
ThinkProgress.org
Source: Amy Belasco, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11"
At 8pm ET, President Obama is scheduled to address the nation on the war in Afghanistan. According to The New York Times, he’s expected to outline plans to bring roughly 30,000 American troops home by next summer.
These drastic reductions — not recommended by Obama’s top military commanders — signal the mounting political and economic pressure to drawdown immediately.
ThinkProgress made a great chart illustrating troop levels throughout the dragged out war effort. Surprisingly, even with these expected reductions, there are still more troops on the ground now than when Bush was in office.
Lawrence and Rachel Maddow will bring you live coverage of Obama’s speech tonight. Tune in at 8pm ET on MSNBC.





I mean, if they're privately contracted security forces, they're not technically US Ground Troops, right?
Mike, check my post, just under yours. This chart only reflects those U.S. Military that are under the command of the Commander and Cheif. Privately contracted security forces are only answerable to their employer...whether it's the State Department, Justice Department, Exxon, BP yadayadayada.
President Obama can't order private contactors to do or NOT do ....anything, really.
Hi,
I understand there are a LOT of logistics involved with massive troop withdrawals. In Vietnam, we burned our helos and aircraft, burned our camps and supplies and each left with what they could carry in one trip. They were even throwing perfectly good helos and planes overboard off of carriers because there wasn't enough room for all the returning assets.
I don't want to see that happen here, so I do understand it will take at least a year to get our troops out. But please, Mr. President, get the troops out. It would be nice, for a change, to see a "Mission Accomplished" banner that actually means what it says.
I notice that the above chart doesn't seem to include private contrators ...like Blackwater, etc. Contractors have outnumbered our troops over there for quite some time now. Even if all our actual troops leave...it still ain't over. It's all about the money. ...so much cash and so little time! "Nuts."
[Edit, sorry, didn't mean to imply I was a Nam vet in the first paragraph, but the story is real enough.]
So let's do some quick math here, in Dec 2008, George Bush leaves office and there are about 34,000 troops in Afghanistan. Bush leaves office in Jan 209 with a standing order for 3,000 more troops to be deployed in Afghanistan. Raising the total number of troops to 37,000. In Feb 2009, Pres Obama increases that deployment by a whopping 17,000 troops. This came on the heels of him campaigning to end the Afghanistan war, raising out total number of troops to about 54,000. In Dec 2009 President Obama then signs off for another 30,000 troops to be sent over there putting our number of troops on the ground to over 84,000 troops, more than double the number of troops that we had in Afghanistan when he took office. Tonight he said that by the end of the year he wants to pull out 10,000 troops by the of the year and a total of 33,000 by the end of 2012. Now by my numbers, all he is really saying is that of the 47,000 troops that hes signed off on sending, he's going to bring home only about 3/5 of the troops he's sent over there and less than half of our total forces over there. And then to top it off, he wants us to believe that from 2013-2014 the remaining 51,000 troops will be brought home all why they are teaching Afghanistan to stand on their own. I'm sorry but as a American with at least half a brain, I'm deeply offended by his speech and his lack of respect shown to the American people by just throwing numbers around like we cant do the Math.
Now that we've heard the speech and John Boehner's response to it, I believe there's been a deal struck between President Obama and the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker's response was almost complementary, with no slams or derogatory comments about the President or his Afghan policy...so something's up. I'm just left wondering which Bills are involved in this little "T'it for t'at." episode.
I guess we'll never know for sure, but it shouldn't be too hard to guess what it might have been by what happens in Congress in the coming weeks or months.
We'll now I know what that deal was....Penetta's confirmation! That must be the deal I was referring to.
Sorry, I should have actually watched Rachel's video before I posted.
Oops.