AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 64 Posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1032 times:
Things haven't been going well between U.S. President Obama and Afghanistan's President Karsai lately. Plans are now apparently afoot to reduce the U.S. presence from a current force of around 63,000 to a small residual force of 8,000.
Quote: The United States is considering pulling out all its troops from Afghanistan next year, U.S. officials said, amid tension between the President Barack Obama's administration and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government.
Obama is committed to wrapping up U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but the United States has been talking with officials in Afghanistan about keeping a small residual force there of perhaps 8,000 troops.
U.S. officials did not deny a report that Obama has become increasingly frustrated by his dealings with Karzai. Their relationship fell to new depths after last month's U.S. move to open peace talks with the Taliban, which led Karzai to suspend talks on a security pact between the two allies.
I'm not really sure what we're accomplishing in Afghanistan at the moment other than keeping the Taliban at bay. But there's got to be a time when the Afghan's take charge of their own destiny.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7881 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 991 times:
The only problem with leaving totally is that there have been some major natural resources found there a few years back and those would be a major power in supporting terrorism. If that becomes an issue ewe could, of course, bomb those resources and their delivery systems.
Otherwise I believe that it's time to move out as fast as we can pull out ALL of the military assets, including jeeps & trucks.
We can also cut off any funding when we leave - they now have the assets.
As far as the Taliban, tell them we are going, but will respond with vigor if they play games. That's what drones are for.
dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8380 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 969 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Thread starter): I'm not really sure what we're accomplishing in Afghanistan at the moment other than keeping the Taliban at bay.
Hardly at bay. The US is now in direct talks with the Taliban, and the Afghan government is being cut out of the talks - hence Karzai's anger. Basically the US is getting ready to throw the Afghan government under the bus - the Taliban will charge in as soon as we leave.
But frankly, I don't care anymore. Let them kill each other. And if another terrorist group starts making a problem of itself and starts attacking us or our allies from Afghanistan, we should tell them right now in no uncertain terms that we will not go in with troops, and conduct a restrained operation of trying to avoid any civilian casualties. We will level the cities and towns where we feel the attacks came from. And if the government appears to be supportive of the terrorists, as in 2001, Kabul goes bye-bye.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6664 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 958 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
The right will never go for that. It will reduce the deficit. They want low deficits when a right-winger is in the White House but scream about how high the deficits are when a Democrat is in office.
Actually I've heard a ton of "right wingers" say they want to withdraw from Afghanistan. A lot of them add their 2c about the President in their reasoning, but out is out. Where do you get your right-wing information from? A lot of it is the extreme 1% or just plain flawed...
Pvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 931 times:
I hope the new future Taliban government would understand that supporting terrorism against west just isn't worth it and would just concentrate on their goal of keeping Afghanistan in stone age and under strict Islamic laws. If they do that then USA or anyone else should have no reason to attack them any way.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7881 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 913 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): Obama has so mismanage Afghanistan it is pathetic.
IIRC correctly it was Bush/Cheney/Rummy who sent the troops to Afghanistan in order to go after OBL.
Then the Administration redirected their attention to Iraq, basically turning their back on Afghanistan, leaving it to Obama to go (successfully) go after OBL.
So for me the mismanagement was the initial ignoring the real job of going after OBL and going after OIL instead in Iraq.
Mismanagement in terms of the supposedly WMSs in Iraq is something that any reasonable and responsible American will find unacceptable.
Those decision in the Bush/Cheney Years will cost US taxpayers trillions over the years - 4, 5, or 6 trillion dollars? Doesn't matter really as any of those future costs equally demonstrate the mismanagement of the W Administration.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2647 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 892 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): Obama has so mismanage Afghanistan it is pathetic.
True, but he is following along nicely in the dishonourable footsteps of his predecessors. Iraq and Afghanistan are clearcut examples of what happens when a countries base their foreign policy on cultural ignorance, an appalling lack of historical knowledge, and wishful thinking about the potential outcomes.
Given more than 100 years of failed British interventions, PM Harold MacMillan said in the 1950s that the first rule of politics was, never invade Afghanistan. It doesn't surprise me that Bush/Cheney would be ignorant of that maxim, but how in God's name could Blair have been unaware of it?
What a sorry mess was made over there -- and at the cost of so many many lives.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6664 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 835 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7): IIRC correctly it was Bush/Cheney/Rummy who sent the troops to Afghanistan in order to go after OBL.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 9): I'm sorry...I must be in an alternate universe. Was it Obama who invaded Afghanistan and then went to Iraq?
Not taking any sides here, but he is saying that since the period of transition from GWB to President Obama and after the initial getting into office/getting acquainted with everything, he has mismanaged it. I doubt he's blaming President Obama for stuff that has happened before or right as President Obama took office
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3821 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 772 times:
Quoting dreadnought (Reply 4): Hardly at bay. The US is now in direct talks with the Taliban, and the Afghan government is being cut out of the talks - hence Karzai's anger. Basically the US is getting ready to throw the Afghan government under the bus - the Taliban will charge in as soon as we leave.
It's not that Karzai is getting cut out of the talks, it is that he is trying to make demands on the US that would further our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Basically Karzai wants the US to declare Pakistan as the greatest threat and ensure the security of Afghanistan. Karzai wants all the benefits of leadership with none of the work. His government will not stand under that type of setup. The Taliban unfortunately wields power of fear and ignorance in Afghanistan and I do not see that changing in the next few decades.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.