Afghanistan pullout

[ElNono]

Announced last night by the Prez (link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-afghanistan-20110623,0,4819891.story))

Thoughts?

[Wild Cobra]

Announced last night by the Prez (link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-afghanistan-20110623,0,4819891.story))

Thoughts?
There's actually a C-Span video on that to. Meant to link it, but got sidetracked. I'll see if I can find it again.

He was speaking of reducing our presence by 10,000 by the end of year. Not exactly a pullout.

[Wild Cobra]

Here it is, from yesterday:

C-Span: Presidential Address on Troop Levels in Afghanistan (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TroopLeve)

[ElNono]

The announcement includes pulling out another 20k by next summer, IIRC. That's basically the entire 'surge'.

[Wild Cobra]

The announcement includes pulling out another 20k by next summer, IIRC. That's basically the entire 'surge'.
And effectively out by 2014. Still, too far out to consider a done deal when considering changing conditions.

Here's another video some may find interesting:

C-Span, today: Secretary of State Clinton testified on U.S. goals and progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Goalsand)

[EVAY]

Three reactions:

1. It is cynically political, acting as though he is actually making a difference when it can't be much of a difference.

2. He was quite correct in asserting that we can't just walk away from the place without it reverting to the same thing it was before we went in there...i.e. a haven for terrorists of any stripe.

3. It has once again proven to be "the place where empires go to die", so we are all war-weary and they are all corrupt and nobody wants to be there anymore but we are stuck with being there for the foreseeable future, in some capacity...just like Iraq.

No good options exist...so he just punted and tried to pretend that he wasn't punting.

[koriwhat]

oh, the ol' tride and true "afghan pullout". make sure to cum all over that burka!

[EVAY]

The more interesting question, to me, El Nono, is what he said about Libya. I don't want any boots on the ground in Libya, and it seemed to me that he was taking pains to explain that we have to support a move by our allies just as they have supported us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, we are just gonna bomb them and not provide troop support.

It was, to me, another example of trying to have it both ways.

[ElNono]

My opinion is that we should've GTFO (at least) 3+ years ago. The reality is that nobody in that shithole wants to change anything, so why keep burning money in that pit?
It's only a matter of time until them (Iraq too, IMO) will revert back to being a clusterfuck. If you're worried about terror, then spend all that money you're spending there securing the borders properly. I guarantee it will be a lot cheaper and way more effective. Not to mention that the fear of training camps is somewhat irrelevant, because I'm willing to bet those things also exist (or can be set up) in Syria, Lybia, regions of Africa and that's just locations off the top of my head.

[ElNono]

BTW, I completely concur this is mostly a political move looking at the elections. Much like the recent release of oil reserves to start driving the oil price down.

[Stringer_Bell]

It's not pulling out if you leave more than the tip still in.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, I completely concur this is mostly a political move looking at the elections. Much like the recent release of oil reserves to start driving the oil price down.
Maybe it's suppose to look that way. Maybe the oil prices were projected to come down, and this is a political ploy to make it look like policies worked.

I guess we will see after the end of the release.

[jack sommerset]

Barry sent 30,000 more and by election time he is taking them out?

[lefty]

There is no opium left?

[Creepn]

Just pull the hell out already! Of course they are going to go back to their way of life because well, that's their way! Only way to prevent that would be if Americans started living there and that would be hell. It would be another Israel enduring countless attacks from neighboring states. We initially invaded to disband the Taliban and to take out Osama right? We did that already, mission done.

I just don't think rehabilitation of this country will achieve the result we want no matter how long we stay. I just don't see it.

[SnakeBoy]

The announcement includes pulling out another 20k by next summer, IIRC. That's basically the entire 'surge'.

That hardly qualifies as a pullout. Getting fucked by a semi-flaccid penis is still getting fucked.

[Winehole23]

SnakeBoy has a point. US troop levels will be about where they were when Obama took office, after the "pullout."

[Trainwreck2100]

Just pull the hell out already! Of course they are going to go back to their way of life because well, that's their way! Only way to prevent that would be if Americans started living there and that would be hell. It would be another Israel enduring countless attacks from neighboring states. We initially invaded to disband the Taliban and to take out Osama right? We did that already, mission done.

