more u.s. combat deaths. as somebody who commanded the mission in afghanistan for several years, what happens now? what happens next from here? well, just let s start by putting it in perspective, hallie. the four years i was supreme allied commander of nato of course this is a nato mission, we lost about 1700 troops in action, about a third from european nations. so the good news here is that the number of casualties has gone down significantly because we ve reduced our force level. when i commanded the mission, we had 150,000 troops in country. we re now down to about 14,000. so we re making progress and stepping back from this thing. what happens next is a negotiated end. that s what happens with insurgencies typically. what we want to avoid is setting artificial deadlines for a complete withdrawal. that s what i m concerned about
doing enhancing force criminal code, a person protection. so think about it, they could be convicted of treason faces building up walls, doing things to enhance the security of u.s. anywhere between five years in forces there in the region. prison to the death penalty, a potential $10,000 fine, and there s also going to be a fighter squadron that goes in. something that, again, there is would be disqualified from already in the region. holding public office. you know, one thing we need to back in the 1950s, julius and remember when we re talking about this force level in ethel rosenberg passed atomic centcom, any time there s bomb secrets to the soviets. between 60,000 to 80,000 u.s. they were convicted on espionage troops that are assigned to the charges and were executed in 1953. this charge is important because central command region. they were not convicted of when talking of fewer than 1,000 treason because treason is only troops, it s a relatively small aid to an enemy, and thoug
those things, which afghanistan needs at a force level of 9,800 than it would be if we wound down faster. so that s one of the reasons. i do need to go. see the defense minister on the republic of korea if anybody wants to join us. on the drawdown plan, we re hearing it s not a calendar-based plan. but it sounds like it s a plan. i m wondering if the commander at the time at the end of 2016 says we don t want to go down to 5,500, how big of a lift would it be to reassess that and let the 9,800 stay?
level of 9,800, then it would be if we wound down faster. that s one of the reasons. gordon, one for gordon just for old-time s sake since we were on an airplane last week. i do need to go see the defense minister of the republic of south korea if anybody wants to join us. on the drawdown plan, we re hearing it s not a calendar-bised plan on the 5,500 at the end of 2016. but it sounds like it is a counter-based plan. so i m wondering, if the commander at the time at the end of 2016 says, we don t want to go down to 5,500, how big of a lift would it be to reassess that and let the 9,800 stay? i can t say that. it s a long time from now, a
be easier for us to achieve those things which afghanistan needs at a force level of 9800 than it would be if we wound down faster. that s one of the reasons. gordon. one for gordon just for old times sakes. he and i were on an airplane all last week, and might be again. i do need to see the defense minister on the republic of career. anybody wants to join us. just on the draw down plan, we re hearing it s not calendar based plan on the 5500 into 20 effort at the end of 2016. it sounds like it is a counter base plan. if the commanders at the time next fall, at the end of 2016, says we don t want to go down to 5500, how big of a lift would it be to reassess that and let the