News Afghanistan OEF. Why wait to leave?

[mheslep]

The DoD reports total US KIA in Afghanistan since the US entry there at 2,113, wounded at 18,886. Four were killed a couple weeks ago. At this point, to what end are US soldiers, marines and airmen remaining in the theater? Why not accelerate the major US withdrawal to the end of this year (at least) instead of the http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-obama-afghanistan-idUSBRE90A0ZT20130111?

 

[aquitaine]

Vice has a great documentary on what's currently going on in Afghanistan. This is what winning looks like:



So why are we still there? It's pretty obvious we aren't doing any good.

 

[mheslep]

We must end this war responsibility

The Commander in Chief is responsible for more than platitudes.

As for the interviewed guest on the video, I disagree with part of his discussion when he says, "...not leaving because we've achieved these goals." That kind of comment focuses myopically on the nation building aspect, which will always fail to a degree in any war, though not entirely, and support corruption. The comment baffling overlooks the fact that AQ leadership and sanctuary in Afghanistan has been largely destroyed, that there is a significant local Afghan force in place, corrupt or otherwise, that is capable of opposing the Taliban. Also, the treatment and education of women has greatly improved.

Now, I suspect he's correct that little more can be done at this point, at least given what I know about the situation. So, again, why continue to sacrifice US troops there?

 

[Dotini]

So, again, why continue to sacrifice US troops there?

Here are a handful of obvious reasons:
Afghanistan is historically a great crossroads, and strategically located right among our erstwhile enemies Iran, Russia and China. Across the Khyber pass lie Pakistan and India, important to US interests as is Afghanistan to theirs. Much if not most of the worlds heroin and opium comes from Afghanistan. The place is potentially rich with mineral deposits of many kinds. With a handful of well-defended but lightly garrisoned fortresses and airbases continuing on after the end of formal war and nation building, our long-term [STRIKE]national[/STRIKE] global interests will be served and troop losses, if any, will drop off the public radar screen.

I personally am not in favor of this or most wars, but I'm trying to arrive at a plausible justification for a continued presence in Afghanistan, as has been hinted by the media.

 

[MarneMath]

Last time I checked Americans are preparing to leave, but it isn't just a matter of "ok pack your bags and hop on the bird out of here." You have to inventory bases, transfer the authority, move units from smaller COPS to larger FOBS, and arrange for local forces to take over security. Heck, we TOA FOB Apache within this month, which is a rather large FOB in RC-S.

*Unless you want to just JDAM the bases all at once and call it good.Edit: Posted a bit early. The fact is I don't think it's truly feasible to simply pull out before 2014 or at the end of this year. That would give 4th ID in the South, and 101st in the East 6 months to close all remaining COPS and FOBS, remove all firing assets (mortars, artillery) and Fighter Jets from KAF and BAF. Not include packing tricons and transporting them to Kuwait, along with gathering the cargo flights to remove any MAXPRO or MRAP that need to return home or Bradley's for that matter. While, I don't think it's impossible to get all this done in 6 months, I think unless you're willing to scorch Earth the process, it won't happen.

Glossary:

TOA: Transfer of Authoriy
KAF: Kandahar Airfield
BAF: Bagram Airfield
FOB: Forward operation base
COP: Combat outpost
RC-S/E: Regional Command - South/East
MAXPRO/MRAP-Large military patrol vehicles.
JDAM: Joint direct attack munition (GBU - 31)

 

[lisab]

Last time I checked Americans are preparing to leave, but it isn't just a matter of "ok pack your bags and hop on the bird out of here." You have to inventory bases, transfer the authority, move units from smaller COPS to larger FOBS, and arrange for local forces to take over security. Heck, we TOA FOB Apache within this month, which is a rather large FOB in RC-S.

*Unless you want to just JDAM the bases all at once and call it good.


