Correcting Andrea Mitchell’s Afghanistan Troop Figures

By
Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Andrea Mitchell went on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ yesterday and made a claim that freaked out former Rep. Tom Andrews (R-Me.). Her sources, she said, had discovered something from Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s forthcoming resource request for the Afghanistan war:

The numbers are really pretty horrifying. What they say, embedded in this report by McChrystal, is they would need 500,000 troops – boots on the ground – and five years to do the job. No one expects that the Afghan Army could step up to that. Are we gonna put even half that of U.S. troops there, and NATO forces? No way.

Now, I’ve had some problems finding a full ‘Morning Joe’ transcript from yesterday, so I apologize in advance to Mitchell if I’ve not seen the full context for the quote. But this reflects some basic context errors.

It’s not a mystery where a 500,000 troop-total comes from. Look at page 2-15 of the McChrystal strategy review. It talks about accelerating growth of the Afghan national security forces. In particular, it seeks an ultimate target of 240,000 Afghan soldiers and 160,000 Afghan police, which is a combination of both accelerating current targets (like reaching the 134,000-Afghan-soldier goal next year instead of 2011) and raising the total end-strength. So add up the new end-strength. You’ll get 400,000 Afghan soldiers and police.

Now remember that President Obama has already ordered the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan up to 68,000 troops. The non-U.S. and non-Afghan troop contribution from NATO partners (PDF) is roughly 35,000 troops. That means if we take what current NATO troop levels are (or, when the first Obama troop increase is finished in the next several weeks, will be), and add them to the proposed targets for the Afghan national security forces, we get slightly over 500,000 troops — without any additional U.S. troop increases. Catch the vapors!

If Mitchell is implying that McChrystal will ask President Obama to reach those totals ahead of Afghan abilities to reach 500,000, she’s mistaken. The resource request amounts to a debate over whether the U.S. and NATO will need somewhat more than the approximately 103,000 troops already committed to get the Afghan forces up to 400,000. That’s a big difference. I’m told that McChrystal isn’t making any official statements on the resource question until after Obama reaches a decision. And he’s going to present the administration with a palette of resource options in the next few days, according to Gen. David Petraeus. But he’s just not going to ask that non-Afghan troop levels reach that astronomical and unsustainable total. Indeed, no less an escalation advocate than Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) reacted thusly to Mitchell:

We’re never going to have half a million American troops there. We don’t need it and it’s impossible that we’d ever do that.

The most likely explanation for Mitchell’s ginormous figure is a contextual misunderstanding between her and her sources. We’re going to have McChrystal’s request in a couple of days. Petraeus also said yesterday that we’ll have two weeks of high-level debate over strategy and resourcing questions. Until we have hard data, let’s all take a deep breath before going crazy with speculation, and certainly before we allow speculation to overtake basic contextualization.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

15 Comments

jeffmichaels
Comment posted September 24, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

Not too mention the other obvious fact which is we don't have enough transport aircraft nor secure supply lines to be able to support a massive increase even if we were able to find the troops themselves.


Phoenix Woman
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 3:01 am

My guess is that this number was thrown out there so it could be readily debunked — and so that when the real numbers for the escalation are released, they will look “moderate” in comparison.


JasonSigger
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 10:10 am

“We’re never going to have half a million American troops there. We don’t need it and it’s impossible that we’d ever do that.”

That's what they told LBJ in 1965.


dr.hypercube
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 11:46 am

Nit, picked – I think Tom was D-ME.


JackJersawitz
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

Obviously what Mitchell is doing is making the valid conjecture that the Afghans can't come anywhere near the number required and so she is adding all the parts together. That in my book is valid.

Indeed, anybody that knows anything about asimetrical warfare knows that among national in country recruits there are going to be a large number from the other side.

I find that amusing. Any attempt by U.S. imperialism, and Obama, no matter what some folks may think is an imperialist, to field any where near the requisite numbers, or even to much longer keep the poor suckers there that are already there, is going to lead to mutiny; to the same thing as happened in Viet Nam, soldiers rolling live grenades into officers' tents, stabbing or shooting them in the back, etc.

I say right on! Right on!

That much sooner to rebellion here in the States and Socialist Revolution.

Victory to the Taliban!
Victory to al Queda!
Down with imperialism and the puppet Zionist State!
For a United Soviet Socialist States of the Middle East!

That is the future!


cheap mbt shoes
Comment posted May 8, 2010 @ 7:43 am

Thanks for you share the article.Good!


nike shox
Comment posted May 25, 2010 @ 6:40 am

Good.post.I like it.


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 1:05 am

so cool


adidas originals
Comment posted June 5, 2010 @ 1:16 am

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.


cheap nike shoes
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

cheap Jordan shoes, cheap Nike shoes at http://www.hmsportsmall.com


christian louboutin shoes
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

thanks for your shareing

Fashion legancy– we sell famous brand christian louboutin

100% Authentic, 50% discount cheap christian louboutin shoes.

christian louboutin shoes authentic hot sell online, welcome for retail and wholesale christian louboutin,
christian shoes, louboutin shoesorders.

24 hours/day customer service online, louboutin paypal accepted.

Hi, I like to lose weight!
thanks for your shareing
Recently so many people who want to lose weight choose this style shoes– mbt shoes!

we call it massaqi shoes, it is special design have lose weight function.

come to our website, and choose cheap mbt shoes online, 65% discount mbt shoes Cheap MBT Shoes sale online.

welcome for retail and wholesale mbt shoes orders.


jordan shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 3:20 am

This is a pretty good article!


nike running shoes
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 4:42 am

Buy Cheap Football Jerseys from Sport Jersey's Store, Basketball Jerseys, NFL Jerseys,NHL Jerseys, NBA Jerseys,MLB Jerseys,Hockey Jerseys,Cheap NFL Jerseys,Wholesale NFL Jerseys
Cowboys cheap jerseys Steelers cheap jerseys Saints cheap jerseys Vikings cheap jerseys Raiders cheap jerseysYou may need Summer Equipment,Have a good summer holiday:Many kind of Brand Sunglsss ,Puma Shoes,Converse Shoes,Nike Shox Shoes .

Women's Air Max LTD on sale,Men's Air Max LTD Shoes was introduced in 2002,Nike Air Max 95 and Nike Basketball shoes are hot now,Nike Air Max 2009 retail for men and women,Nike running shoes and mbt shoes are the latest stock to hit our shores,with more boots shoes online,Our nike sneakers like Mens Shox NZ and Womens Shox NZ sale online.


Swiss Replica Watches
Comment posted September 14, 2010 @ 1:11 am

Thank you for your sharing.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.