US to keep 9,800 Afghanistan troops after 2014 & plans full troop withdrawal by 2016

[GR!FF!N]

Whats the fuss about ? Isn't the statement more than clear ?

I posted same things dozen times.I was saying about "US Presence",not total boots on ground,which would help ANA with its training,decision making,limited counter insurgency and we interpreted it,"USA is not leaving Afghanistan".as you can see,post 2017,even 1000 ISAF soldier(assuming least strength,as Turkey said they'll send more than 2000 soldiers for this.same for various other countries who never going to "Full Withdrawal" within some limited time frame,atleast they never announced it) alone could help ANA with training and others,let alone the treaty that is yet to be signed by USA-Afghan to determine the troop strength(BSA isn't a treaty which will determine it.it is separate security pact).

I've posted all these for days,yet that guy is continuing its BS about "Don't you see,USA is leaving.go complain OBAMA).he's assuming BSA will not be signed,nor USA and others will sign any treaty to keep its force in Afghanistan.if BSA doesn't gets signed,then there is no question of keeping the troops in the first place.what to discuss??we're discussing here assuming BSA gets signed.I'm tired about his BS.I barely abuse any member here.but this guy deserves it.

He just can't digest that Americans are not leaving Afganistan in 2014 and keep supporting ANA even after. His dreams are finally broken so the pain. LOLs

some trolls are so thick that one can't be reasoned with him.

 

[GR!FF!N]

The dirty secret about Obama’s Afghan plan

 

[Secur]

I've posted all these for days,yet that guy is continuing its BS about "Don't you see,USA is leaving.go complain OBAMA).he's assuming BSA will not be signed,nor USA and others will sign any treaty to keep its force in Afghanistan.if BSA doesn't gets signed,then there is no question of keeping the troops in the first place.what to discuss??we're discussing here assuming BSA gets signed.I'm tired about his BS.I barely abuse any member here.but this guy deserves it.

Whilst assuming BSA is signed which is mandatory ( in theory ) to keep the American troops in Afghanistan post 2014 .

“And one year later, by the end of 2016, we will draw down to a normal embassy presence with a security assistance office in Kabul, as we have done in Iraq.”

You do understand what a normal embassy presence means and constitutes , right ? Furthermore " as we have done in Iraq " tells us exactly what they are planning now . The Yanks who were once eager to stay put in Afghanistan until 2022 or longer are packing their bags . If the Americans are leaving by 2016 , the other nations contributing to ISAF wouldn't be so keen to stay . You are assuming a lot of things and stating them as " facts " . Even if a thousand or more soldiers stay behind for training and assistance , there's little hope for a miracle or any extraordinary turn of events . I mean , a million troops at the peak of ISAF's presence couldn't do jack with all the king's men and all the king's horses , what hopes do you attach with a handful ?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Whilst assuming BSA is signed which is mandatory ( in theory ) to keep the American troops in Afghanistan post 2014 .

“And one year later, by the end of 2016, we will draw down to a normal embassy presence with a security assistance office in Kabul, as we have done in Iraq.”

You do understand what a normal embassy presence means and constitutes , right ? Furthermore " as we have done in Iraq " tells us exactly what they are planning now . The Yanks who were once eager to stay put in Afghanistan until 2022 or longer are packing their bags . If the Americans are leaving by 2016 , the other nations contributing to ISAF wouldn't be so keen to stay . You are assuming a lot of things and stating them as " facts " . Even if a thousand or more soldiers stay behind for training and assistance , there's little hope for a miracle or any extraordinary turn of events . I mean , a million troops at the peak of ISAF's presence couldn't do jack with all the king's men and all the king's horses , what hopes do you attach with a handful ?

first,BSA has nothing to do with number of US troops.even though Us president stated about "Number of troops",please read this.....

Under a new timetable outlined by Mr. Obama in the Rose Garden, the 32,000 American troops now in Afghanistan would be reduced to 9,800 after this year.

That number would be cut in half by the end of 2015, and by the end of 2016, there would be only a vestigial force to protect the embassy in Kabul and to help the Afghans with military purchases and other security matters. At the height of American involvement, in 2011, the United States had 101,000 troops in the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/w...pullout-by-end-of-2016-obama-to-say.html?_r=0

not only protecting the embassy,which I stated.plus,until USA draws last man out,we'd have to wait,as that news reports suggested,its just another political trics,which has no support from army.plus,ANA now has 3.5 lac soldiers,forget about armed police.it'll be more than what Afghanistan will ever need to confront Taliban.just like Iraq,terrorists will blow up few truck bombs,few suicide bombings will happen.but at the end,they'll bound to face peace talk.see,I'm not even dragging ISAF here.ISAF almost freed Afghanistan from terrorists,not to mention cross border raid.but to stop the inflow,Afghanistan will have to take some rigid steps like India took,fence the border,use sensors to monitor and eliminate any terrorists which slip past.it'd not come within days.even professional military and para military forces in Pakistan is hurdles to control terrorists even when they used airpower.but since when ANA took responsibility,we has to admit,they proved their metal in various conflicts.so hope for the best.

plus,you're expecting or assuming I meant that US soldiers would fight against taliban.nope,I didn't meant it.its simply putting pressure of Pakistan so that they couldn't support Taliban in their offensive like the last time.some pressure politics you may say.plus,ANA is ready.why should they loose their manpower when they made a nation which could use its own manpower to fight its own battle.