Edit: Posted a bit early. The fact is I don't think it's truly feasible to simply pull out before 2014 or at the end of this year. That would give 4th ID in the South, and 101st in the East 6 months to close all remaining COPS and FOBS, remove all firing assets (mortars, artillery) and Fighter Jets from KAF and BAF. Not include packing tricons and transporting them to Kuwait, along with gathering the cargo flights to remove any MAXPRO or MRAP that need to return home or Bradley's for that matter. While, I don't think it's impossible to get all this done in 6 months, I think unless you're willing to scorch Earth the process, it won't happen.

Glossary:

TOA: Transfer of Authoriy
KAF: Kandahar Airfield
BAF: Bagram Airfield
FOB: Forward operation base
COP: Combat outpost
RC-S/E: Regional Command - South/East
MAXPRO/MRAP-Large military patrol vehicles.
JDAM: Joint direct attack munition (GBU - 31)

TFTG!

TFTG: thanks for the glossary

 

[morrobay]

In 2002 there was a three way peace agreement with Afghanistan government, U.S. and the Taliban.
That would have had the U.S. out of there in 2002 under better conditions than 2014.
But Sec of Defense Rumsfeld blocked that agreement because he refused to have an agreement that included
the Taliban, that he labeled as terrorists.

 

[MarneMath]

Do you have a source for this agreement because as I recall as of December 2001, the Bonn Agreement ensured the establishment (or essentially created) the idea of ISAF (later approved by UN resolution somethingsomething) and an obligation of support for the AIA until a more permanent government formed.*
ISAF = International Security Assistance Force
AIA = Afghanistan Interim Authority.

 

[lisab]

I must admit, when I've seen stories lately about negotiating with the Taliban, I was taken aback - "How the hell can we do that, they're terrorists!"

Then I thought about it and realized it's good, it's progress. In fact, it's the way it has to be. I'm not a military scholar but I think most military actions don't end the way Grenada did. It's usually a lot messier.

 

[morrobay]

References on peace agreement with Taliban in 2002

Aljazeera news from Doha last month had a two episode documentary on Afghanistan :
The Price of Revenge.
Also Fox news contributor , former CIA officer Mike Baker said independently on Fox news
that the U.S. should have been out of Afghanistan in 2002.
With a search you may find this documentary available.

 

[mheslep]

Edit: Posted a bit early. The fact is I don't think it's truly feasible to simply pull out before 2014 or at the end of this year.

The US pulled out of Iraq, with much more heavy equipment, slowly at 1-2 brigades per month, ( roughly 5,000 troops per brigade). If there are http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-afghanistan-usa-troops-idUSBRE96801H20130709, then six months could easily see all the troops home if logistics were the bottleneck.

In any case, the 2014 deadline was set several years ago. It is not a logistics driven problem.

 

[morrobay]

Afghanistan and Iraq are both disasters. Invading Iraq after 9/11 would have been like invading Finland after
Pearl Harbor.

 

[chemisttree]

Perhaps we're staying long enough for the Russian helicopters we purchased for the Afghanistan Air Force to arrive and for their pilots to learn to fly them.

 

[MarneMath]

The US pulled out of Iraq, with much more heavy equipment, slowly at 1-2 brigades per month, ( roughly 5,000 troops per brigade). If there are http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-afghanistan-usa-troops-idUSBRE96801H20130709, then six months could easily see all the troops home if logistics were the bottleneck.

In any case, the 2014 deadline was set several years ago. It is not a logistics driven problem.

The key difference is that you can DRIVE out of Iraq, you need to FLY out of Afghanistan. No. I don't believe the 2014 deadline was set 'years' ago. In fact, at most 2 years ago, but more like just a year ago. In fact, RDOF was set in February for an increase in speed. Furthermore, I don't see how you can say Iraq has more heavy equipment than Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan has more MRAPS than Iraq ever had, that has to be flown in. Iraq you always could drive in and out. Afghanistan you always had to fly in and out.*RDOF : Reduction of Forces.

 

[MarneMath]

References on peace agreement with Taliban in 2002

Aljazeera news from Doha last month had a two episode documentary on Afghanistan :
The Price of Revenge.
Also Fox news contributor , former CIA officer Mike Baker said independently on Fox news
that the U.S. should have been out of Afghanistan in 2002.
With a search you may find this documentary available.

