Obama to Keep 9,800 Troops in Afghanistan through 2016

[morningfog]

President Barack Obama will seek to keep 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the war formally ends later this year and then withdraw most of those forces by 2016, senior U.S. administration officials said Tuesday.

Obama's decision is largely in line with what military commanders have been seeking and would allow the president to fully end the American-led military effort by the time he leaves office.

The two-year plan is contingent on the Afghan government signing a bilateral security agreement with the U.S. While outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai has declined to sign the agreement, U.S. officials are confident that either of the candidates seeking to replace him would give his approval.

The plan calls for the U.S. military to draw down from its current force of 32,000 to 9,800 by the start of next year. Those remaining troops would be throughout Afghanistan.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-us-9800-troops-afghanistan-23881987

The longest war in history will keep ticking along. It will be up to the next president to get all of our troops out of Afghanistan. Who would have thought that "drawing down" and "ending the war" in Afghanistan would mean that about 10,000 would still be there in 2015 and some unknown number through the end of Obama's entire presidency?

[frazzled]

1. Well, it's about 20,000 fewer troops than we have in South Korea

where we have 28,500 troops stationed (and are adding another 500). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-07/u-s-adding-800-troops-for-south-korea-citing-rebalance.html
That's a heckuva long war.

And it will be more than 40,000 fewer than we currently have in Japan (WTF? We have 50,631 there.)

And 30,000 fewer than we have in Germany (40,328).

In fact, it will be just about the same number we have deployed in the United Kingdom! (9,485)

Statistics from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

As long as they're not combat troops, I'm not sure we call it "being at war." Otherwise, we're still at war with Germany, Korea, Japan and a bunch of other places. When hostilities end, we always tend to keep a bunch of personnel around. I'm fine with discussing whether that is necessary or wise, but we should discuss it on the same basis for all these former conflicts.

[SaltyBro]

3. Soldiers aren't being killed in the other countries you mention

That is the difference.

[frazzled]

4. There will be no combat forces there by the end of the year

and thus no combat, no matter whether an agreement is signed or not, and whether the 9K training and advisory troops remain. It doesn't mean there won't be deaths, but it won't be a war. The war will be over.

[morningfog]

9. As long as the AUMF remains, our troops in

Afghanistan are at war.

[msongs]

2. who will be the last to die in Obama's war? nt

[FiveGoodMen]

5. No one will be last

It will never end.

[woo me with science]

6. While also paying (with taxpayer money) well over 100,000 mercenaries there.

*And* escalating in Syria...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025005755
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004518

*And* carrying out a massive military expansion in Africa...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023624852
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023796845

*And* continuing the drone slaughters in multiple countries with which we are not at war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024377570


Blood for the profit of a few. In. Our. Name.

[morningfog]

7. Wednesday he is going to announce his new Perpetual War Plan in Mid-East and Africa.

Oh boy!

He's going to say that "ending" the war in Afghanistan frees up resources for our new war footing.

[woo me with science]

8. It's like living in a damned Orwell novel.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. We lost. Get out. Get over it. NOW.

People are dying because politicians are afraid that we lost another war.