I just don't think rehabilitation of this country will achieve the result we want no matter how long we stay. I just don't see it.

they were but then they found that mineral deposit so mine baby mine

[ElNono]

SnakeBoy has a point. US troop levels will be about where they were when Obama took office, after the "pullout."


The announcement includes pulling out another 20k by next summer, IIRC. That's basically the entire 'surge'.

Exactly

[ElNono]

Barry sent 30,000 more and by election time he is taking them out?

Basically

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol why must usa support the dumb cunt french/uk wankers going after a small oil reserve country? lmao

seriously they did shit all in iraq/afghanistan, what 4000 troops on the floor is like only 2-4% what the american put on the ground...

fck this....

[RandomGuy]

We will be in Afghanistan for another decade or so, quite possibly a bit longer.

Obama seems to be angling a high-risk strategy that provides cover for him to say he is drawing down the war for the 2012 election.

No matter who wins the 2012 election, Obama or Republican A/B/C, a "review" will be called for in early 2013, and it will be found that the goverment in Kabul is weak, ineffectual, and likely to lose out to the Taliban. Yeah, I predict that. Suck it, save it, and throw it in my face if I am wrong.

This will be used as the justification for staying there in strength for the foreseeable future. This may be cynical, but I have little doubt that it was part of the calculus.

I think we will, in the long run, win out. We will have pulled Afghanistan out of the 14th century, and that will have some long-running repercussions, hopefully positive.

A threatened pull-out will sharpen the resolve of those in charge to actually get off their asses and quit letting the Americans take care of everything. That will be a good thing.

Lastly, I think we should be there, and stay there, until we can cut them loose with some skeleton of an army and functioning government.

The alternative, is to abandon central Asia to the al Qaeda ideology, and let it fester for another generation. That didn't work out so well for us the first time we tried it.

[CosmicCowboy]

When military decisions are made for political reasons they usually end badly. Remember pulling out of Vietnam and the fall of Saigon?...

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg/120px-Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

[Winehole23]

It was set up that way, CC. In our system, civil power calls the shots, for better and for worse.

[Winehole23]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/u-s-house-defeats-resolution-authorizing-u-s-military-mission-in-libya.html

[boutons_deux]

"It was set up that way, CC In our system, civil power calls the shots"

The MIC and VRWC have been calling the shots for 30 years, at least. War is just profits for the them. The politicians are hired to go along.

[Winehole23]

War is a business that lobbies the government. Politicians come and go, but the store never closes.

[Capt Bringdown]

A decade long war in Afghanistan in response to a few Saudis with boxcutters. Support the troops!

[RandomGuy]

When military decisions are made for political reasons they usually end badly.

I disagree.


War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means.

War has always been subject to politics.

Vietnam was less the fault of political decision-making and that of upper military brass trying to re-fight WW2 in Europe in SE Asia in 1968. Could better political decisions been made? Sure. But I would not say that they "usually" end badly, simply because military operations are effected by politics.

To be clear:
I do think that politics can *definitely* make military affairs worse, I just don't think that one necessarily precedes the other by definition.

[RandomGuy]

a decade long war in afghanistan in response to a few saudis with boxcutters [trained and supported in camps permitted by the afghanistani taliban]. Support the troops!

fify. ;)

[Winehole23]

When Republicans vote to undermine the President's war aims, you might take that as a sign the relentlessly pro-war edifice is showing a few cracks.

[Capt Bringdown]

fify. ;)

OK, a decade long war on training camps.

[Winehole23]

For about ten years there it was like everybody's face froze.

[RandomGuy]

OK, a decade long war on training camps.

The training camps were gone long ago.

If you don't take out the government that allowed them in the first place, then you simply get them right back after you leave.

We can't go until we have a government there capable and willing to keep those kinds of camps from coming right back.

As I said, we let central Asia fester once, and it didn't do us much good, although it would be highly amusing to me to see this area become China's problem.

[Winehole23]

As I said, we let central Asia fester once, and it didn't do us much good...Fighting the previous war, waving the bloody shirt.

Coming from you, that's a rather weak rhetorical sally, don't you think?

[Capt Bringdown]

The training camps were gone long ago.

If you don't take out the government that allowed them in the first place, then you simply get them right back after you leave.

