Afghanistan will need our help after 2014, and it seems like our military is assuming we'll keep 25,000 troops there after that year to help:
Some U.S. military officials have said the plan is to keep 25,000 American troops in Afghanistan past 2014, but Grossman insisted that there is no number yet and the 25,000 figure quoted in reports is speculative. NATO announced Monday that it will also keep international troops in Afghanistan past 2014 alongside U.S. troops, not for combat but strictly for the mission of training and advising the Afghans.
Grossman was speaking on a panel at the annual summit of the International Stability Operations Association in Washington. Also on the panel was Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, who said that the State Department would need U.S. military troops in Afghanistan to protect them and help them well past 2014.
"Rather than developing our own capabilities, we will be depending on DOD support for functions such as a quick reaction force, personnel recovery, fuel support, explosive ordinance disposal, and medical assistance, by 2015," Kennedy said.
But almost until the end in Iraq, when we simply left, our military assumed we'd have troops in Iraq after 2011 to help the Iraqis. Indeed, I frequently mentioned the need for 25,000 troops in Iraq (with 3 combat brigades included). I assume the greater need for logistics troops in Afghanistan (remember, we still would have had a sizable presence in Kuwait for logistics support in Iraq) would mean fewer combat brigades for Afghanistan--perhaps just a single combat brigade as the reserve of last resort.
I don't put it past this administration to run from the "good" "war of necessity" that is the "real" war. It doesn't matter what they say or what others assume is necessary to protect our interests. With Congressional elections in 2014, Democrats will want us heading for the exits in Afghanistan and consequences be damned.
This assumption of American will to win will change, no matter how much I hope it won't.
