President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al-Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al-Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

abcnews.go.com

With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al-Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit one thousand troops and $300 million a year.

Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, put the number at "fewer than a hundred" in an Oct. interview with CNN.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) referred to the number at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Oct., saying "intelligence says about a hundred al-Qaeda in Afghanistan."

(visit the link for the full news article)

$300,000,000.00 Per head belonging to Al-Qaeda, Per Year

$300,000,000.00 for each Al-Qaeda Fighter, Per Year

$300,000,000.00 NOT Counting Private Contractors and I believe not counting national guardsmen.

No you are not in the twillight zone.
You have read correctly.

At a Senate hearing, the former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified al-Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan.

"So in terms of 'in Afghanistan,'" asked Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), "they have been disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?"

"That's true," replied Grenier.

What is the true purpose for all these troops in Afghanistan?

ALSO

Private contractors employed by the Defense Department in Afghanistan will continue to outnumber the size of the American troop presence, even after President Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers to fight in the war, according to the military's most recent contractor count.

The latest figure on DOD contractors in the country is a whopping 104,100, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command tells TPM. That number, which is expected to grow, is already greater than the 98,000 U.S. troops that will be in the country after the new deployments.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-12-2009 by ModernAcademia]

"al-Qaeda"

You mean the database our government created?
Source


peace out

To tell you the truth... I don't know what to believe anymore. Everyone has some kind of agenda.

100 seems awfully small amount of people. I would like to think there is more, but who knows.

Just to clarify, are we sure that they are not referring to groups of al-Qaida? Instead of individual fighters?

In other words, when they say "100 or fewer al-Qaida", it would make more sense if they meant 100 or fewer pockets / groups of al-Qaida.

The reason I ask is because I would find it hard to believe that they would have an exact number of individual people, they would know their locations, etc -- but not be able to take them out.

I have more faith in our military than to think that 68,000 of OUR troops -- some of the greatest members of military there are -- can't take care of 100 people. No way!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


It's 100 too many when you consider the damage they wrought on September 11th 2001.

Assuming you believe they were responsible for that attack.

reply to post by lpowell0627

Mr. Chaffetz said his position about terrorists in Afghanistan is based on an assessment by retired Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama's national security adviser, that al Qaeda has no more than 100 members in Afghanistan and no bases.

washingtontimes.com...

No it's not groups of members, it's just members

100 individuals

Forget losing the war against terroists

300Million per individual = Self-Defeat!

No nation on earth is this stupid

[edit on 2-12-2009 by ModernAcademia]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Yea. That would have some modicum of value if the mission, as described by the President in last night's address and as formulated by the various military advisors, was focused on al queda. It was not.

The mission, as I understand it to be, is to:

1. Push the Taliban out of ares of where they have established control and provide security for the residents in those areas.

2. Provide backing and security for the goevernment so that they can begin to provide services and govern the country.

3. Provide training for Afghan military and police so that they can take charge of their own security.

These three missions will, presumably, prevent al queda from expanding or enjoying a resurgence in Afghanistan. Your characterization is disingenuous at best.

reply to post by Ulala


Just under 4000 civilians were killed in afghanistan via B-52 bombers within just under two months. So...are those pilots one american too many? Or is the ratio of Americans to Afghans different? Off topic but just playing devils advocate,it seems when afghan civilians die it's just called collateral damage and everyone moves on. In any case, i think America,Britain and other allied forces will use any excuse to further their stay in Afghanistan. They already have a puppet government installed, now they plan to use the region as a launching pad for decades to come. An ideology doesn't die with bullets. They will be crossing over from pakistan with each new generation and with funding from the saudi's money won't be an issue. That's what the allied forces are hoping for i think. Im probably wrong though

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Solomons]

Originally posted by jtma508
1. Push the Taliban out of ares of where they have established control and provide security for the residents in those areas.

Taliban are extremist zombies
However..... they are not america's problem or business

Originally posted by jtma508
2. Provide backing and security for the goevernment so that they can begin to provide services and govern the country.

From what I understand this is mostly done by private contractors which do not add to the 300Mil.

I shall soon provide a link

Originally posted by jtma508
3. Provide training for Afghan military and police so that they can take charge of their own security.

As far as I understand it is the Marines spearheading this initiative.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Link yourself silly. Was I watching a different Obama speech? Your response seems to be obfuscating the point here.

For whatever reason (presumably US security) our military and politicians believe OUR security depends on a stable Afghanistan. They believe the Taliban is destabilizing the country through violence and need to be countered. Am I crazy or is that not what was said last night?

