via BNF
When the President authorized 21,000 new troops for Afghanistan upon taking office, he apparently slipped in some additional forces on the side:
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.
The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq “surge” that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.
But wait, this number could also be underselling the total force in Afghanistan. As Kevin Drum catches, last month the Los Angeles Times announced that the Pentagon was planning to send home support troops and replace them with “trigger-pullers”, i.e. infantrymen. Those support services would then be taken up by contractors.
So the Pentagon is pulling out 14,000 support troops and replacing them with combat troops, and then they’re sending over 13,000 new support troops to help out all the combat troops.
I think Drum has the sequencing wrong. The White House authorized 13,000 support troops way back in March, and then this flip of support troops for trigger-pullers came later. In other words, the 34,000 troops authorized in March might include NO support personnel.
Meanwhile, these numbers always leave out the number of contractors in Afghanistan, which the New York Times reported in September outnumbered the combat forces.
As of March this year, contractors made up 57 percent of the Pentagon’s force in Afghanistan, and if the figure is averaged over the past two years, it is 65 percent, according to the report by the Congressional Research Service. A copy of the report was posted online by Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists.
The 68,197 contractors — many of them Afghans — handle a variety of jobs, including cooking for the troops, serving as interpreters and even providing security, the report says.
Given that the military support troops are being swapped out for combat troops, and that contractors do die in war and serve military functions, the total U.S. forces in Afghanistan right now comes much closer to 136,000 if all these stories are correct. That’s not counting the NATO coalition troops.
And we’re told we need 40,000, 60,000 or perhaps as much as 80,000 troops more. And that doesn’t include support personnel. Or more contractors.
Pretty soon, you’re talking about real numbers.
Related posts:
- New Rumors of Obama’s Afghanistan Decision: More Troops or More Spin?
- Costs of Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Proving Unsustainable
- McChrystal Wants More Troops, More Billions for War in Afghanistan
- Progressive Caucus Requests Meeting with President Obama to Rethink Afghanistan
- US Forces Linked to Afghanistan Prisoner Massacre, Says Report; DoD Investigation Still MIA
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Sadly, I think we’re in a no-win situation in Afghanistan.
Pulling out certainly opens up the probability of the Taliban returning to power after civil war. It also opens up the possibility of Al Qaeda returning to bases in Afghanistan.
On the other hand staying in Afghanistan is also likely to prove disastrous with the financial burden, the continued loss of life and limb for our soldiers and increasing animosity towards the US by the people of the Muslim world as inevitable civilian casualties continue to mount.
The way I see it, the cost of staying is pretty much certain. The cost of pulling out completely is not certain. I’d gamble on withdrawal if I were president – which I’m obviously not.
So I ask again, why is the U.S. not winning? There are now many more military personnel (including contractors) in Afghanistan than the Soviets had at the peak, and they had won until the U.S.-Saudi-Paks undermined them, and even so held up until the U.S. supplied Stingers. So WTF is wrong with the U.S.
The Soviets even did more nation building than the U.S. They built schools, roads, hospitals and made sure many more girls went to school and women became professionals. So WTF is wrong with the U.S.
Change the date of this post to 2006 – 7 or 8.. And change the presidents name to Bush.
Now ask yourself just how absurd this secret shuffle of a surge is and how well it fits the dreadful Bush mold?
Elections don’t matter… not nearly enough.
At this point I can only say that it is not about winning or losing, but keeping the defense idustry humming along. Add in the fact that for the upper ranks of the military promotions happen and reputations are made only during times of conflicts.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Still worth judging the competence of the U.S. military, which seems pretty low.
“In an unannounced move…”
Translation: The audacity of hoping no one will notice
.
which may explain this
enablers – oy
Apparently the Nobel committee didn’t notice.
Another generation of the best and brightest have taken the imperial
bait and swallowed it whole. Obama, Holbrooke and McChrystal are in
process of “smart” application of Cheney’s basic plan for what Pepe
Escobar calls Pipelinestan in Afghanistan. The control of access to
the natural resources of the region is the US goal, regardless of the
domestic political situation. War is the health of the state for these
people, that is unchanged from WWI thru Af-Pak Iraq. Too bad Halberstam
is not around to chronicle this final deja’ vu.
What makes you think this is the “final” deja vu. It’s just one of the current ones. There’s always Iran waiting in the wings.
Iran should have been included as it is the designated opponent in the
energy control scenario, I should have stated that rather than relying
it’s implication. This grand chessboard thing of foreign policy and war
as a board game was Von Neumann’s gift to posterity, so I throw him in
gratis.
