President Barack Obama’s December 1 speech at West Point was meant to justify sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion per year, but he neglected to mention one small detail: U.S. intelligence officials estimate there are as few as 100 al-Qaeda operatives in all of Afghanistan.

President Obama called the al-Qaeda presence there a “cancer,” but ABC News reported on December 2 that a senior U.S. intelligence official told them that “the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department.” Obama was made aware of this so he could factor it into his decision on whether or not to send in more troops.

Obama did not focus on the size of al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan when he spoke, but rather said merely that “al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border." U.S. intelligence officials believe there are several hundred al-Qaeda fighters just across the Pakistani border, and an Obama administration official said the additional troops were needed to “sandwich” them between Pakistan and Afghanistan, preventing them from re-gaining a foothold in Afghanistan.

"So the real question is will Pakistan do enough," said former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant. "What if they take all the money we given them but don't really follow through? What [is] the strategy then?"

The December 2 ABC News article clearly spelled out the hefty price tag for dealing with so few terrorists: “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 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.”

Some counter-terror analysts claim the number of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is not as important as their ability to recruit and train others in the Taliban. “A hundred 'no foolin' al Qaeda operatives operating in a safe haven can do a hell of a lot of damage," said one former intelligence official with extensive experience in the region.

Though there may be truth in that assessment, the former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified at a Senate hearing that al-Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan. "So in terms of 'in Afghanistan,' " queried Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), "they have been disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?" "That's true," answered Grenier.

In the midst of recession, deficits, national debt, and expensive healthcare reform proposals, the United States is spending $300 million and putting 1,000 American lives in danger for each remaining al-Qaeda agent in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda may never have to attack another U.S. target if they can keep our federal government spending America into the poorhouse and shipping more U.S. troops overseas, basically bringing targets to al-Qaeda for them to shoot at.

Enough is enough; bring America’s sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers home now!

Photo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

T. Lopez said:

... Haven't you heard? We reckon federal expenditures in the hundreds of BILLIONS these days. A couple hundred million here or there is chump change what with all those fabulous green jobs the stimulus package created. Heck 300 million is also the going cost for a vote for "healthcare reform" in the Senate these days too! So actually for the cost of one measley year of war in Iraq the President's healthcare bill can pass unanimously!

December 05, 2009

T. Lopez said:

... But seriously though it is as good point that there's a pretty good chance that al Quadea and their Taliban buddies (the Whermacht to Al Qaeda's SS if you will) might make tracks over to Pakistan's tribal (lawless areas). So I'm sure you will join me (and President Obama who said much the same thing last year a s I recall) in supporting an immediate and unilatteral invasion of Pakistan to crush the remaining Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. Of course it is entirely possible that with additional forces US troops might be avble to launch a large scale offensive against the insurgents, using superior firepower and mobility to destroy the enemy in tactical encounters while simultaneously gaining an operational advantage by controlling the battlespace through civilian protection and security operations thereby forcing said terrorists and insurgents to retreat across the border and allowing the authorities in Kabul and Kandahar time to reconsolidate their positions, strength the internal structure of the Afghan state, and establish a kind of peaceful normality that is so important for a well functioning society and lately missing from that country. But when does that ever happen? But of course we can simply hold out hope that the President's commitment to diplomacy will pay off and Secretary Clinton or Envoy Holebroke, or one of those vaunted Tsars (I prefer this spelling, myself) might convince the Pakistanis to finally go balls to the wall on their domestic jihadi problems. or maybe they can just cede the whole region to Iran in exchange for a super secret unbreakable pinky-swear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not to develop nuclear weapons and then hold Western Europe's cowardly feet to the fire of nuclear halocaust in exchange for all sorts of goodies and attention and the like. Or maybe in a few years Americans can elect someone who actually knows what they are doing.

December 05, 2009

T. Lopez said:

... Then again if I know my countrymen they will gradually drift back into their post cold-war pre 9/11 global indifference until the next bunch of globetrotting radicals decides to kill a few thousand Americans and bring our economy to its knees for a year or so for insane ideological or theological or just plain illogical reasons. My money is on a group of cyber terrorists incensed at high inflation and its deletrious effects on their digital pornography buying power plowing a jumbo jet into the playboy mansion. Or perhaps a group of former climate researchers from East Anglia taking over a coal plant and threatening to "destroy the planet by running the plant night and day until the ice caps melt and the polar bears die" without realizing how little anyone cares. But you know, life's really just a craps shoot.

December 05, 2009

Bonnie said:

... Supposedly, the Cold War ended because the (semi) free market economy of the United States was able to pressure the socialist economy of the Soviet Union into submission and collapse through bankruptcy. That may be PARTIALLY true, but we need to keep in mind that the international bankers were using the American economy to subsidize (i.e., support) the Soviet Union in the first place. Note also that the alleged "collapse" was more illusion than anything else. The situation with al Queda is similar, but with a twist: The American economy is subsidizing al Queda while al Queda is causing us to drive ourselves into collapse and bankruptcy. In this case, the collapse is going to be real.

December 05, 2009

dale said:

Obama continues to work the "New World Order" machine, now in Pakistan? When one looks at the world economies today and where many were 10-15 years ago we see an emerging picture of "true New World Order". The need for troops in Afganistan or Pakistan doesn't need to be for protection against the "fear threat of Terrorism", but for a need to manipulate and try to control world power play in political & economical means. If you look at China & Russia today you see the emergence of prominent "Super Power" players in the world. With the vast resources of Russia, and the misconception that the "Cold War" has truly ended Russia sits in a very lucrative position to regain Super Power status. This at a very high price for most the rest of the world, unless you believe and trust in Communist dictatorship, socialist governments & their guided societies. China also has vast resources, plus and fair economy but it hinges much on North American support for purchasing & supporting its production machine. China's vast low cost labor resources also have been a positive for China's position to "take on" anyone that tried to bump heads with China. Word always was, if war started with China, they could keep marching accross the border daily and if you kept firing you probably would run out of ammo before you could stop them. But true case in point is that much of the " old world powers that be- or that have been" such as USA, England,France,Spain,Germany, have much to fear if either China or Russia make a solid stride towards gaining SuperPower status in today's world economy. Pray for intervention. GOD Bless America, the land I love!

December 06, 2009

British Bloke said:

The Surge The only thing wrong with the troop surge is the timing. It should not have taken this many years to figure out the resources needed to 'win'. I'm not going to cut and paste - I just typed all this up here: http://wp.me/pHMG9-1I

December 07, 2009 | url