving some troops but 10000 is way too much.[/QUOTE] You have 40,000 in Germany.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;44925553]You have 40,000 in Germany.[/QUOTE] Must be fun to be stationed at Germany, taking walks on the street asking people "feeling nazi yet? seen any Russians around here?"

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;44925539]I understand leaving some troops but 10000 is way too much.[/QUOTE] Seeing how we have more troops on non-combatant deployments in countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc, 10,000 in Afghanistan isn't that much. We need to keep [I]some[/I] troops there to help train and advise the Afghani army so they can continue our work after the main force of US troops leave. It'd be a bad move to just pull out completely and leave it up to Afghanistan to support itself after years of US aid.

Afghanistan is a good country of good people being corrupted by bad people. If they need our help to stay afloat after the withdrawal we should help.

[QUOTE=OvB;44925909]Afghanistan is a good country of good people being corrupted by bad people. If they need our help to stay afloat after the withdrawal we should help.[/QUOTE] [Insert Country Here] is a good country of good people being corrupted by bad people.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44926086][Insert Country Here] is a good country of good people being corrupted by bad people.[/QUOTE] I've noticed this is becoming a cliché, there's been a lot of posts on FP recently like "Russians are literally the loveliest people in the world they will go down on you no questions asked, but their government is shit"

[QUOTE=OvB;44925909]Afghanistan is a good country of good people being corrupted by bad people. If they need our help to stay afloat after the withdrawal we should help.[/QUOTE] I spent four years there, mate. It's a ticking fucking time bomb, as soon as we leave the Taliban will come crawling back out unless the Afghan army is strong enough to get rid of them. And even then, God only knows how many have managed to infiltrate the Afghan armed forces.

or even if the government wants to fight them... i mean the next administration could very well kick us out and welcome in the chinese or russians as advisers in return for lucrative mining rights

[QUOTE=smurfy;44926482]I've noticed this is becoming a cliché, there's been a lot of posts on FP recently like "Russians are literally the loveliest people in the world they will go down on you no questions asked, but their government is shit"[/QUOTE] But i'm really a loveliest man in the world. Well, probably one of the most loveliest, but still.

[QUOTE=antianan;44929713]But i'm really a loveliest man in the world. Well, probably one of the most loveliest, but still.[/QUOTE] A supreme gentleman?

I honestly think this is a pretty good idea, it keeps our troops in working positions. Plus it works as security for Afgahnistan (ANA are total incompetent fuckups). So basically jobs, and security forces.

[QUOTE=catbarf;44925212]US military personnel overseas, by country: Japan- 51,000 Germany- 40,000 South Korea- 29,000 Kuwait- 11,000 Italy- 11,000 UK- 9,000 Over 160,000 US military personnel are stationed outside the US. Leaving ten thousand personnel as advisers to train the new government of Afghanistan is not a lot and you don't need WW2 comparisons to make that case. It's the best chance that government has of being able to stand on its feet after we stop combat operations altogether and it poses very low risk to the Americans stationed there.[/QUOTE] Honestly, keeping non-combat personnel here is the only shot we have at "winning" this fuck-up. If we pulled out without leaving advisers, the government we put in place, for better or worse, would undoubtedly be beaten and the country would slide back into anarchy like Iraq. That would leave the Middle East with yet another power vacuum, and the only thing we will have succeeded in was wasting billions of dollars and thousands of American and Allied lives only to create even more enemies. Our operations in Afghanistan may have gained us some friends as well (there are few people who will dispute that the US is still better than the Taliban, even if we are not that much better) but the frequent drone strikes and other military operations have left many civilians caught in the crossfire and have bred even more enemies to take up the cause against America. Afghanistan was a mistake to begin with. None of the Western powers should have gotten involved in the Middle East after WWII, least of all us. But we had to see to it that those last dominoes would not fall and the dirty Communists or Terrorists (or whatever the new enemy of the day is) would not take over. But now that we are involved, leaving would just make the situation unbelievably worse than it already is.

[QUOTE=OvB;44925909]Afghanistan is a good country of good people being corrupted by bad people. If they need our help to stay afloat after the withdrawal we should help.[/QUOTE] Shame that the government being supported by the US/Allies to fight the bad people (Taliban) is made up of bad people.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;44938114]Honestly, keeping non-combat personnel here is the only shot we have at "winning" this fuck-up. If we pulled out without leaving advisers, the government we put in place, for better or worse, would undoubtedly be beaten and the country would slide back into anarchy like Iraq. That would leave the Middle East with yet another power vacuum, and the only thing we will have succeeded in was wasting billions of dollars and thousands of American and Allied lives only to create even more enemies. Our operations in Afghanistan may have gained us some friends as well (there are few people who will dispute that the US is still better than the Taliban, even if we are not that much better) but the frequent drone strikes and other military operations have left many civilians caught in the crossfire and have bred even more enemies to take up the cause against America. Afghanistan was a mistake to begin with. None of the Western powers should have gotten involved in the Middle East after WWII, least of all us. But we had to see to it that those last dominoes would not fall and the dirty Communists or Terrorists (or whatever the new enemy of the day is) would not take over. But now that we are involved, leaving would just make the situation unbelievably worse than it already is.[/QUOTE] You're comparing the U.S. to the Taliban? Do you even know what the Taliban is? Obviously not if you can make that comparison. I don't see American police offers roaming the streets severely beating women for dressing improperly and executing them for "religious offenses". Your long winded ass post lost all credibility when you said that.