We have the smallest navy since 1916, we have the lowest number of troops since the end of the Second World War. We've got to work with the congress and Donald Trump will, to rebuild our military and project American strength in the world.
In Desert Storm, we had too many troops; in Afghanistan probably not enough for the major commitment we have made.
I was heartened to hear the President say that as we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels.
Now, I know there are many Americans who say, 'Get out of Afghanistan. Bring 'em all home.' And there are others who say, 'Put in hundreds of thousands of more.'
We also very importantly recommend continued growth in the Army and the Marine Corps end strength.
In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort.
Like Vietnam, Afghanistan was never about troop levels; it is about how troops are utilized.
I'm sorry, there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with.
The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point.
As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists. These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.
