Exclusive: U.S. force in Afghanistan may be cut to less than 10,000 troops

Comments (39)
vrytix wrote:

It may be worth mentioning that President Obama has said the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was “necessary.”

It may also be worth mentioning that the U.S. Government made it clear last year that it wanted to retain a residual military force in Afghanistan after the official troop withdrawal.

The administration wanted President Karzai to sign a BSA by the end of last year. He refused.

It will be interesting to see how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, for how long, and what exactly they do.

Apr 21, 2014 7:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“U.S. force in Afghanistan may be cut to less than 10,000 troops.”

Good. Remove 4 more zeroes, even better. As for the stoned comment above about the necessary invasion of Afghanistan….. great. That was 13 years ago, dude. Things change :)

Apr 21, 2014 8:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

From this article: “At their current size, Afghan forces will cost at least $5 billion in 2015, a sum far beyond the reach of the Afghan government. The United States has been widely expected to be the largest outside funder for those forces.” (end quote)

Colin Powell’s warning, the so-called “Pottery Barn Rule”, has certainly been proven to be true in Afghanistan… the US broke it, now, we own it.

A few more “victories”, such as we have experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan and the USA will be flat broke?

Apr 21, 2014 8:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wata3001 wrote:

After all that time and all that super technology, the US armed forces haven’t even made a dent in the Afghan forces. The US military loses again. Pathetic.

Apr 21, 2014 8:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sophie11rose wrote:

The bottom line is it is the choice of the Afghan people. IF, they choose to support the BSA the US could choose to continue to send troops, IF the Afghan people want us OUT of their country we need to abide by their wishes. Too bad we didn’t listen to the Afghan people before we ever got into this mess, they probably did NOT want us there destroying their country.

Apr 21, 2014 8:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Woodstock2 wrote:

Please, someone, remind me again why we are there in the first place.

Oh Yah, I forgot. It’s so the OFFENSE can make a little money.
It’s coming back to me now.

Apr 21, 2014 9:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kinnison wrote:

Did we learn nothing in Somalia? Ten thousand troops, scattered out all over the country, is simply not enough to provide a credible reaction force if something goes really sideways. Our troop presence in Afghanistan should be zero. Everyone, including the State Department, knows that the Afghan government is going to collapse when we leave, and those U.S. troops who remain behind will be in terrible danger.

Apr 21, 2014 9:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
westernshame wrote:

new_york_loner wrote:

“A few more “victories”, such as we have experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan and the USA will be flat broke?”

yeah but the military industrial complex is doing just fine. since the end of the cold war, their profits had been tumbling and we all know they’re to big to fail…

Apr 21, 2014 9:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cicero-CA wrote:

It would be interesting to know how the US tried to stop the supply of the Taliban and who were the Taliban’s sponsors. Was it truly our dear friends the Pakistanis? I am shocked. Just shocked.

Apr 21, 2014 9:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sensi wrote:

@ vrytix
“The administration wanted President Karzai to sign a BSA by the end of last year. He refused.”

Karzai was considering himself a lame-duck president, on his way out and without any mandate to sign such an agreement and to impose it on the upcoming president. Somehow fair.

Apr 21, 2014 9:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
scott1357 wrote:

this is GREAT news; even better if the troop numbers fell to 5000 or 1000

if you can’t win a war in over 10 years (is it 13 now for goods sake) against a MUCH WEAKER enemy, you are completely stupid. Maybe not stupid for not winning, cuz it might be un winnable in the situation as it sits,

but completely stupid for not recognizing reality and quitting.

of course if your livelihood depends on pouring more and more money now the rat hole, you might have a different view, as would the pigs selling you more and more ‘bullets’ so that they can overpay CEOs

the military LOVES a good war, and lacking that, any war is good enough.

Apr 21, 2014 9:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jingan wrote:

Unocal line almost finished

Apr 21, 2014 9:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
scott1357 wrote:

great news; better if the troop levels dropped to 5000 or 1000

if you can’t win a war in 13 years against a far weaker enemy, you are completely stupid—not necessarily for not winning (might not be possible) but for not recognizing reality and quitting.

The military always needs a war to feel manly and needed; it would be cheaper to give them viagra.

of course if your livelihood depends on shooting people and having fun running around with guns, you may disagree—or if you are a ‘bullet’ manufacturer who needs a good war going on all the time so that you can overpay your CEO—or if you are a congress person who needs to appeal to some idiots to get you re elected to the gravy train.

Apr 21, 2014 9:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
scott1357 wrote:

sorry, i didn’t read the part about reviewing, and over submitted because I felt ignored. Publish at most one of the previous 2

Apr 21, 2014 9:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
scott1357 wrote:

sorry, i didn’t read the part about reviewing, and over submitted because I felt ignored. Publish at most one of the previous 2

Apr 21, 2014 9:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Wasn’t the War on Terrorism a pretense for global expansion? $3.5 trillion, 5000 US troops dead, countless more maimed … and were is the global expansion?

Apr 21, 2014 10:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kahnie wrote:

10,000 too many. Get them ALL out. It didn’t work for Russia and Great Britain in the 19th Century. It didn’t work for the Soviet Union in the 20th Century. It’s not working for us, nor will it, in the 21st Century. OBL is swimming with the fishes. Mission Accomplished.

Apr 21, 2014 10:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
beerpatzer wrote:

LOLOLOLOLOL @ the headline… Less than 10,000 ???? YOu don’t say… I was under the impression (apparenlty mistaken) that USA has already WITHDREW from Afghanistan 2 years ago…. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Apr 21, 2014 11:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nose2066 wrote:

The story says “the longest war in U.S. history”, but it appears that there is still some confusion over the purpose of this “war”.