I don't see how I can find it*, since I have no idea what you're talking about nor do I consider the word of one CIA officer to be the bible**. YOU should be able to find this so called peace arrangement that apparently existed and present it here.

*It refers to the so called agreement. As for the documentary, I have little faith in any documentary that starts with such a pretentious name.
**Also, a lot of people believe we SHOULD have pulled out by 2002 and would have been able too. Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think this implied that there existed an agreement that the US just haphazardly rejected, but rather the well accepted fact that the US had better leverage back then than it does now.

 

[mheslep]

...I don't believe the 2014 deadline was set 'years' ago. In fact, at most 2 years ago, but more like just a year ago. In fact, RDOF was set in February for an increase in speed...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

...But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

December 2010

nine-year conflict from July, adding though that the drawdown will “conclude in 2014.

 

[mheslep]

The key difference is that you can DRIVE out of Iraq, you need to FLY out of Afghanistan. No. ...

Only fly? NATO does not supply overland through Pakistan? And does not supply via Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan? What's your basis for that comment?

...Furthermore, I don't see how you can say Iraq has more heavy equipment than Afghanistan.

I base my statement mainly on the deployment of M1s and Bradleys; apparently 1100 M1s went to Iraq. By contrast, according to this source (for instance), the first US tanks were not deployed to Afghanistan until 2010, a total of 16 originally. US armor was involved in the beginning of the major operations ground war in Iraq, including the taking of Baghdad.

 

[MarneMath]

Only fly? NATO does not supply overland through Pakistan? And does not supply via Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan? What's your basis for that comment?

My comments were in reference to personnel movement. Yes, supplies do travel from bordering countries but personnel have always only moved from Manas or Kuwait. We have never driven military personnel from any military base in Afghanistan to an operational base in Pakistan for Staging, unlike what we did for Iraq.*

I base my statement mainly on the deployment of M1s and Bradleys; apparently 1100 M1s went to Iraq. By contrast, according to this source (for instance), the first US tanks were not deployed to Afghanistan until 2010, a total of 16 originally. US armor was involved in the beginning of the major operations ground war in Iraq, including the taking of Baghdad.

Yes, well aware that more Abrams deployed to Iraq than to Afghanistan for obvious reason. Nevertheless, you can drive an M1 or BFIST back to kuwait, and then onto a ship. You have to fly in a MRAP in a cargo plane that only takes 2 at a time. Again, completely different situation requires a completely different method.

The key point to take away from this is Iraq is not Afghanistan. For example, in Iraq you had multiple high ways out of Iraq, in Afghanistan, you have highway 1, end of story.

*It's noteworthy to mention entry from Pakistan to Afghanistan has been closed twice and weapons nor personnel have never moved from this route.

**Out of curiosity, do you actually know how long an average base closure takes from initial assessment to final TOA? OR for that matter what assets are require to insure safety of the troops as they out process from the base?

 

[MarneMath]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistanDecember 2010

My bad I was off by a year, so sue me. I really don't see what you're trying to get at. Are you simply trying to argue that it is in theory possible to move out of Afghanistan in 6 months? I've already said that that would be possible, just highly irresponsible. The mission would require a massive amount of movement and destruction to occur within that time frame. So instead of doing that, why not just wait the extra year, do it slowly and responsibly with less strain on the forces currently deployed? To save lives? Every soldier who wore the uniform understood what it meant when they swore that oath. Let them end the mission the right and reasonable way, not haphazardly.

*And hopefully in that year find our missing guy.

 

[morrobay]

The U.S. went into Afghanistan 2001-2002 to get Bin Laden in the so called Tora Bora region.
But instead of sending in excess special forces (the Rangers) to do the job, the U.S. contracted
the task out to the locals. That did not work out very well. And training helicopter pilots and
infrastructure projects in a fifteenth century country is not going well either.

