Another 45,000 US troops needed in Afghanistan.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Aug 9, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The Times
    August 10, 2009
    Another 45,000 US troops needed in Afghanistan, military adviser says
    Michael Evans, Defence Editor

    The United States should send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a senior adviser to the American commander in Kabul has told The Times.

    Anthony Cordesman, an influential American academic who is a member of a team that has been advising General Stanley McChrystal, now in charge of Nato forces in Afghanistan, also said that to deal with the threat from the Taleban the size of the Afghan National Army might have to increase to 240,000.

    If Mr Cordesman’s recommendation reflects the view of General McChrystal, who recently presented the findings of a 60-day review of Afghanistan strategy to Washington, it would mean sending another nine combat brigades, comprising 45,000 American troops, in addition to the 21,000 already approved by President Obama. This would bring the total American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000, considerably closer to the force that was deployed for the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq.

    If General McChrystal believes that America should send nine more brigades — Mr Cordesman suggested it should be between three and nine brigades — there is bound to be pressure on Britain to send reinforcements as well. The British strength now is 9,000.
    More
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6789142.ece
     
  2. Whilst I agree with the idea, it will mean that the ANA will have more than twice our entire manpower! :eek:
     

  3. is that a bad thing!??
     
  4. Do even the Septics have that many extra troops to spare?

    IIRC, the Ivans maxed out at roughly 110,000 troops in the Stan...
     
  5. Something of a common myth . The 100,000 + sent by the Red Army didn't happen until the end of 1985 , before that the USSR presence was closer to 80,000

    It should also be mentioned that the quality of the Soviet soldier was considerably lower than the average NATO one today
     
  6. True. But the Soviets ROE was a damn sight more..."relaxed" than our own.
     
  7. Not for them obviously. admittedly they don't have a recognisable navy or airforce and that skews the figures.
     
  8. U.S.Army Pers. End Strength

    Active: 547,000 being upped to 569,000
    Reserve: 206,000
    National Guard: 358,000

    USMC: 201,000
    USMCR: 40,000
     
  9. There's plenty of troops in Iraq that could be sent?

    Also, remember the Soviets were fighting a much larger insurgency that was spread throughout the entire country. Most of the fighting right now is in the south and east.
     
  10. Also true, but it did them no good in the end. Afg doesn't strike me as the sort of place where you can 'kill your way to victory' Maybe the Soviets thought 'if it worked for Zhukov, it'll work for us (hic)'
     
  11. In ten years of war The Soviet - Afghan conflict killed over 1 million people and displaced several million more . You can't really compare it to the present conflict .
     
  12. Did you not read the end bit of the article;-


    "Tonight a former head of the British Army said it would not be possible for Britain to meet its commitment to support Afghanistan for decades if ministers approved a proposal to cut three infantry battalions.

    As part of a current internal Ministry of Defence review, a reduction in the size of the infantry, from 36 to 33 battalions, has not yet been ruled out, because of the short-term savings that would ensue from cutting back on manpower — a total of £60 million a year for the loss of the three battalions. "

    Thats the second time I have read that . Cant be serious, surely, its the only growth industry in Britian.
     
  13. Does a battalion actually cost £20 million pa?
     
  14. I admit I'm a bit hazy on Ancient History, but did'nt that work for a chap called Alexander? :twisted:
     
  15. Buggered if I know mate, the only 'Ancient History' that I'm conversant with is my sex life! :(