Think they’re waiting until U.S. troops are mostly out of Iraq to do Iran.
It is interesting how Congress fights tooth and nail to avoid providing its citizens what is common place in civilized countries, yet continues uninhibited spending for our War Machine. I also wonder how much of the CIA and State (or hidden in other Cabinet budgets) money is spent in ”support personnel” in Afghanistan, and is not counted as DoD cost of war.
American Exceptionalism.
Forces in the war department have been pushing the president to send more troops to Afghanistan for quite a while now. Suddenly we have a report from unnamed military sources that more forces were in fact already sent. This seems to be gamesmanship on his part or their part to influence the debate.
In either case President Obama has done this too himself. He should not have committed any more forces until someone demanding more forces told him exactly what they were expected to do there. It is deja vu. If you want to stop the heroin give the people something else to grow and sell or another way to make a living. Maybe alternative energy who knows. Every day there is a war instead of a humanitarian operation in Afghanistan more terrorists/rebels/freedom fighters will raise the flag openly or in secret just as you would if an occupying force slaughtered your neighbors.
There is nothing to “win” in Afghanistan only more blood to mine. The fact that most of the forces are the vastly more expensive and less accountable contractors tells the whole story of what is really going on.
Yes its time to earn the Peace Prize again. Start shutting it down and bust and arrest anyone who doesn’t like it.
I suppose Obama hopes that if he comes up with some euphemism for them, he can give McChrystal the bodies he wants without admitting that he’s escalating.
I think you have a good bet there, Israel from the west, US from the
east… just enough troops to get it started… hard for a gamer to
resist.
How many American troops were support in Viet Nam and how many were combat troops at the height of the war?
What do you suspect will be done to Iran?
One of the things that has been a burr under my saddle is that after all bitching,the cost of healthcare reform is a trillon dollars over ten years and we spend that much every year between the Depts. of defense, energy(nukes) and homeland security.
The reason why we don’t have a social safety net is precisely because the US is designated to play the role of providing military muscle to make the world safe for capitalism. Thus, the role of the $US as the reserve currency–no other nation wants to condemn their populace to serfdom in order to keep the machine humming. That will remain as the greatest impediment to the dollar losing reserve currency status–EU and BRIC would need to pay to stabilize the trouble spots themselves, risking domestic opposition to becoming like the US.
The reason why Afghanistan has not been pacified by the US is the same reason why the US has not been pacified by the Christofascists.
I’m no fan of the Taliban, but that is a matter for the Afghans to solve, not US.
Do these numbers include Air Force pilots doing airstrikes from other countries, Marines ? Or are these just Army numbers? How far I’m wondering are they gaming these numbers?
If the mercenaries and outsourced “support personnel” are in theater at our command – rather than because the Afghans put up a “For Sale” sign – they should be counted in the numbers reported by the DoD. We control them, US taxpayers are footing the bill for them, and the US is legally and politically liable for what they do. Bush played the same game in Iraq.
One would think Mr. Obama wants to hide the resources and goodwill of America that he is putting in harm’s way. No doubt, one aspect of this is that we can later claim to have withdrawn “all our troops”, when we leave hundreds of thousands of mercs behind.
U.S. troops (i.e., targets) will not be out of Iraq for quite awhile, so I have plenty of time to change my mind.
I think the PTB were panicked when they found out about Iran’s second nuclear fuel site. I think they would have bombed if they’d been able.
I am not sure where the WaPo’s numbers are coming from. Obama authorized an increase of 17,000 and it wasn’t in March. It was on February 17, 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-by-the-President-on-Afghanistan/
The NYT sense of math does not seem to be much better. It says contractors make up 57% of the Pentagon’s force in Afghanistan. It then says there are 68,197 contractors. That would mean that the overall force was 119,644 and would mean that the non-contractor segment, i.e. US troops numbered 51,447.
wiki says that of July of this year there were around 30,000 US troops and 64,000 in the ISAF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
Does anyone know what the real numbers are?
I suspect that the problem is the Saudis. I suspect that the Saudis have exerted far more influence–one might even say control–over our policy than we realize. Witness the creation of Al Qaeda and the reliance on Pakistan under Reagan and Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger’s handsoff policy after 9/11, the Bush family’s financial dependency on Saudi largesse, and the current administration’s continued use of state secrets doctrine to protect the Saudis from post-9/11 law suits.
