Clinton: Obama Will Keep Twice As Many Troops in Afghanistan as Were There Under Bush
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that even after President Barack Obama withdraws 33,000 soldiers from Afghanistan by September 2012, there will still be “twice as many” U.S. troops in the country as there were when he took office.
“When the president became president, there were waiting on his desk requests for additional troops,” testified Clinton. “At the time president Obama was inaugurated, there were, give or take, about 30,000-plus American troops [in Afghanistan] and there was no doubt that our attention had shifted to Iraq in the preceding years and that in Iraq there had been a negotiated agreement with the Iraqi government by our government, the Bush administration, as to when our troops would come out.
“With Afghanistan there was nothing, there was an open-ended commitment. There was evidence of our losing to the Taliban, so he (Obama) not only put in the surge, he put in an additional 38,000 troops,” Clinton said. “So I think when all is said and done, we will still have more than twice as many troops [in Afghanistan] as when he took office in January of 2009.”
- Edwin Mora's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
How are you liking that trolls, libs, and the MSM?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:06pm.
After all this is where the war on terror should have started according to you, right?
Hold it, Hillary.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:57pm.
She babbles that Obama not only "put in the surge, he put in an additional 38,000 troops,”? I'd like to see her math on that.
Obama not only put in the 30K troops, he put in an additional 38K? I"m eagerly awaiting CL2 or Jason to show up and explain that to us. Just to show O is actually farther right than W was.
Or, is Hillary saying that there actually won't be a drawdown, except to pre-surge levels?
And we'll still have nearly 4 times as many
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:45pm.
troops in Afghanistan as there were in Vietnam at the start of Lyndon Johnson's administration; but that too, has absolutely no bearing on anything. Like Hillary's, it's a worthless comparison.
What matters is: Are we in this to win? (Short answer: not likely any longer) and are we maintaining the right number and makeup of troops to achieve our strategic objectives? (Short answer again: Objectives?)
We need to either be in it to win it or we need to get out and prepare a response to the inevitable resurgence of the Taliban and their desire to provide safe-haven to those who wish to do us -and the West in general- grave harm. Leaving our guys there with their hands tied is as shameful a strategy as Johnson employed during the late 60's. (Now there's a relevant comparison.)
→ And that's a good thing?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:23pm.
He promised to surrender as soon as he took office. What gives?
As soon as Obama
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:28pm.
assumed the position as pres it was like a bucket of cold water was thrown in his face. It's like, OMG! WTF!? GIVE ME A FREAK'NG BREAK! You mean I have to GOVERN now?!? I didn't sign up for this sh*t!! Where is the f**king golf course? Air force one, cool , Marine one, cool . Michelle and kids out of the country, check. Life is good as president (wish I was King could really get sh*t done)
stop it MM*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:34pm.
Your rant was offensive and certainly did not impress anyone with any enlightened discourse.