Help support TMP

"50,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan?" Topic

10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

661 hits since 17 May 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP17 May 2017 10:14 p.m. PST

"A new Afghanistan war strategy approved last month by President Donald Trump's top military and national security advisers would require at least 50,000 U.S. forces to stop the advance of the Taliban and save the government in Kabul, according to a classified U.S. intelligence community assessment.

U.S. intelligence and national security officials familiar with the assessment tell me that it was drafted in April, and that it provided estimates of necessary troop strengths for various strategic options. But it found that if an ambitious war plan approved by the National Security Council's principals committee got a green light from the president -- a big if -- more than 50,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

That proposed strategy, which I wrote about earlier this month, would place the U.S. on a new war footing and in a deeper partnership with the Afghan government in its current campaign against the Taliban. It would also remove arbitrary timelines for withdrawal set by President Barack Obama.

The new estimate from the intelligence community envisions significantly more U.S. forces in Afghanistan than the current levels of around 8,400 U.S. troops currently fighting there. It is also more than the modest troop increase for Afghanistan of around 5,000 that was reported last week.

One reason the new war strategy would require more troops is that it envisions using U.S. forces in a support role that until now has relied on outside contractors. Using contractors for functions like vehicle maintenance and other logistical aid have meant that U.S. forces deployed to Syria and Iraq have largely focused on war fighting and training locals. This has kept the total number of U.S. troops artificially low, while increasing the overall cost of the U.S. presence…"
Main page


Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member17 May 2017 10:18 p.m. PST

In the immortal words of George Custer, "What could go wrong?"

After all, 100,000 troops in 2009 made so much difference.

"Polling." We're supposed to go to war because we've cherry-picked some favorable POLLS? Polls that claim that most Afghans don't like the Taliban; ergo the US has carte blanche to re-invade and bomb and lay waste to the country in the name of fighting the local insurgents?


PrivateSnafu17 May 2017 10:47 p.m. PST

Bad idea. Anything Russia touches they ruin. Damn shame.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 May 2017 2:07 a.m. PST

Didn't someone says something about no more interventionism and getting out of this mess?

Lion in the Stars18 May 2017 3:58 a.m. PST

As long as the Afghans don't bring their fighting to my country, they're welcome to destroy their own.

Bring their Bleeped text back to my house, though, things are likely to get really ugly.

USAFpilot Supporting Member of TMP18 May 2017 8:50 a.m. PST

Afghanistan is a money pit. (and as a special bonus it has become the world's largest supplier of opium since our invasion)

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP18 May 2017 9:26 a.m. PST

Graveyard of Empires.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP18 May 2017 10:11 a.m. PST



paulgenna Supporting Member of TMP18 May 2017 12:50 p.m. PST

The people there only care about drugs and fighting. Leave them to their wants and let's pull out.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP18 May 2017 3:52 p.m. PST

You could send in a million. But, if they are hamstrung by ridiculous politics and rules of engagement, they will eventually lose to a much smaller number of local partisans and fanatics.


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.