 

[Secur]

That number would be cut in half by the end of 2015, and by the end of 2016, there would be only a vestigial force to protect the embassy in Kabul and to help the Afghans with military purchases and other security matters. At the height of American involvement, in 2011, the United States had 101,000 troops in the country.

Comprehension problems , seriously ? It says the same as the part I quoted , read it and try to understand what you are posting . Lets see it again the " embassy level presence " to be maintained after 2017 , here it says the same , vestigial force to protect the embassy and assist in purchases and security matters post 2017 . The Govt of United States , strange as it may seem to you , does maintain that sort of presence in a hell lot of countries in the world , this will not be something " extraordinary " or " special " as you seem to think , their level of involvement may somehow be higher but the numbers certainly wont be much different from other countries .

Political tricks ? So what did you think/say when the reports came that the Yanks were to extend their presence until 2022 not so long ago ? Gospel truth no doubt ? The mind surely works in mysterious ways , taking whatever it finds acceptable and discarding or rationalizing the rest . The numbers and equipment of ANA aren't the problem . Its the discipline , morale , training , past record and allegiance that is . I understand well what do you mean by American presence and not boots , it just happens that the presence according to latest reports , isn't what you are expecting it to be .

 

[janon]

... I mean , a million troops at the peak of ISAF's presence couldn't do jack with all the king's men and all the king's horses , what hopes do you attach with a handful ?

Where did you get that number from?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Where did you get that number from?

I think he used the number not "Literally".he meant to say nearly half a million ISAF soldiers(at peak,ISAF donated some 110000 soldiers.now,ISAF has some 51000 soldiers).

thats from 2011....

ISAF forces in Afghanistan by numbers: how each country contributes - Telegraph

ISAF troop number statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GR!FF!N]

Comprehension problems , seriously ?

no.you selectively ignored the part of "Security Assistance" which I pointed out.

In 2015, the United States would be able to keep advisers at major Afghan regional military and police headquarters — a senior official described this as the “corps level” — but would not have advisers with tactical units on the battlefield.

that means while training will be conducted till 2015 by US/ISAF,later they'll ensure their control over ANA by this step.plus,they way USA still maintains its presence of "Private Contractors" will play here too..read this.....

Op-Ed: Thousands of private contractors will remain in Afghanistan

they has posted over 108000 "Private Contractors" in Afghanistan now,in which,some 70000 are "Private Military Contractors",in other word,"Mercenary".

108,000 Private Contractors Are in Afghanistan and We Have No Idea What They're Doing - PolicyMic

The Govt of United States , strange as it may seem to you , does maintain that sort of presence in a hell lot of countries in the world , this will not be something " extraordinary " or " special " as you seem to think , their level of involvement may somehow be higher but the numbers certainly wont be much different from other countries .

they openly claimed they're not going to seek any "Permanent Base".but even after pull out,they'll maintain firm control over Afghanistan.I've posted those links already.

about my "Let us see" portion,even your newspapers agree on it...


The first is to contract for a sizeable security and movement support network, similar to what was contemplated for the US mission in Iraq after our troops left there in 2010. To safely move US personnel around Afghanistan without military support would require hundreds or thousands of civilian contractors with their own air support, ground vehicles, supply lines, and communications networks. By the Pentagon’s latest count, there are 61,452 contractor personnel supporting the Defence Department in Afghanistan, including 20,865 civilians. After the military withdrawal, our diplomatic footprint will likely rely even more on contractors than the military, because the State Department and other civilian agencies don’t have the same logistics, communications, and security force structure as the military. Although contractors represent the State Department’s preferred option for security in places like Afghanistan, this option won’t come cheap, nor without some potential problems. And even if the US chose to hire private contractors to effectively supplant the military, it’s not clear it could work because the Afghan government has increasingly clamped down on private security contractors, directing that all operate under Afghan law and work in concert with an Afghan guard force called the Afghan Public Protection Force.

The dirty secret about Obama’s Afghan plan - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

BSA could ensure their "Exemption" from Afghan Laws.

so,you can guess what its going to be.not every line from Obama's mouth is "Truth of Bible".while he withdrew troops for polical gain,to show his "Win",in fact he created more firm control over Afghanistan,beacuse now it is not ISAF who is going to fight those insurgents.its ANA and "Private Contractors".but at decision making level,they'll keep their officers to assist.though I wish that Afghanistan could fight alone and could chalk out a possible peace talk,but it seems a distant reality now.

