After month of debates with Gates and other top advisers, Obama ordered 30,000 extra troops to be sent to Afghanistan as part of what was meant to be the final push to stabilize the embattled country ahead of a phased withdrawal Obama was planning to launch in the summer of 2011.http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_08/Ex-Pentagon-chief-slams-Obama-over-Afghanistan-5201/
Those withdrawals were political, but they did happen and were ballyhooed as Barack keeping his promises (which he never really did.)
Wednesday, Jul 6, 2011: A planned US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will start slowly this summer with about 800 soldiers in two Army units due to depart this month, US officers said Wednesday.The military offered the first details of the troop drawdown after President Barack Obama announced in June plans to pull out 10,000 forces this year and another 23,000 by the end of September in 2012.
“The drawdown will begin this month, as was stated in the president’s address,” Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, deputy commander of the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, told reporters via video link from Kabul.
The units include 300 troops from the Army National Guard’s 1st Squadron, 134th Cavalry Regiment in Kabul and about 500 troops in the National Guard’s 1st Squadron, 113rd Cavalry Regiment in Parwan, military officers said.
Both units are part of the Iowa National Guard’s 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/06/afghan-troop-withdrawal-to-start-slowly-u-s-officers/
Bush troops levels averaged about 30,000 and went up to 33,000 at one point. (Not to include the beginning which was essentially a special operations war.)
Obama went up initially to about 48,000 and then surged that up to 68,000, so you have Obama's numbers being anywhere from 1.5 to 2.0 times more troops than Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Afghanistan
All of this is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is that not one living soul is trying to win this war, and it shows great disrespect, even despisal, of our troops, and especially when both parties plan to take benefits from those very troops who have borne the battle.
I despise BOTH parties for their treatment of our troops and our veterans.
By Warner Todd Huston | July 24, 2009 | 09:28
Once again Barack Obama waded into territory of which he has no knowledge: American history. Not only did he say during a TV interview that he doesn’t want “victory” in Afghanistan -- because victory is apparently too harsh for the losers -- but he used an example from WWII that never even happened to justify his touchy feely ideas on warfare. So will anyone in the Old Media even realize that the president’s historical example was a muff-up of real history? Will the Old Media make fun of him for his obvious lack of knowledge of our own history?
Let’s try a thought experiment, shall we? When I say “victory,” what do you think of? Do you think of winning the World Series? Do you picture that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Time Square as WWII ended? Do you just imagine “winning” at whatever contest is at hand?
It is likely that even if you don’t picture a particular thing, at the very least your initial emotional response is a warm feeling of worthy accomplishment and an assumption of gaining the accolades that accompanies victory.
It is less likely that upon hearing or seeing the word “victory” an American would immediately get a feeling of defeat and humiliation or picture the end of anything. It is even less likely that a loathing would well up inside of the minds of an American when the word is broached.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not like average, patriotic, optimistic Americans. At least we can easily assume this to be the case by what President Obama recently said of our military efforts in Afghanistan.
You see, Barack Obama said on TV this week that “victory” isn’t his “goal” in Afghanistan. Why not?
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
It is telling that when Barack Obama pictures “victory” he doesn’t see in his head that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Times Square on Victory Day. Instead, what is immediately conjured up in Obama’s mind is the bedraggled figure of a beaten Japanese Emperor groveling at the feet of U.S. military might.
Obama’s sympathy seems to be with the Emperor that governed a nation that tried to viciously take over the entire Pacific Rim and enslave many millions of Asian peoples. It is hard to escape the feeling that Obama’s first thought when the word “victory” is broached is of our enemy, his sympathies with them, not us.
But that isn’t even the worst of it. Once again we see another example of Obama’s ignorance of history, even American history. In fact, Emperor Hirohito didn’t even sign the document that finalized the surrender of Japan to General MacArthur. That duty was performed by Japan’s Foreign Minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, and one of its generals, Yoshijir Mumezu.
In fact, we didn’t destroy Japan’s Emperor, rather we allowed him to continue on in a ceremonial role to allow the Japanese to feel as if they hadn’t been entirely crushed and that some of their traditions might live on.
So, once again, Obama garbles history, disrespects his own country, and sets us up to be discounted as a viable force by foreign nations. Obama’s discounting of “victory” in Afghanistan is dangerous news for our troops. It signals a man that will not give our troops the support they need to win the war and come home with our pride and safety intact.
Now, will the Old Media realize this disastrous view of history, warfare and our national security? Or will the Old Media just move on as if nothing happened?
Your numbers are wrong. The surge ended 1 Oct 2013, which set force levels to 63,000 “combat troops” not including special forces, engineers involved in redeployment of material, and other exception units. True numbers were far higher even then. Prior to 1 Oct, there had been ~78,000 ‘on the books’ troops in Afghanistan.
As of 1 December 2013:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/2013-12-01%20ISAF%20Placemat-final.pdf
“The number of American troops reached 101,000 in June 2011”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-us-troops-are-still-in-afghanistan/
The casualty numbers that you’re complaining about were a result of us trying to win the war. We went from not trying to trying to not trying. The number of operations conducted monthly from 2009 to early 2013 were night-and-day different from the quantity of operations conducted 2003-2008 or in 2013.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too; high force numbers, high operations tempo, and low casualty rates cannot all happen at the same time.