 

[MarneMath]

Define well. Otherwise, you're speaking your opinion like fact, which I'm sure is not looked at positively here.

 

[mheslep]

I really don't see what you're trying to get at.

The facts. US leadership stated nearly four years ago that it had already had decided on a withdrawal time. The idea that leaving now in six months is rushing things based on logistic reasons alone is nonsense.

...do it slowly and responsibly with less strain on the forces currently deployed? To save lives? Every soldier who wore the uniform understood what it meant when they swore that oath. Let them end the mission the right and reasonable way, not haphazardly.

Which they will do if directed to do so and is beside the point, which is whether they should be so directed.

I suggest US troops seriously risk their lives to defend the security of the US, not to insure a proper inventory or base closure, nor even to provide "less strain" on the force.

 

[mheslep]

I've already said that that would be possible, just highly irresponsible.

But not explained why it would be irresponsible, given 60,000 troops were moved out Iraq in six months with a far greater load of heavy equipment.

 

[mheslep]

...
Yes, well aware that more Abrams deployed to Iraq than to Afghanistan for obvious reason. Nevertheless, you can drive an M1 or BFIST back to kuwait, and then onto a ship. You have to fly in a MRAP in a cargo plane that only takes 2 at a time. Again, completely different situation requires a completely different method.

The key point to take away from this is Iraq is not Afghanistan. For example, in Iraq you had multiple high ways out of Iraq, in Afghanistan, you have highway 1, end of story.

The question at hand is the logistics load in Iraq versus Afghanistan. Afghanistan's load is trivial by comparison, bad roads and all.

 

[MarneMath]

The facts. US leadership stated nearly four years ago that it had already had decided on a withdrawal time. The idea that leaving now in six months is rushing things based on logistic reasons alone is nonsense.



Which they will do if directed to do so and is beside the point, which is whether they should be so directed.

I suggest US troops seriously risk their lives to defend the security of the US, not to insure a proper inventory or base closure, nor even to provide "less strain" on the force.

I'll start from the bottom. US troops risk their life because the guy next to them is doing it. Security of the nation, or operational mission has very little to do with it. In the end, most of us did it because the job was fun, the pay sucks, but hey we had radios and that was cool. One thing is true though, we hate doing rushed work for political reasons. Give us the time or a damn good reason to rush a job, otherwise, just let us work at a reasonable pace.

Now to your first paragraph. You would think that Centcom would have placed a plan to withdraw from Afghanistan the day they heard the withdraw date. What actually happens is that the this affects mission timeline with the 2 star general forced to set up the operational requirements for that timeline to be met. What this loosely translate into is that for example, in 2010, 10th Mountain controlled RC-S, so they operational tasking was to begin to transfer training to ANA forces, but to do that, they had to begin to train more ANA forces. Followed by the 82nd, who in turn received the trained soldiers and now had to train those train soldiers in field operation and certify them on D-30's and helo operation. Then followed by 3ID who had to force ANA to stop relying on NATO CAS and while at the same time start the TOA of bases. Lastly we have 4ID who has to finish TOA of all bases and un-partner all patrols and allow ANA to maintain over all operations with no NATO help. It isn't a simple process of "ok move troops out, oh timeline push up, no problem!" Cutting 6 months of ANY operational timeline in the military or in private sector will be a logistic nightmare, when you planned to have those 6 months. I don't see how it can't be.

But not explained why it would be irresponsible, given 60,000 troops were moved out Iraq in six months with a far greater load of heavy equipment.

I feel like we're going in circles. You can move a far greater load from Iraq to Kuwait, because you can drive there. Nearly all major equipment flown into Afghanistan came from Kuwait and from Kuwait via ships. Are you aware that the initial air drop to Afghanistan was the 3rd largest in history? That's a lot of material that has to be moved via air, because I can promise you that no containers carrying heavy weapon systems or sensitive items will go through Pakistan ever.

