Along with the absurd ‘Mission Accomplished’ nonsense that is recirculating through the left flank of the blogosphere, the newest in meme idiocy from our hyper partisan Bush haters is culled from this WaPo article (by Dana Milbank):
Asked about U.S. force presence in Afghanistan, Bush said the U.S. presence is being “gradually replaced” by other troops.
“We’ve got about 10,000 troops there, which is down from, obviously, major combat operations,” he said. “And they’re there to provide security and they’re there to provide reconstruction help. But both those functions are being gradually replaced by other troops. Germany, for example, is now providing the troops for ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], which is the security force for Afghanistan, under NATO control. In other words, more and more coalition forces and friends are beginning to carry a lot of the burden in Afghanistan.”
In fact, the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan represent the highest number of U.S. soldiers in the country since the war there began. By the time the Taliban government had been vanquished in December 2001, U.S. troops numbered fewer than 3,000 in Afghanistan. And three months later, in March 2002, when the last major battle against remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda took place in eastern Afghanistan, about 5,000 U.S. troops were in the country.
CalPundit summarizes the left wing response (which varied from ‘see- Bush is a moron’ to ‘why did Dean get mistreated’):
As I recall, Howard Dean got pilloried for being about 10% off in his estimate of U.S. troop strength in Iraq. Do you think we’ll see the same reaction to the guy who actually is president for not even knowing if U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is up or down compared to a year ago?
Here are the trackbacks to the Calpundit’s post. Go read them. Extra credit to Matt Yglesias for managing to get both of today’s memes in to one post- although he is just following the lead of his bosses (the anonymous hacks at the American Prospect’s TAPPED weblog.
So let’s review the charge- Bush said we had more than the current group involved in major combat operations. So let’s check who all was in theatre for the major military operations that Bush was referring to- all courtesy of Global Security:
Prior to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, US Central Command had an operating strength in the region that varried between 20,000 to 25,000 troops on any given day. As of late February 2002 CENTCOM had about 60,000 troops, with about 5,000 actually in Afghanistan.
As of 08 November 2001 it was reported that more than 50,000 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were deployed across an area stretching from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. About half the total American force were aboard naval ships operating in the northern Arabian Sea. Approximately 3,000 American personnel were said to be in Oman, including soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Another 1,500 to 2,000 Americans, including soldiers from the Army’s 10th Mountain Division, as well as special operations forces, were reportedly based at a former Soviet air base in Uzbekistan.
By early January 2002 it was reported that the total number of US ground forces deployed in Afghanistan had grown to nearly 4,000 troops. By late January 2002 the total number of US troops in Afghanistan was reportedly over 4,000, including conventional forces to protect bases, along with engineers, forensic experts and interrogators. By August 2002 there were about 8,000 US troops in Afghanistan.
By the end of September 2001, almost the entire active duty C-5 and C-17 fleet — a total of about 140 aircraft — was dedicated to supporting the war effort. As of 08 November 2001 it was reported that a total of 400 American aircraft were deployed, including reconnaissance, transport and tanker aircraft. However, this number also included the aircraft patrolling the southern and northern “no fly” zones over Iraq. The total number of aircraft involved in the war by early November 2001 was nearly 500, including reconnaissance and other support aircraft from Britain, Canada, Australia and France. KC-10 and KC-135 tankers were primarily concentrated in several orbits over south-western Pakistan, flying from bases in Diego Garcia, Oman, Bahrain, and elsewhere in Southwest Asia. Approximately 14,000 Air Force personnel were committed to the war in Afghanistan.
France had 2,000 military personnel in the region as of early November 2001. Japan, Germany, Italy and New Zealand have pledged to deploy ships and troops if needed. Turkey and Australia have announced that special operations forces would be deployed. Italy announced in early November that ships and aircraft, and up to 3,000 military personnel, would be deployed. The 3,900 Germans planned on deployement would include some 100 special operations troops. Turkey has committed 90 special forces troops and is prepared to send a peacekeeping force numbering about 3,000 if needed. By January 2002 special operations forces from Australia, Britain, France, Denmark, Germany and Turkey were on the ground in Afghanistan.