We can't go until we have a government there capable and willing to keep those kinds of camps from coming right back.

As I said, we let central Asia fester once, and it didn't do us much good, although it would be highly amusing to me to see this area become China's problem.

A 10 year occupation/nation-building effort in order to prevent the possibility of training camps.

[mingus]

U.S. is going to need to invest a lot militarily in major terrorist centers as long as we continue to help Israel the way we are. and U.S. support for Israel will never stop.

the worst thing that can happen would be for one of these groups to get their hands on a nuke because we've let them grow and prosper because we're not there to police what's going on.

shitty, shitty situation we're in. but an even shittier one would be one where these idiots get their hands on a nuke and drop it on D.C. or NY.

[mingus]

We will be in Afghanistan for another decade or so, quite possibly a bit longer.

Obama seems to be angling a high-risk strategy that provides cover for him to say he is drawing down the war for the 2012 election.

No matter who wins the 2012 election, Obama or Republican A/B/C, a "review" will be called for in early 2013, and it will be found that the goverment in Kabul is weak, ineffectual, and likely to lose out to the Taliban. Yeah, I predict that. Suck it, save it, and throw it in my face if I am wrong.

This will be used as the justification for staying there in strength for the foreseeable future. This may be cynical, but I have little doubt that it was part of the calculus.

I think we will, in the long run, win out. We will have pulled Afghanistan out of the 14th century, and that will have some long-running repercussions, hopefully positive.

A threatened pull-out will sharpen the resolve of those in charge to actually get off their asses and quit letting the Americans take care of everything. That will be a good thing.

Lastly, I think we should be there, and stay there, until we can cut them loose with some skeleton of an army and functioning government.

The alternative, is to abandon central Asia to the al Qaeda ideology, and let it fester for another generation. That didn't work out so well for us the first time we tried it.

exactly. 9/11 scratches the surface of what can happen to this country if we let these groups grow. all this work for absolutely nothing.

[boutons_deux]

"what can happen to this country if we let these groups grow"

total bullshit.

WTC occurred because the Repugs were too busy vacationing in summer of 2001 after ramming through with Senate reconciliation their tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) while totally ignoring AQ and terrorism, and Clinton's and other's departing warnings.

Iraq and Afghanistan prove we waste more $Ts and 100Ks lives fighting these useless wars while "we're broke".

[boutons_deux]

The training camps were gone long ago.

If you don't take out the government that allowed them in the first place, then you simply get them right back after you leave.

We can't go until we have a government there capable and willing to keep those kinds of camps from coming right back.

As I said, we let central Asia fester once, and it didn't do us much good, although it would be highly amusing to me to see this area become China's problem.

UCA is totally corrupt and its democracy is a charade. But you think the UCA can establish "freedom and democracy" in backward, tribal, ethnically divided, totally corrupt, institution-less Afghanistan, and you support spending $110B+/year until <years>, until "their government there capable and willing"?

Guns or butter? no contest, guns will always win it because UCA makes $Ts from the guns, while there's no butter, "we're broke", for the poor, sick, young, old, disabled, schools, public services.

[RandomGuy]

Fighting the previous war, waving the bloody shirt.

Coming from you, that's a rather weak rhetorical sally, don't you think?

What exactly is this non-sequitur supposed to mean??? I am genuinely at a loss as to exactly what you are trying to get across.

Could you, for once, maybe, please, expand the idea a bit, instead of some snarky pissant one-liner?

[Winehole23]

Aesthetic observation.

Your attempt to persuade was perfunctory, your sauce was weak, and don't blame me if you can't keep up.

[Winehole23]

(Waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 got old years ago, but it never got any less pompous.)

[SnakeBoy]

Does anyone know if RG was such a hawk when Bush was in office or did this just come about because "his guy" is the neocon in chief now.

[boutons_deux]

According to extreme leftist/socialist/communist/anti-American NPR, $20B/year for only running A/C alone in Iraq and Afghanistan. UCA always chooses guns over butter.

[RandomGuy]

Does anyone know if RG was such a hawk when Bush was in office or did this just come about because "his guy" is the neocon in chief now.

I have always been something of a hawk.

That said, Iraq was a bad idea, executed with what amounts to criminal negligence for the first 3 years. Bush deserves to be in jail.