 

[StrayCatalyst]

I don't really expect us to completely pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan - nor do I expect the government to give honest answers about why we are there, why we push our soldiers into a meat grinder where they aren't allowed to defend themselves effectively, or what it is we're supposed to accomplish there. The Taliban - yeah, they're terrorists, but if you stick an IED to an airplane and launch it into a funeral, it doesn't suddenly become legitimate - we use drones specifically to target groups where militants are suspected but civilians are KNOWN to be present. Ethically, the difference between our side and the terrorists is getting less and less obvious - we also target civilians, we support warlords who are known to traffic drugs, we provide weapons to anybody who might be useful to us even when we know they're practicing sectarian violence with those weapons.

It's going to be a lot later than 2014 before we withdraw from Afghanistan - I suspect it will be a war that we don't talk about for many years to come, eating soldiers' lives and producing nothing except a bottomless hunger for more money, more weapons, and more bloodshed. Afghanistan has been dealing with invaders for all of recorded history - we're just the latest set of slow learners.

 

[MarneMath]

The question at hand is the logistics load in Iraq versus Afghanistan. Afghanistan's load is trivial by comparison, bad roads and all.

uh Trivial? how? In RC-E, nearly every route has been labeled black since 2007!

 

[mheslep]

uh Trivial? how? In RC-E, nearly every route has been labeled black since 2007!

1100 to 16.

Nearly all major equipment flown into Afghanistan came from Kuwait...

Of what consequence to this topic is the point of origin of flown in equipment?

 

[mheslep]

... nor do I expect the government to give honest answers about why we are there,

Whether or not it does, it should. I insist on it.

There are valid reasons for placing troops in harms way abroad, but at the moment I don't know what they are in Afghanistan.

 

[MarneMath]

I'm sorry how silly of me to forget that the only heavy equipment needed to be move from a country after a war are tanks. Yes, now I see how trivial military movements are.

Of what consequence to this topic is the point of origin of flown in equipment?

The origin not so much of great importance, but rather the fact that the origin is also where the equipment will be returning to so that it may ship back to the states. As I've kept informing you, the military simply had to convoy to Kuwait to move their gear in Iraq, thus you can move a greater volume in a shorter amount of time. In Afghanistan, you have to load cargo planes to move the equipment which is a much slower process. Not including the fact that nearly every FOB in RC-E is not accessible by roads and thus even the process of moving equipment from FOB in RC-E to KAF OR BAF is an airlift operation.

 

[mheslep]

I'm sorry how silly of me to forget that the only heavy equipment needed to be move from a country after a war are tanks. Yes, now I see how trivial military movements are.

"only" is your term attributed to me, not mine. My point: 70 ton M1s plus their fuel plus their amo plus their specialized service vehicles plus their specialized heavy spares plus Bradleys (where the tanks go, so do Bradleys in the Army) make most everything else on the battlefield look small by comparison. And a great deal of heavy equipment like generators, fuel, can be, was, and is driven out of Afghanistan.

 

[Dotini]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...esistant-ambush-protected-sustainment-command

Until a few months ago, the military flew out the vast majority of the equipment it was sending back to the United States.

In recent months, after Pakistan, a neighbor of landlocked Afghanistan, agreed to let the U.S. military use its roads to ship materiel out through its ports, most containers that don’t include sensitive materials or weapons are being trucked out by land. Shipping through Pakistan is by no means trouble-free — and officials recognize that the route could get shut down in the event of a new spat between Islamabad and Washington.

“We continue to get delays. There’s still corruption, taxes, tariffs,” Stein said. “But our equipment is getting through.”

 

[MarneMath]

"only" is your term attributed to me, not mine. My point: 70 ton M1s plus their fuel plus their amo plus their specialized service vehicles plus their specialized heavy spares plus Bradleys (where the tanks go, so do Bradleys in the Army) make most everything else on the battlefield look small by comparison. And a great deal of heavy equipment like generators, fuel, can be, was, and is driven out of Afghanistan.