 

[janon]

I think he used the number not "Literally".he meant to say nearly half a million ISAF soldiers(at peak,ISAF donated some 110000 soldiers.now,ISAF has some 51000 soldiers).

thats from 2011....

ISAF forces in Afghanistan by numbers: how each country contributes - Telegraph

ISAF troop number statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

110,000 is one tenth of a million, so it is still an exaggeration by an order of magnitude. It is still not half a million, which is five times the actual number.

Anyway as far as numbers go, it should be realized that the ANA+ANSF together have around 300,000 well trained troops, which is three times the number of the ISAF at its peak.

 

[GR!FF!N]

110,000 is one tenth of a million, so it is still an exaggeration by an order of magnitude. It is still not half a million, which is five times the actual number.

Anyway as far as numbers go, it should be realized that the ANA+ANSF together have around 300,000 well trained troops, which is three times the number of the ISAF at its peak.

I posted the Half a mil by adding all the security forces presented in Afghanistan,which includes ISAF,ANA,Armed Police and Private Contractors.don't know what he meant though.one million is nearly the strength of entire Indian Army(actually its nearly 1.3 million).

 

[janon]

I posted the Half a mil by adding all the security forces presented in Afghanistan,which includes ISAF,ANA,Armed Police and Private Contractors.don't know what he meant though.one million is nearly the strength of entire Indian Army(actually its nearly 1.3 million).

If interpreted that way, he would not be trying to point out the disparity in troops now compared to then, because the non ISAF troops will still be there post 2016. Only that 110,000 of then (and the 50,000 of now) would leave. So his highlighting of "a million then v/s a handful now" does not hold.

This was his statement that I questioned:

I mean , a million troops at the peak of ISAF's presence couldn't do jack with all the king's men and all the king's horses , what hopes do you attach with a handful ?

 

[IND151]

it is good that they are not pulling out completely in 2014.

dude,they're planning this strength to deploy on Afghanistan for long term,to train them,help them on various decision making etc.its just a "Wish" what you've posted,USA leaving Afghanistan by 2015.plus,ANA willn't need much help from ISAF after they could establish their own training bases and all..its mainly to help them until they could become self sustainable.leaving various airbase will point towards nothing as by then,ANA will have their own fleet of strike aircraft.

Exactly..............

 

[Secur]

that means while training will be conducted till 2015 by US/ISAF,later they'll ensure their control over ANA by this step.plus,they way USA still maintains its presence of "Private Contractors" will play here too..read this.....

Not again , seriously . You are reading and assuming more than there is , again . I read what happens until 2015 according to the new plan . Skip to the part post 2017 and try to understand the " vestigial force " or " embassy level presence " to assist with purchases and training , as per latest reports . Both of which are nothing significant or extra ordinary considering the U.S. maintains this type of presence in other countries too . I can understand the " American presence " after withdrawal through alternate means but without " personnel " , only that of course they are neither effective nor reliable like keeping " troops " on the ground . It is no wonder that a country that dependent on American aid will be influenced heavily by it , I do not disagree with it . What I disagree with is people expecting wonders and extra ordinary turn of events from a " reduced to embassy level " when a full fledged ISAF armada couldn't do much , the ISAF at the height of its power didn't properly control even thirty-percent of Afghanistan , that much hopes attached with training and support staff and if available until then , the private contractors are surely beyond me . As the Yanks start to withdraw , the private contractors will be sent back too or no longer hired , that remains to be seen , their services and presence aren't for granted as you assume after 2017 . The ANA is still not ready to carry over the burden , it isn't the numbers or the equipment that are going to make a difference for them , the force is still plagued by poor training , morale and discipline problems . Not every line from Obama is " Gospel truth " , but not every assumption and every conjecture made is too . A lot of things will reveal themselves in the near future , do not start jumping to conclusions , what we have here is the Obama's statement which tells us that they have finally decided to go home and end the war in Afghanistan , whether that changes and what other arrangements are made , remains to be seen . Not so long ago , we had the U.S staying put until 2022 , ai'nt the case now , is it ?

Brother in Arms : Why the Afghan Army will fail
Troops fear corruption outweighs progress of Afghan forces - News - Stripes
Marine Do Heavy Lifting as Afghan Army Lags in Battle
U.S. trainers bemoan Afghan corruption - UPI.com
Training the drugged up Afghan Army - Channel 4 News

You posted this yourself and yet you missed something , between the paragraph . The BSA ensures that U.S. army is exempt from Afghan law , whether it extends to the " private " contractors isn't clear , though it appears that it wont be valid for them . Although contractors represent the State Department’s preferred option for security in places like Afghanistan, this option won’t come cheap, nor without some potential problems. And even if the US chose to hire private contractors to effectively supplant the military, it’s not clear it could work because the Afghan government has increasingly clamped down on private security contractors, directing that all operate under Afghan law and work in concert with an Afghan guard force called the Afghan Public Protection Force. The dirty secret about Obama’s Afghan plan - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

P.S. No , it isn't a report from Dawn itself , the one you posted . It is republished there with permission from Washington Post .