Afghanistan on the other hand was the right war, fought for the right reasons, but fought poorly and without sufficient resources because of Bush's fucktarded adventure in Iraq.

[RandomGuy]

Aesthetic observation.

Your attempt to persuade was perfunctory, your sauce was weak, and don't blame me if you can't keep up.

There is a vast difference between cleverness and obscurity. I will blame you if you can't tell the difference. It is your job to make yourself clear, not mine.

[RandomGuy]

(Waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 got old years ago, but it never got any less pompous.)

Sorry I didn't get your "can't draw any logical conclusions from 9/11" memo.

Just because you might find the reference "old" or "pompous", doesn't make the point any less valid. Had I but known you were the arbiter of coolness in regards to logical arguments, I would have vetted it before posting.

The reality is that our security threats don't come from large nation states anymore. It comes from the parts of the world with less-than-functional governments.

China, for all the concern, is severely limited in its ability to threaten us militarily by the amount of trade it conducts.

We are left with having to cope with other nation's failings, such as Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. These countries have historically not had much in the way of government, and have harbored individuals with caustic ideas, sometimes with the blessings of the nominal government, often not.

Somalia, a nation where we are not so engaged as we are in Afghanistan, has become something of a magnet for wannabe mujahadeen to establish a new theocratic islamic state. Were we not to attempt to counter this, the fanaticism and financing of these elements would quite possibly give them the upper hand in the squabbles.

These kinds of second and third order consequences from what we do or don't do, catch up with us.

Our abandonment of Afghanistan provided perfect opportunity for the Pakistani-supported muslim fanatic groups to seize power in the vacuum left by the Soviet withdrawal. This was the first order consequence. The second order consequence was that these groups, having used the outside arab fighters to kick out the Sovs, felt obligated to give them a free hand, and tacitly supported the training camps there.

These groups have not been so thoroughly discredited not to regain power should we leave, and create a similar vacuum.

The point that we ignored these areas once before and it bit us in the ass, is a very succinct way of summing this up.

[mingus]

According to extreme leftist/socialist/communist/anti-American NPR, $20B/year for only running A/C alone in Iraq and Afghanistan. UCA always chooses guns over butter.

Just curious. What's your answer to containing terrorist groups in Afghanistan? You think these groups won't grow and get stronger w/o our being there?

We've basically just found out Pakistan has been an accomplice with these terrorists and it's widely thought that Pakistan has nuclear capability Iirc.

Were learning worse shit about the Middle East and your answer to this is what? Because it means nothing to criticize w/o providing a more viable alternative.

[Blake]

Just curious. What's your answer to containing terrorist groups in Afghanistan? You think these groups won't grow and get stronger w/o our being there?

We've basically just found out Pakistan has been an accomplice with these terrorists and it's widely thought that Pakistan has nuclear capability Iirc.

Were learning worse shit about the Middle East and your answer to this is what? Because it means nothing to criticize w/o providing a more viable alternative.

Who exactly do you think the terrorists groups will terrorize if/when we leave?

[ElNono]

Just curious. What's your answer to containing terrorist groups in Afghanistan? You think these groups won't grow and get stronger w/o our being there?

We've basically just found out Pakistan has been an accomplice with these terrorists and it's widely thought that Pakistan has nuclear capability Iirc.

Were learning worse shit about the Middle East and your answer to this is what? Because it means nothing to criticize w/o providing a more viable alternative.

So when are we invading Pakistan instead of giving them billions of dollars in 'aid' every year? Wouldn't invading Pakistan be a higher priority seeing they have nukes?

Is the solution to everything terror to invade other countries? Has the invasion of Afghanistan assured that terror won't breed in that area anymore? Could that assurance ever be accomplished?

Some stuff needs to be put into context. Paki's nukes are fairly well monitored by the international community (including largely the US), and they don't really have that much of a long range capability. They're mostly there to counter India's nuke capabilities, since they had pretty nasty border disputes forever. Doesn't mean that Paki's won't all of a sudden turn around and give the US the middle finger (which I think the only reason it hasn't happened yet is all this 'aid' we're handing out).

It's a much more complicated issue than 'if we camp there terrerists will cease and desist'.