I never denied supplies into Afghanistan from some points, I've stated weapon systems have never been driven into Afghanistan from some points. If we could drive these things out into a port, yeah I would have no qualms with your assessment, however, as I keep telling you and you keep failing to understanding, no weapon system has ever been driven to and from Afghanistan and the likelihood that that'll happen within the next 12 months is nil. It doesn't matter if in Iraq they were able to do it, Iraq is not Afghanistan.

 

[mheslep]

In Afghanistan, you have to load cargo planes to move the equipment which is a much slower process.

Not "have to". No, the fact that Pakistan closed the border for a moment does not mean no equipment goes through Pakistan or across the northern border. No, a border road restriction on weapons does not mean no heavy lift (fuel, generators, bulldozers) goes over border roads. I've provided sources. If you have some to the contrary, please provide them.

 

[mheslep]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...esistant-ambush-protected-sustainment-command

Until a few months ago, the military flew out the vast majority of the equipment it was sending back to the United States.

In recent months, after Pakistan, a neighbor of landlocked Afghanistan, agreed to let the U.S. military use its roads to ship materiel out through its ports, most containers that don’t include sensitive materials or weapons are being trucked out by land. Shipping through Pakistan is by no means trouble-free — and officials recognize that the route could get shut down in the event of a new spat between Islamabad and Washington.

“We continue to get delays. There’s still corruption, taxes, tariffs,” Stein said. “But our equipment is getting through.”

Nice reference. Thanks.

 

[MarneMath]

Stein, the general overseeing the Afghanistan drawdown, headed the same process in Iraq, which turned out to be a far easier mission. For starters, the U.S. military had a relatively well-
organized system in place to hand over bases and equipment to the Iraqi government 21/2 years before American troops pulled out entirely. Security was more permissive. And, crucially, the U.S. military could use its large bases in next-door Kuwait as a staging ground for items driven out of Iraq.

So I was right about Iraq being easier?

 

[MarneMath]

Not "have to". No, the fact that Pakistan closed the border for a moment does not mean no equipment goes through Pakistan or across the northern border. No, a border road restriction on weapons does not mean no heavy lift (fuel, generators, bulldozers) goes over border roads. I've provided sources. If you have some to the contrary, please provide them.

Once again, I've already said that equipment has gone through Pakistan. I've stated NO WEAPON SYSTEMS OR SENSITIVE items have gone through Pakistan. We're talking M777A2, M109, 120MM, 81MM, 60mm, the massive amount of ammo storage that is attached to each system. I was hoping that my use of equipment could be used loosely since I've already stated that equipment has driven from Pakistan already.

 

[mheslep]

I'll start from the bottom. US troops risk their life because the guy next to them is doing it. Security of the nation, or operational mission has very little to do with it. ...

Agreed. I think it has always been that way. The topic of this thread however is why US leadership, and its people, should agree to keep a large force in Afghanistan through 2014 where, if the trend holds, a couple more hundred US troops will be maimed or die.

 

[MarneMath]

Agreed. I think it has always been that way. The topic of this thread however is why US leadership, and its people, should agree to keep a large force in Afghanistan through 2014 where, if the trend holds, a couple more hundred US troops will be maimed or die.

Because you really only have two choices. Take your time and do it right or JDAM the entire place and risk more lives by rushing the process.

*Just for the record, I'm personally in favor of JDAMing the entire place. I said that the last time I was there. In fact, if it was up to me, I'm pretty sure the village my COP was located next to would no longer exist. However, it isn't, so might as well get it done right then blow and bail.

 

[mheslep]

So I was right about Iraq being easier?

Yes no doubt Iraq was easier to supply.

 

[Dotini]

All along Mr Obama, together with his general staff, has been planning on keeping a residual force (15,000-25,000?) in Afghanistan after 2014. Now, due to his frustration with negotiating with Mr Karzai and the Taliban, he is proposing to move out completely by 2014. There is no question of moving out earlier than that. Unfortunately, soldiers are a blunt instrument of foreign policy, and they are expended when that policy is war.

 

[mheslep]

All along Mr Obama, together with his general staff, has been planning on keeping a residual force (15,000-25,000?) in Afghanistan after 2014. ...