The beginning of the story talks about a “Taliban” insurgency. Later the story mentions an “al-Qaeda” insurgency. How can they tell who is Taliban? Who is al_Qaeda? and who is just a troublesome tribesman with a rifle?

At one point, the U.S. government offered the Taliban jobs and training if they would stop fighting. Is that offer still on the table?

Apr 21, 2014 11:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fafsbo wrote:

Good. The fewer to be trapped there when Russia cuts off the access point.

Apr 21, 2014 12:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
YesNoMaybeSo wrote:

I’m with what Kahnie said, as soon as OBL was nailed we should of packed it up, it’s not a country you want to hang around in…look what happen to the USSR. It’s quicksand, get out.

Apr 22, 2014 1:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
notsosmart wrote:

As long as we keep printing money we will be Okay.

Apr 22, 2014 3:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Neurochuck wrote:

If the Chinese decided they were next to try “conquering” Afghanistan, they would probably try getting 20 million Han to settle there. At least the US government was not rounding up unemployed high school dropouts and street druggies and forcing them to live there.
Unless they joined the military. Oh.

Apr 22, 2014 4:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

@jingan Bingo! There is a reason the US bases were built along the proposed pipeline route. Didn’t Karzai once work for Unocal at one time?

Apr 22, 2014 6:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse

We should never forget that it was George Bush junior who got us into this mess… and the mess in Iraq, as well.

The Republican Party is assuming that the American public’s memory is faulty; they are seriously considering nominating Jeb Bush, junior’s brother, for POTUS in 2016.

And the Democrats are assuming that Americans have forgotten that, as US Senator from NY, Hillary Clinton, the perceived front-runner for the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2016, voted to authorize the invasion and occupation of Iraq, back in 2002.

The forgetful American voters may have to make a choice between Banana Republicanism and Dynastic Democracy in 2016.

No matter who wins the election, the powerful Defense, Israel & Energy lobbies,(mnemonic acronym: DIE), will continue to dictate US foreign policy.

Recent USSC decisions opened the floodgates on campaign contributions; grass-roots representative democracy is in danger.

Apr 22, 2014 7:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
alowl wrote:

N.Chuck

I’ve felt the same for years. The Chinese should shed blood and treasure for Afghanistan, not us, if they want to run THEIR pipelines across it.

Apr 22, 2014 8:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

beerpatzer writes: ” I was under the impression (apparenlty mistaken) that USA has already WITHDREW from Afghanistan 2 years ago…”

Then get a newspaper or something. No one said we were out of Afghanistan in 2012.

Apr 22, 2014 11:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
nose2066 wrote:

Where is this oil supposed to come from that was supposed to run through a pipeline in Afghanistan? Was the oil supposed to come from Kazakhstan?

There is some major problems in Kazakhstan with their latest and biggest oil field – they say that the oil is acidic and corrodes the pipelines.

Is there some connection between the troop pull-out from Afghanistan and the Kazakhstan oil being too corrosive to transport?

Apr 22, 2014 11:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
westernshame wrote:

nose2066 wrote:

“Where is this oil supposed to come from that was supposed to run through a pipeline in Afghanistan?”

Israeli, Yosef Maimen, head of Mehav has been trying to get oil out of Turkmenistan and the Caspian Sea for a very long time. The US almost had negotiated a deal with the Taliban to install the necessary pipeline but when negotiations didn’t go the US’s way another method of installing the pipeline had to be fabricated.

that’s how we’ve gone from acceptable and good Taliban to terrorist Taliban, back to good-ish and somewhat acceptable Taliban.

Apr 22, 2014 12:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

That’s still 10,000 too many. Thousands of brave soldiers died in that cesspool for nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Apr 22, 2014 1:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Let’s get ALL of our troops out of EVERY foreign nation and let the world strike it’s own balance. Conflict comes because outside forces keep trying to force these people to do what they don’t want to do. Let A-stan fall, then Pakistan will fall, the radicals will have the nukes and the balance will be quick after that.

Apr 22, 2014 1:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Fiddlehead wrote:

Get the troops numbers down to ZERO

Get out of this cesspool and stay out US

Apr 22, 2014 1:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Fiddlehead wrote:

Get the troops numbers down to ZERO

Get out of this cesspool and stay out US

Apr 22, 2014 1:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Fiddlehead wrote:

Get the troop numbers down to ZERO

Get out of this cesspool US and stay out!

Apr 22, 2014 1:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

This open drain serves to reflect on the incompetency of running a war and reflects on – how not to run a war. Shameful.

Apr 22, 2014 1:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I can understand how and why Bush and the Neocons tried to get the Iraqis to sign the Status Of Forces Agreement,(SOFA), so as to allow for an eternal US military presence in Iraq. They saw war and occupation as being good for business.

I have a harder time understanding how and why a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate would try to get the Afghanis to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, so as to allow for an eternal US military presence in Afghanistan.

Apparently, Obama’s “Hope & Change” slogan was empty rhetoric targeting the gullible. When Defense, Israel and/or Energy call this president, he takes notice and does their bidding, just like the other recent US Presidents have done… certainly, all future US Presidents will do the same.

Apr 22, 2014 3:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Our operations in Afghanistan should have ended about 6 months after the war on terror started when Al Queda and the Taliban moved into Pakistan and our government refused to follow them. You don’t nation build in Afghanistan. Thousands of years of history has proven it to be impossible. Every get empire that tried it failed. American hubris has received yet another reality check.

Apr 22, 2014 4:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

The eternal US presence in Afghanistan is for US benefit, not Afghanistan’s. It is a geo-political decision.

Apr 23, 2014 1:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

The eternal US presence in Afghanistan is for US benefit, not Afghanistan’s. It is a geo-political decision.

Apr 23, 2014 1:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.