Kimberly and Frederick W. Kagan's recent commentary in The Washington Post, arguing for a force of 30,000 or more Americans in Afghanistan after 2014, is fundamentally wrong. Although their goals are sound — preventing terrorist attacks from the region on the United States — the writers' logic and conclusions about the resources required are flawed. It is possible to protect U.S. interests across that region after 2014 with a force in Afghanistan of 10,000 or fewer American troops.
The U.S. has two vital interests in that part of the world: preventing terrorist attacks on this country and its allies, and preventing nuclear weapons or materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. Protecting these interests after 2014 will require the U.S. to be able to launch precision military strikes from this region. But it will not require tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Scores of news reports describe robust U.S. counterterrorism campaigns across the globe. The U.S. employs drones, special operations forces and strikes with precision munitions across the Horn of Africa, in Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula, in the Philippines and probably in several other less public places. All of these nations also face some levels of deadly insurgent and terrorist attacks but counter them largely with their own forces, while small teams of Americans focus on counterterrorism and limited advisory missions.