I thought Afghanistan was the "good war"???

[Modbert]

As I said, using wiki as a source for numbers of deployed personnel must be regarded critically.

The best source is the DoD, and they typically do not release too many specifics on that information for security reasons.

Informed speculation is fine, but remember that is likely the best one can do.

Wiki gives us a good estimation at the very least and you're right about the DoD.

I thought this was interesting, I'm surprised this wasn't reported on here sooner:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/world/asia/02contractors.html

From the LA times in September:

U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan -- latimes.com

President Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to bring the U.S. force to about 68,000. About 38,000 non-U.S. troops with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are also deployed in the country.

Well looks like I was right.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

In my opinion, we need to leave that sewer of a place. Let the natives care for themselves for a change. Afghanistan did not attack us. If they won't defend themselves, they deserve whatever comes crawling out of the sewer they are living in.

You do realize that the Karzai government would fold like a cheap ass chinese suit right? Then when another attack is launched on the West...we will have to go back in...at what cost?

 

[Modbert]

You do realize that the Karzai government would fold like a cheap ass chinese suit right? Then when another attack is launched on the West...we will have to go back in...at what cost?

Karzai has already folded to the Fundies like a inexperienced poker player with a winning hand.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

As I said, using wiki as a source for numbers of deployed personnel must be regarded critically.

The best source is the DoD, and they typically do not release too many specifics on that information for security reasons.

Informed speculation is fine, but remember that is likely the best one can do.

Wiki gives us a good estimation at the very least and you're right about the DoD.

I thought this was interesting, I'm surprised this wasn't reported on here sooner:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/world/asia/02contractors.html

From the LA times in September:

U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan -- latimes.com

President Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to bring the U.S. force to about 68,000. About 38,000 non-U.S. troops with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are also deployed in the country.

Well looks like I was right.

Do you know what NATO's original committment of non U.S. troops was discussed at the NATO conference after 9/11?

 

[Modbert]

Do you know what NATO's original committment of non U.S. troops was discussed at the NATO conference after 9/11?

I don't recall, but it's obviously not enough.

NATO is the one currently saying that it will "stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to finish our job."

So they should commit more troops if they are going to say such things.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Do you know what NATO's original committment of non U.S. troops was discussed at the NATO conference after 9/11?

I don't recall, but it's obviously not enough.

NATO is the one currently saying that it will "stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to finish our job."

So they should commit more troops if they are going to say such things.

Absolutely correct Dogbert...and the number was approximately 65,000 troops. Here's another little item of interest:

Why have 2,500 troops and billions invested when others are not pulling their weight? Senator Joseph Day is one of the authors of the report:

"We were disappointed. I think all NATO partners recognised that there was a greater resistance in the South, in the area where the Dutch are and where Canada and the English and the Americans are. And we called for extra help, it wasn't forthcoming."

"We called for more equipment and it wasn't forthcoming. If we see this as just continuing war and no reconstruction. I doubt very much that Canada would be willing to participate in that kind of activity."

NATO split in Afghanistan - Radio Netherlands Worldwide - English

 

[Modbert]

NATO currently has less than 30,000 troops or something like that. Considering Al-Qaeda is a threat to the entire world, you'd figure these countries would not skimp on troop levels. Just have the U.S. do everything while they sit back on their laurels. Wonder how they would feel if we left that desert wasteland and left them to their own devices.

Bet they'd be changing their tune in a hurry.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

NATO currently has less than 30,000 troops or something like that. Considering Al-Qaeda is a threat to the entire world, you'd figure these countries would not skimp on troop levels. Just have the U.S. do everything while they sit back on their laurels. Wonder how they would feel if we left that desert wasteland and left them to their own devices.

Bet they'd be changing their tune in a hurry.

Agreed. By the same token I also believe that the large Muslim immigration to the greater European Union has had a significant influence on their foreign policy especially with respect to their committment to NATO in conflicts involving Muslim Nations. All one has to do is look at the attacks in London and Spain to see the reaction from the governments in those 2 countries. Spain has all but withdrawn from any support for OIF and OEF, the U.K. , Germany, and a host of other "NATO Allies" are set to leave Afghanistan within the next 18 months due to pressure from Muslim groups within their borders.

The U.S. will end up shouldering the entire burden of this conflict by 2011...which incidentally coincides with our complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq.