The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.

To email Rick Klein, click here.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

80,000 is the High Number of Troops Options in McChrystal's Request

October 13, 2009 9:40 PM

Raddatz ABC's Martha Raddatz reports: Among three different troop options currently before the President and his national security team, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as first reported here, favors the middle option, which recommends an increase of some 40,000 more troops. A source familiar with the document says that’s the minimum McChrystal believes is needed for a chance for success in Afghanistan.

Although the debate is really about the middle option, there is a much higher number included in the McChrystal options.

Other sources who have seen the request say the high number of troops requested is 80,000.

These sources also say that they believe McChrystal’s bottom option has no "combat" troops but 10,000 that could be enablers or trainers. This is also considered the “high risk option.” 

ABC News has also learned more about how the questions that the White House wants answered are being handled. It is not merely a discussion in the White House meetings.

The Pentagon is getting "R.F.I.s" request for information -- such as "what would counterterrorism heavy require?" In other words -- what would it take to pull off these various other options they are talking about, in terms of equipment and manpower.

Sources say McChrystal favors the middle option, and that he knows the high number is a ‘throw away' number, and is more than the U.S. could possibly support, either politically or with boots on the ground given how stretched the military is right now. 

As one observer noted to us, “It is common for the military to give several options, but what McChrystal has done here is say, ‘you can be hung, shot or eat your vegetables.”

October 13, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (39)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How many troops are there at this time?

Posted by: cy faneca | Oct 13, 2009 10:17:16 PM

Why are we still using foot soliders as a main offensive? This is not WWII. We are fully capeable of other methods (Non-Nuclear) of blowing these terrorists into their graves. Why have our young troops in harm's way all the time, they would be better used as Police after a massive air campaign would they not?

Posted by: Find your way back | Oct 13, 2009 10:18:00 PM

40,000 or 80,000 whatever General McChrystal requests he should get. McChrystal was hand picked by Obama to lead Obama's war in Afghanistan. Obama is allegedly the Commander in Chief and his top commander in the battlefield, McChrystal is the man that is actually leading the troops into battle and he is asking for more troops in order to fight Obama's war. Now, I understand that many left wingers and liberals believe we should get out of Afghanistan, Iraq etc. My question to them is what happens after we do. Do we just bring them home and let Obama present his Nobel Peace Prize to AlQaeda and the Taliban so that we can live happy and in peace from here on. Where do you liberals have your heads stuck into?

Posted by: wizcat123 | Oct 13, 2009 10:20:20 PM

No one seems able to define who the enemy is, what the strategy is, or what goals are to be achieved in Afghanistan. What are we doing there? And it doesn't clarify matters when even more countries are being considered for invasion. Perhaps we are just a Nazi Nation out to kill everyone? Where is it written that we must conduct endless wars? It looks like we have another rogue president, out of touch with reality.

Posted by: Crusher | Oct 13, 2009 10:33:48 PM

NEWSFLASH There are more troops in Afghanistan that were in the "surge" in Iraq... And the press says... Nothing! Thanks "Fawning Corporate Media", Hey ABC, how many bombs did GE sell today! How much Afghan and Pakistan blood is on YOUR hands, let alone O'bomba's. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, SHAMELESS War profiteers!!! If the lies never stop, then the profits will never end, no matter how many are maimed or killed. Life must be good for those who have the ability to profit off of wars they proclaim to protest. (At least depending on the party affiliation of the one who is ordering the atrocites to continue unabated!) FOR SHAME!!!

Posted by: jafo | Oct 13, 2009 10:59:18 PM

Declare victory then get out of that country.

Posted by: kevjustice | Oct 13, 2009 11:41:06 PM

I agree with crusher, I'm seeing similarities with Bush Irak's campaign. They're arguing how many troops, where to bomb, etc, but no one is saying why the heck are the troops there.

Posted by: Salvia | Oct 14, 2009 1:01:36 AM

Whatever our troops in Afghanistan need, they should have. No questions asked. This includes manpower and/or supplies. There should be no reason our troops are left there on the ground doing without when they are trying to fight a war nobody understands but them. Their lives, which have been presented for Service to not only our Country but for a good portion of the world, should be protected and respected at all costs. Why is there any question as to what is needed there and/or any debate? We can wage this war THERE or we can do it in America. I don't believe most of the people in the United States understand the importance of this battle. Perhaps everyone should take stock and pay attention before saying no to anything. I, for one, give the Honor and Respect due to our troops that is necessary. Even a swift withdrawl puts their lives in danger needing more back up...General McChrystal should receive whatever it is he and the troops require and there should be no debate.

Posted by: WHitty | Oct 14, 2009 2:06:14 AM

For the general to seek as many as 80,000 extra troops, it means the situation is bad. Either send the extra troops or get out of there. Stop playing games.

Posted by: kottaras | Oct 14, 2009 2:21:44 AM

tell you what....kill the popie fields andget the hel out......russell

Posted by: russell | Oct 14, 2009 3:44:59 AM

We have on the ground a Counter-terrorist expert and that is General McChrystal. The Counter-Insurgency expert is General Petraeus who proved his skill in Iraq. Our fight is in Pakistan where the most dangerous terrorist live and are given a safe haven. We give BILLIONS in money and aid to Pakistan. There is something unprincipled with Pakistan. We need to secure Pakistans nukes and finish Al Qaeda and the Taliban with Special Forces and surgical precision. General McChrystal is the man for the job.

Posted by: Dallasman | Oct 14, 2009 5:53:40 AM

Aren't we all glad we elected Obama so we could get our people out of Iraq?

Posted by: Melanie | Oct 14, 2009 7:10:43 AM

Louie-Try some decaf in the morning!!! Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not opposing groups, you don't hear about them fighting one another. They do support each others efforts and the drug trade is currently funding the Talbin where Al Qaeda has been put in pinch due to our efforts. Supporting our General in his stratgy or our troops in the field isn't prowar and certainly not after 9-11. However I am sure you have some ideas about how that came about, don't you?

Posted by: Texan2112 | Oct 14, 2009 7:13:47 AM

Alot of people voted for the president, for only one reason, he will send all our soldiers home. Hello, are they here yet.

Posted by: Elisa Mojica | Oct 14, 2009 7:42:42 AM

Didn't we vote for CHANGE? We just got another 4 years of W. Bush. For the most part same policies, same ridiculous spending, same cowboy "my way or the highway" attitude.

Again, where's the change? How's everyone's (exluding the Wall Street elite) paycheck looking these days? Working harder and seeing less? Hang on, it's gonna get worse.....

Posted by: JTH | Oct 14, 2009 7:43:16 AM

Now that BinLaden is in Pakistan, who has nuclar weapons, I think we should probably be there (if anywhere)
Idon't understand our purpose in Afghanstan. Our boys don't know the lay of the land, like the Talaban, they are at a disadvantage, how can you tell a friend from foe. I say get out of there, and consentrate on protecting our borders. We CAN keep them out of the US, let them try to come in here and fight us, we would never let it happen, oh sure, an incident will happen from within our own borders, by muslims already living here, just like the 911 group that lived in Fla taking flying lessons. How many countries can we be at war with at one time, we have let it break our economy. We are in three midEast countries, or more. Do you ever see an end to this..not until the Lord comes!!

Posted by: Bernie | Oct 14, 2009 8:19:37 AM

This week's "Frontline", on PBS, follows a Marine platoon through Helmond province. At one point, a frustrated Marine asks villagers, "Why won't you help us." They look on in silence - or disbelief.

An away-from-troops interview with an English-speaking Afghan results in: "If we tell the Marines anything, the next day the Taliban know what we said."

Additionally, the U.S. was there before and promised the village leaders of Helmond medical aid, generators, etc. if they would support us. Many did -then we pulled out and left them twisting in the wind when the Taliban came back - unopposed. And now we expect them to trust us?

Frontline also showed Karzai and his running mates - one a torturer and on an opium manufacturer. The low-paid government bureaucrats are charging people bribes or kickbacks just to do what they should do for free. Much U.S. aid money is lining the pockets of Karzai's cronies.

Meanwhile, the Taliban has a shadow government in place all across Afghanistan. And the top people send investigators to villages asking if the Taliban governor in their area is treating them correctly - and removing those bureaucrats who aren't. They have a 30 page book describing how they're supposed to interact with people. Karzai doesn't bother with anything like that.

Unless some serious changes are made in the Afghan government, there's no reason to spend our time and money there.

Posted by: The_Mick | Oct 14, 2009 8:49:15 AM

"How many troops are there at this time?"

The last figure I saw was 67,000.

Posted by: SearamblerOne | Oct 14, 2009 8:51:31 AM

It is very easy to say just get out but have any of you suggesting we get out thought of the consequences? If we quit now we what do we do when the terrorists overrun Afghanistan then go on to invade Pakistan and take over the nukes? The General requests 80,000 troops, the General who is the guy Obama picked to fight the war gets the troops so he can fight the war, anything less will be a disgrace and a catastrophe.

Posted by: wizcat123 | Oct 14, 2009 8:55:06 AM

It is appalling that we are even in Afghanistan! It is beyond belief just how must influence our military has upon our nations leadership. This so-called war is nothing but a GWB launched INVASION just like Iraq. Obama needs to collect his balls and GET OUR TROOPS OUT NOW!

Posted by: NoWarMongers! | Oct 14, 2009 9:18:15 AM

Post a comment