I was unaware of residual number ever being released of that size. Do you have a source?

There is no question of moving out earlier than that.

Why not? To what policy advantage?

 

[Dotini]

I was unaware of residual number ever being released of that size. Do you have a source?Why not? To what policy advantage?

No numbers for a putative residual force have been officially specified simply because they were under negotiation. Such numbers as I have ventured have been bandied about in the antiwar press. Their purpose would ostensibly be training Afghan government forces and chasing Taliban. Unspoken is the fact they would serve to stiffen Karzai's government should it come under duress.

Now negotiations are sputtering, it may suit policy to talk about a more rapid pullout. This would pressurize Karzai to be more compliant vis-a-vis the currently intractable Taliban negotiations. I would reiterate that we are now at about 60,000 and on a glidepath to depart next year. The tentpole would be the thousands of tons of equipment and armored vehicles requiring road transport. The roads both north and south are fraught with danger, and could easily worsen. We need the appearance of a graceful, unharried exit.

 

[MarneMath]

I think those numbers often quoted are people doing some dirty guesses. You first start assuming a combat brigade or a special forces group will rotate into Afghanistan to continue selected targeting in that region. With any element station you need a support element. Support element will need to have everything range from fuelers to mechanics to finance personnel to legal. You need a detachment of EOD, along with a combat aviation brigade (or maybe just a battalion.) The numbers to maintain a presence adds up pretty quickly.

 

[mheslep]

... We need the appearance of a graceful, unharried exit.

Why??! Why do you believe the US needs the appearance of an exit that will cost the lives of another several hundred US troops, more in numbers of wounded.

 

[Dotini]

Why??! Why do you believe the US needs the appearance of an exit that will cost the lives of another several hundred US troops, more in numbers of wounded.

Not only is the appearance of a graceful, unharried exit desirable, its actuality is critical to avoiding more casualties. Obviously, an army in retreat is extremely vulnerable. It would be a catastrophic disaster to have to fight our way out over roads mined with IED's and an ambush around every corner. To secure this peaceful exit is a goal of our negotiations with the Taliban.

 

[mheslep]

Not only is the appearance of a graceful, unharried exit desirable, its actuality is critical to avoiding more casualties. Obviously, an army in retreat is extremely vulnerable.

The US forces are not now "retreating" from ongoing contact combat in Afghanistan as in WWII or Korea, nor would they be in the next few months.

I don't see how five-six months qualifies as a particularly fast exit for 60,000 troops who have known for some time they are on the way out. If need be, the US has the air lift capacity to fly all troops and most equipment out, though I don't think there is such a need. Meanwhile troops remain in harms way.

It would be a catastrophic disaster to have to fight our way out over roads mined with IED's and an ambush around every corner. To secure this peaceful exit is a goal of our negotiations with the Taliban.

The United States is negotiating with the Taliban so that US troops can leave without threat? Is this more banter from the anti-war blogs? If there is indeed a coherent reason in writing from the US government for staying through 2014 I would like to see it.

 

[mheslep]

Coalition troops, who typically follow the US lead on withdrawal, also remain in harms way in Afghanistan.

A man wearing an Afghan National Security Force uniform opened fire on international soldiers at Kandahar Airfield Tuesday, killing one and wounding at least seven, a senior defense official said.

Four US-led Polish soldiers have been killed and two others wounded in an attack in Afghanistan's central-eastern province of Ghazni, security sources say.

 

[turbo]

IMO, the US should get the hell out of there. The Russians figured (too late, IMO) that their occupation was too costly, and now the war-mongers in the US are making bucks off this while young troops die. We cannot afford endless wars.

 

[MarneMath]

Coalition troops, who typically follow the US lead on withdrawal, also remain in harms way in Afghanistan.

Not really related to anything, but I never understood why people get upset with soldiers or military personnel or for that matter DoD personnel are in harms way. It's essentially what a military personnel signs up to do. Troops go into dangerous situations, it's pretty much their job.