Are 9,800 troops enough to make a difference in Afghanistan?

2015-07-24T11:56:08-04:00

The Afghanistan ORBAT (PDF) describes the location and area of responsibility of all American units in Afghanistan, down to the battalion level, updated as of July 2015.

ISW derives all information in the Order of Battle from open sources that are readily available.

http://www.understandingwar.org/report/afghanistan-order-battle

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 24 at 2015 11:57 AM

2015-07-24T11:57:43-04:00

Depends on the ROE. Given the freedom to act, one Battalion can make a huge difference...

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 24 at 2015 11:59 AM

2015-07-24T11:59:01-04:00

It's a nice dream to think we can bring a culture and or people into the 21st Century but Unfortunately I suspect that Afghanistan will be for us just what it was for Russia and England before them. Someplaces you just can't win.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 24 at 2015 12:14 PM

2015-07-24T12:14:47-04:00

Institute For The Study of War Looks like we can support the existing government and a few of our major facilities. We can't make Afghanistan a functional 3rd world country, but we can prevent the Taliban from displacing the current government by massed force.
I think of the Afghan government as the Major's cell for Kabul and that is about the true extent of their control.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 24 at 2015 12:42 PM

2015-07-24T12:42:24-04:00

We probably need 10 times that number. Sadly without massive troop buildup a in Iraq and Afghanistan both countries will be under the control of ISIS or Al Qaeda soon.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 24 at 2015 1:44 PM

2015-07-24T13:44:34-04:00

I don't like their extremist ways of doing things any more than anyone else, but I'm tired of spending American lives and American dollars on a bunch of people that don't even want us there. So my answer is: 9800 troops is 9800 too many.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 24 at 2015 1:58 PM

2015-07-24T13:58:01-04:00

That is a token force. No matter where American troops are, they will fight and win. I could sleep like a baby because I knew my military family had my 6, but if 9,800 is all that politicians are allowing than it is time to go. That is like us having one secure small city secure for all of our east coast and thinking we can change thousands of years of tribal conflicts. 15 years is enough pain. True commitment involves a massive force for decades like in Germany, Korea, Japan after total war. Gloves off, killing everyone with a weapon, and having the enemy beg for peace. Our military has been forced to become an armed group of social workers, civil engineers, and humanitarians while the enemy continues to enjoy the use of total brutality and complete gloves off tactics. You don't back Conan into a corner and let him hold his sword and tell him he is free to vote and build him a well.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 24 at 2015 6:34 PM

2015-07-24T18:34:09-04:00

If 9,800 were a hand-picked force with specific operational and strategic goals, equipped with sufficient weaponry, intel, tactical and operational lift sufficient to move 6,000 simultaneously with all required firepower, etc., with no limitations on targeting and pursuing forces fleeing to NW Pakistan, Iran and other parts of Pakistan then I think this force could achieve a significant percentage of its objectives.
Of course the above would require a focused national leadership aligned with a workable and coherent foreign policy, political ind international "guts," and general support from the US populace. Generally the only time we the that coherent pride and focus is after we have been deceitfully attacked - I certainly hope that does not happen.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 26 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-08-26T11:21:41-04:00

No.