As of early March 2002 more than 17,000 coalition military personnel from 17 countries have deployed in the region since October 2001. A smaller number of these are actually operating in Afghanistan.
The Indian Ocean area between Pakistan and Kenya is patrolled by about 100 ships
James Joyner
Hey, John *F* Kerry was in the Navy. And he was in Vietnam. Did I mention Vietnam?
And, of course, troops floating around in a boat aren’t technically *in* Afghanistan–certainly by the Clinton sex standard.
Vietnam! Kerry was in Vietnam.
Kevin Drum
I don’t think Bush wasn’t talking about all military personnel in theater, since that number would be well over 10,000 today. Rather, he was talking about U.S. soldiers actually in Afghanistan.
That number is about 10,000 right now, and it is indeed higher than a year ago. He didn’t appear to be aware of that.
John
So, how many military people *are* in the theater right now?
John Cole
I would say the estimate of 10k is close, although there are assets deployed in the surrounding region. It appears that only one carrier group is even in the Gulf anymore.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef_orbat_030701.htm
The figures they use rely on on the ground infantrymen and airmen and support troops to get to the ten k.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
HH
“Look, I served in Vietnam. Gray Davis served in Vietnam. And we’re not going to be replaced by someone whose dad was in the Nazi army.” – Bob Mulholland, Dem strategist, July 25
Now it’s not just “I was in Vietnam,” it’s “I was in Vietnam and you’re a Nazi.”
HH
Spokesman, not “strategist.”
S-Train
I don’t think Democrats or Republicans are being very smart about this question of troop numbers. How ’bout we just skip all the prick-waving and concentrate of mission-at-hand, which got substantially worse with this recent UN bombing in Iraq.
John Cole
Sounds good to me, S-Train. But when one side is continuously launching nonsensical acusations, if you do not refute them and beat them back to the truth, the charges stand.
BigScaryBrain
Kevin,
I disagree Bush did say “major combat operations.” John Cole is correct in saying that major combat operations include all troops and equipment including those of the navy, marines, and air force. It sounds to me that they have greatly reduced the force but have simply replaced some of air force and navy troops with ground pounders, that’s all.
DC
I posted this over at Heretical Ideas
“Words matter….this is the quote from the article…..
“Asked about U.S. force presence in Afghanistan, Bush said the U.S. presence is being “gradually replaced” by other troops.
“We’ve got about 10,000 troops there, which is down from, obviously, major combat operations”
Troops IN Afghanistan…..not IN theater….those are two different places and Mr Bush appears to be responding to troops in Afghanistan.
This is really not that important…but the real point is that the reporters need to spend more time talking about the real issues with Mr Bush…Mr Dean…Mr Magoo or whoever is putting themselves forward for the job of leading this great nation. I am getting so tired of spending so much time on the trivial and not pressing the real issues. Although I have to admit since finding the blog sites (I read from all kinds of perspectives) it is the best way to get a clearer picture about the issues of the day.
On another note…..how are the Republicans getting away with supporting Arnold as a Republican when he is pro-choice, pro gay rights..pro gun control (I think I am right on that)……these are cornerstone republican issues. Where are the Conservatives in California…especially since Mr Simon has mysteriously pulled out.
Also why is it that the phrase “vast right wing conspiracy” invokes snickers from most reporters and pundits, yet they fail to take a critical look at who is behind someone the things someone like me Mr Davis points out ( I am not a Dem neither am I from CA)….for example…is there a Republican strategy (right wing or not…vast or not) to win elections by other means than at the ballot box?
Thank you”
I just wished we spent less time trying to label our leaders morons and more time analyzing where we are heading as a country.
Rupert Brook
Don’t you right wingers realise that inbreeding causes all kinds of genetic abhorrences?