Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) appeared on Hardball tonight and claimed that the U.S. will have more troops in Afghanistan than the Soviets did during their invasion in the 1980s.
"This is a very complicated thing and a very costly operation ... We got a lot of problems facing us. 104,000 contractors already in Afghanistan in addition to the 68,000 troops. We're gonna have more troops, Chris, than the Russian had in Afghanistan," he said. (See TPMmuckraker's story on those 104,000 contractors.)
Murtha told Chris Matthews that he has misgivings about President Obama's new strategy for the war, including focusing on Afghanistan instead of Pakistan.
But his point made us wonder -- will the U.S. really have more troops in Afghanistan than the Soviets did?
Technically, no. At the height of the war, in 1986, there were about 118,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, according to an American University study. Today, with the 30,000 more American troops being sent to Afghanistan, the U.S. commitment will top out at about 100,000.
So we have fewer troops. But we're not alone, and the Associated Press estimates that the total number of troops, including Americans and NATO allies, will be about 140,000.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. They pulled out, defeated, ten years later.
jollyroger
December 2, 2009 6:59 PM
Hey, give Murtha a break--He was factoring in those privatized troops. One thing of which we can have no doubt--there was no Chorny Water guarding the Soviet stooges.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 2, 2009 7:47 PM
"Costly" you say? Murtha is probably wondering how much of a take he could get out of this...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
December 3, 2009 7:49 AM
We must keep everything in perspective: USA (occupying forces, bombs) good; USSR (occupying forces, bombs) bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
December 3, 2009 8:26 AM
This is a rare example of a post where the journalist manages to sound less informed in her analysis than the politician she quotes, and attempts to fact-check.
"104,000 contractors already in Afghanistan", what part of that is hard to understand? Why ignore it completely? The logical fact-checking would have been to assess whether the Soviet Union hired any kind of contractors (or equivalent), and how many.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?