There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans. Afghan security forces consist of 94,000 troops supported by a similar number of police, bringing the total Allied force to close to 300,000 members.

The 12-1 ratio may be misleading because two-thirds of the Allied force is made up of Afghans, who lack the training and experience. The Taliban usually fight in small, cohesive units made up of friends and fellow clansmen. A more meaningful ratio, then, might be 4-1 or 5-1.

Historically in guerrilla wars, security forces have usually had at least a 3-1 advantage.

At the height of the U.S. ground involvement in South Vietnam in 1968, the 1.2 million American troops and their allies outnumbered the Communist guerrillas by about 4-1. French forces in the 1945-54 Indochina war numbered about 400,000 men, only a slight numerical advantage against the rebels.

In a more recent campaign, Russia's Chechen war in 1999-2000, Russian troops held a 4-1 advantage over the insurgents.

Publicly, NATO and U.S. officials have been tightlipped about Taliban strength, arguing the guerrillas, split into a number of semiautonomous factions, regularly slip in and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan — making numbers a matter of guesswork.

But several officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels say the alliance does have reasonably accurate estimates of the number of enemy combatants its troops are facing in Afghanistan.

"The internal figure used for planning purposes is 20,000 fighters, with several more thousand auxiliaries — mainly members of tribal militias, clans, and semi-criminal gangs," said a senior officer based at NATO headquarters in Brussels. He asked not to be identified under standing regulations.

Another senior official — a representative of a non-NATO nation based at alliance headquarters — gave a similar number.

This official added that enemy numbers varied widely over time, depending on the season and other factors. "When the poppy is good, they stay home. When the poppy is bad, they take up guns," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Recent U.S. government estimates have also put the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan at about 25,000



So my question is what do you think Obama is thinking about?

Do you think he is going to add more troops to fight the 25,000 Taliban soldiers?

Do you think he is going to withdraw the troops and send them home?

Do you think he is going to do nothing?

What is your guess and what do you think the situation will look like in exactly 3 years from today?

If I was president the war would be over in one day.I would tell our soldiers to dip their bullets in pigs blood.Muslims believe that pigs are the lowest of the low and should never be eaten.Getting struck by a bullet with pigs blood would be the ultimate insult and dishonor.Once the pigs blood is in the body it could never be removed and taken to their graves.No Muslim is his right mind would risk his life knowing he would go to heaven with pigs blood in his viens.

I think OBama will consider suggestions from several military experts and sources and select whichever seems to be the most realistic and logical. I am not military so I do not know what that answer might be. I think in 3 years, the afghanis will have to be defending themselves a bit more and depending on our guys a bit less but I think we will still keep a small number there to oversee the transition.

sorry, double post

luckily i dont have to go over there, i was suppose to be deployed this december(NO CHRISTMAS!! )but luckily i messed up my back and got a medical discharge,a small price to pay for my freedom

That may have saved your life believe it or not

As a vet I'm not afraid to say--Get them out now. Bring em home where they belong. We are so much like the Romans it makes me sick! Ok-- knee jerk your heads off. Hope it ain't your kid stuck in that mess.

And there you have it from a Vet! So the question is what will Obama do? Will he pull out or send more troops or do nothing?

I guess we will just have to see.

I dont think doing nothing will be an option on the table. We will have to see what his corporals and captains and such have to say and what strategies they will have to back up their suggestions.

Sorry, but they did that sh_t durring the 10 years of the Veitnam war. what did it get us. Nothing!--Time for the people to hit the streets and wake these low lifes up!

So the stall of trying to round up 25,000 Talibans is because they hide in those mountains or because they are on the Pakistan border?


I mean come on there are over 300,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. How many more does one need.

How many soldiers total where in Iraq before they toppled Saddam Hussein?

The point is that if strategists know it cannot be done then why be stubborn and continue?

I mean here they are with soldiers down there and (just know) they figure out they need more soldiers. This should be planned out much better before sending any troops anywhere on the globe.

Of course to save money maybe it would be wisier to send the troops home, but again that might bring harsh consequences for the US also.

As I have no information to lean on, I was hoping maybe some of you Mingle2 brothers and sisters can enlighten me on this.