Private contractors? Come on. For some assignments maybe but clearly not what the military sees as necessary.

And what's your point about the marines? The first part of the 'surge part 2' wil be a marine expeditionary force. Because they can be deployed the quickest. No offense but you seem to be grasping at straws to make your point.

Private contractors employed by the Defense Department in Afghanistan will continue to outnumber the size of the American troop presence, even after President Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers to fight in the war, according to the military's most recent contractor count.

The latest figure on DOD contractors in the country is a whopping 104,100, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command tells TPM. That number, which is expected to grow, is already greater than the 98,000 U.S. troops that will be in the country after the new deployments.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...

In other words...

I do apologize for my opening post

it's not 300,000,000.00 Per Al Qaida Head
It's wayyyyyyy MOREEEEEEEEE than that

As I understand private contracters get paid way more than troops.

Anyone want to throw some numbers out there?

104,100 private contractors + 100K troops Vs. 100 al qaida individuals?

What's going on in that country?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I would not put it past them, my wonders are, are we there for something more than just for the Taliban,its seems to be a interest to control the opium trade and money over there to me

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I don't believe this report at all... why send 30k troops to defeat 100? lol

Doesn't make sense to me.... report must be wrong!!!

I also thought the US were pulling out of there next year....

Is there even an Al-Quieda?

I dunno man..... 9 years of war in that region but still it goes on... you gotta look at the stats and ask yourself :

Who? Really is winning this war?

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


wrong question

real question is what is this war really about

Here is a good article from November of 2001 as to how the U.S. became involved in Afghanistan

www.wsws.org...

This Al-Qaeda story is a bunch of rubbish designed to hoodwink the American public and international community into accepting and not questioning the mission. These types of military operations take quite a bit longer than just three weeks to plan, which was another lie sold to the unsuspecting American public shortly after 9/11.

The USA did not invade Afghanistan because of 9/11. They used 9/11 as the stepping stone to invade Afghanistan. In other words, they needed 9/11 to happen to invade Afghanistan.

If people started educating themselves and stopped believing the crap they're being fed by the controlled, corrupt and disreputable media, chances are these type of unjust and illegal wars would be more difficult for the Government to pull off.

Taliban?

or database?

To be fair, how have they arrived at the figure of 100?

I mean it's not like they can conduct a poll or do a survey...

Survey:
Q1
Are you a member of al qaeda

A1
No

Q2
Are you a member of the Taliban?

A2
No

Come on, it's not like the "intelligence" agencies have a great record in this regard.

It's just guesswork - educated guesswork, but still guesswork.

Intel can provide an indication, and that's all - the rest of it is spin, guesswork and politics.

Afghanistan will swallow troops - an army could be there forever, and without genocide, they will never stop the "enemy"

Then again, why would they want to - it provides the military industrial complex with more reasons to lobby for more money, for more weapons, for more troops, and also allows the contractors to up their game as well.

There were probably more al-Quaida in Afganistan before we got there. All we do is push them back. I believe that was Obama's entire point last night. We pushed them deeper into Afganistan while "distracted" with Iraq. Now, we're in Afganistan -- so they're heading to Pakistan.

Which frankly I am surprised more people aren't talking about. He spent the better portion of 15 minutes talking about entering Pakistan, as partners of course, in order to remove al-Quaida from there as well.

Further, I believe you would also have to add the Taliban to these numbers.

The Taliban, a Muslim fundamentalist group, took control of Afghanistan's government in 1996 and ruled until the 2001 U.S.-led invasion drove it from power. Despite its ouster, however, remnants of the Taliban have maintained influence in rural regions south and east of Kabul. The group is known for having provided safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda as well as for its rigid interpretation of Islamic law, under which it publicly executed criminals and outlawed the education of women. Though the group has been out of power for several years, it remains a cultural force in the region that operates parallel governance structures aimed at undermining the U.S.-backed central government. Clashes between Taliban-linked fighters and coalition forces increased in the first half of 2008 and continued in 2009, highlighting the Taliban's resurgence and complicating efforts by NATO and U.S. forces to stabilize the country. The Pakistani army, meanwhile, is tackling its own Taliban insurgency.

Link: www.cfr.org...


[edit on 2-12-2009 by lpowell0627]

These troops are for Iran, not Afghanistan.

Look at a map of Iran, its clear a desert attack would be better then a mountain attack.

We can now easily have 120,000 troops in Iran on a 24 hour notice.

"100 or fewer al-Qaida"

They moved to someplace warm for the winter.

Even Taliban attacks slow in the winter as they find someplace warm till spring.
query.nytimes.com...