The Saudis have pushed for most of the more destructive policies that we have adopted. They discouraged more vigorous action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan at the one moment when it might have done some good, just before Bush’s Iraq war, because they hoped to preserve the Taliban. They have encouraged Islamist militarism in Pakistan and funded the Pakistani bomb and the Kashmiri terrorists. They discouraged civic action projects and emancipation of women in Afghanistan while encouraging reliance on warlords.
At the risk of dusting off the old aluminum-foil deflector beany, one might suggest that the Saudis are now applying the policy of bleeding out the Russians in Afghanistan that they sold to Reagan to us.
And why? That is obvious, I think. They have to keep their people convinced that teaching little girls to read is the greatest threat facing the world, because, if people get a chance to think, they might wonder why a small population needs hundreds and hundreds of hard-spending princelings when it still can no longer deliver a decent standard of living to ordinary folk.
What the hell does winning look like in Afghanistan? A corrupt federal government like the one here in the U.S.? Several monstrous political parties looting the caves as long as one isn’t the Taliban? Our sons and daughters continue to kill and be killed by other people’s sons and daughters for what?
Morally disgraceful. Fucking insane.
Support vs. combat troops is a distinction without a difference. The concept of “support troops” is misleading, particularly in a war like Afghanistan.
Even in conventional wars, military police (MPs) are combat troops, even if they act in support roles as well. MPs guard convoys, secure lines of communication, and guard prisoners, all of which can involve fighting.
In a war like this one, convoy duties are essentially frontline combat. There are no front lines, so every road, truck, and camp perimeter can be a line of battle. Cooks, drivers, clerks, mechanics, and nurses are all likely to be combatants at one time or another. That is why they are all are trained and armedas infantry.
It’s an hypothesis; I’ll think about it.
Off-topic comedy respite. Apologizing in advance.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho.php?ref=mp
All is not dim and grim. The infallible one has created 5 new saints.
“What the hell does winning look like in Afghanistan?”
It looks like this.
Good one.
A win in Afghanistan ?
It’s not possible to define a win .
We are supporting a corrupt government.
Is that how you define a win ?
Bring our troops home ,there is no winning in this war
You’ve asked the question that nobody has really asked since Pearl Harbor and our last Constitutionally declared war.
When we talk about winning anything else–a sweepstakes, a football, game, a beauty pageant–we always ask, “WHAT do we win?” Before we get started, we want to know what makes the effort and/or risk worthwhile?
Declarations of war used to force the question by forcing us to face our objectives and their likely costs before starting. I suspect that that is why the undeclared war has been so popular. Introspection gets in the way of decidering and is always politically awkward.
No maybe Spencer or the vets know but that is something the front pagers should look into
I love re-reading Orwell’s 1984 because it feels so fresh, relevant, & insightful. And it still does, regardless of whether there is a Democrat in the White House & regardless which of the 2 parties controls the Congress. “War is peace.” “Ignorance is strength.”
Depends.
If you like the US empire, then winning means escaping with the empire intact.
If you don’t like the US empire, winning means the empire finds its graveyard where so many others have–Afghanistan.
You forgot “democrats are republicans.”
Spencer puts the number of US troops in Afghanistan at 64,000 IIRC.
yeah. Bush debased the word ‘freedom’ – he really tried to wreck that word.
now Obama is wrecking ‘change’ and ‘peace’.
as Orwell wrote, once DoubleSpeak is in place, it becomes very difficult to even think forbidden thoughts.
Wait just a cotton pickin’ minute.
My son is an officer in an engineer battalion. They are very definitely combat troops: they carry M4s and M9s and they are expected to be “trigger pullers.” They aren’t sent out to seize an objective very often, but they are right there while the PBI (poor, bloody infantry) are seizing the objective.
They’re out there clearing the routes between those seized objectives, so the PBI can get the things they need from the transport people.
There may be many reasons some people have for us to be in Afghanistan. Pres. Obama was a bit vague when he sent us in. We have since used troops to fight the Taliban/alQaeda while Pakistani military fought them on their side of the border (with some help from our drones). Have we destroyed al Qaeda?
In that fight we have set up raids, drone attacks, intelligence spies, satellite spying, hammer and anvil strategy, outpost with air support tactics and simply walking into their territory and trying to hold it. All of that has been in order to execute the main plan of destroying al Qaeda.
Have we succeeded?
If so, then we have no sound reason to stay except to ensure no resurgence of the Taliban/AQ terrorist training camps.