The numbers don't add up

So how long are we going to have troops in Afghanistan? Well, of course no one can answer that question because the entire adventure is rather ad hoc. The usual glib response is, as long as it takes. It appears it may take quite a while.

U.S. Army Major-General Robert Durbin, the man in charge of creating a viable home-grown Afghan army, claims he can prepare a properly trained 70,000-man force in three years. The problem is the Afghan defence minister, Abdul Rahim Qardak, insists an army of 150,000 to 200,000 soldiers will be needed to secure the country. If this discrepancy stirs memories, they may be of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld claimed 50,000 troops could do the job in that war while the American military insisted it would take 300,000. As we now know, the compromise of 120,000 was quite inadequate, not to defeat Saddam but to secure the country.

General Durbin admits even the 70,000 is a challenge, with problems of absenteeism and low re-enlistment. So if we are going to be in Afghanistan for "as long as it takes," we should prepare for the long term. Possibly a very long term.