[The] ratio for Afghanistan at the end of 2009 was only 9:1,000. By the fall of 2010, American force levels will be just shy of 100,000. Combined with allied and partner-nation contributions of some 45,000 troops (many of which are noncombat), 134,000 Afghan soldiers and 109,000 Afghan national policemen (both still on a steep learning curve), the total number of security forces will be less than 390,000, or 280,000 troops short of meeting that 1:20 ratio for an Afghan population of about 33 million.
At least this discussion doesn't focus exclusively on American troops, as the troop number debate in Iraq did over the years.
I think we have enough troops. The number cited above doesn't count contract security personnel (71,000?) or local defense troops (10,000?) or paramilitaries (3,000?) that we can count on to fight or resist the Taliban. We're over 470,000, quite possibly. More importantly, we don't need that ratio in all of Afghanistan. Remember, we broke the backs of our enemies in Iraq long before we reached the magic level of 20 security personnel per 1,000 people.
I think we need between 360,000 and 470,000 to win, based on my older post looking at the theater. It looks like we have the numbers needed even for my worst case scenario.
Now we just have to choose to win rather than wring our hands and run away.