I offered an alternative that's a lot less costly, which is to invest all that money in truly securing our borders. You can augment that with running sorties of missions to kill certain targets of interest when the Intel is there, and depending on the cost, you can also keep going with the unmanned drone missions. It's one idea. We just can't keep throwing stupid money at this and pretend it's going away.

[boutons_deux]

"What's your answer to containing terrorist groups in Afghanistan"

best defense is here in USA, not wasting 1000s of lives and $Ts over there.

The FBI is now totally out of control, no oversight and no accountability in spying on Human-Americans, so let's hope at least they don't fuck up again and miss an attack. BigPharma and air pollution kills more Human-Americans every year than terrorist ever have or ever dream of killing.

These backward countries, all of them totally corrupt without any traces democratic institutions (laws, courts, free elections, etc) and dominated by tribal/ethnic/religious factions, 100s of years behind Western/industrialized countries, will never in our lifetimes be anything different from what they are now.

Remember that AQ got going because the UCA was occupying OBL's sacred sands in Saudi Arabia. We brought this shit on ourselves, and gave MIC excuses to suck wealth out of Human-Americans' pockets, for decades and decades.

After 10 fucking years in Afganistan, UCA's kick ass multi-$T Army has effectively accomplished nothing (infiintely, they just "need a little more time") except enrich the MIC and impoverish Human-Americans.

[Wild Cobra]

I have always been something of a hawk.

That said, Iraq was a bad idea, executed with what amounts to criminal negligence for the first 3 years. Bush deserves to be in jail.

Afghanistan on the other hand was the right war, fought for the right reasons, but fought poorly and without sufficient resources because of Bush's fucktarded adventure in Iraq.
OMG...

You are clearly biased. There were definite clear cut reasons to go into Iraq that were stewing for years. Libya happened too fast.

I see in your eyes, Bush is always wrong, Obambam is always right.

[clambake]

what were the clearcut reasons?

[ElNono]

lol clearly biased :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

what were the clearcut reasons?

Sorry, if you didn't understand during those threads, you wont understand now, so I wont waste my time repeating it again.

[clambake]

Sorry, if you didn't understand during those threads, you wont understand now, so I wont waste my time.

why didn't you just say there were no clearcut reasons instead of wasting our time?

[Wild Cobra]

why didn't you just say there were no clearcut reasons instead of wasting our time?
There were clear reasons, but I have no desire to say the same things I said so many times before since I know you will respond the same way as before.

[clambake]

clearly, you don't know what "clear" means.

[boutons_deux]

"There were definite clear cut reasons to go into Iraq"

bullshit. Every "reason" was proven to be bullshit at best, a lie at worst. Iraq is all about oil, for the 10,000th time.

[Blake]

There were clear reasons, but I have no desire to say the same things I said so many times before since I know you will respond the same way as before.

the reasons may have been clear, but they were bad reasons.

You're right though in that there's no need for you to post these bad reasons.

[Winehole23]

Sorry I didn't get your "can't draw any logical conclusions from 9/11" memo.The conclusion that that we need to remain in Afghanistan for decades to come because bad guys might feel welcome there if we don't, is a sad parody of logic.

The reality is that our security threats don't come from large nation states anymore. It comes from the parts of the world with less-than-functional governments.The reality is that the danger of terrorism, and of Afghanistan to us, is overhyped. You're overhyping it.

The point that we ignored these areas once before and it bit us in the ass, is a very succinct way of summing this up.It's a big world. A terrorist can hide anywhere. Maybe we should occupy Hamburg Germany to prevent terrorists from regathering there.

[boutons_deux]

The Death of the Bush Doctrine

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is facing a showdown between the forces that want to shrink government and the forces that favor an interventionist foreign policy. The doctrine of small government is trumping the Bush Doctrine. The Tea Party is shoving aside the neo-conservatives.

Why did the Bush Doctrine die? Because it was too expensive. And because we learned a painful lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan: the U.S. military is no good at nation-building. Back in 2000, in a campaign debate with Al Gore, then-Gov. Bush warned, "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." We didn't, and we do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/the-death-of-the-bush-doc_b_885189.html?view=print

[RandomGuy]

OMG...

You are clearly biased. There were definite clear cut reasons to go into Iraq that were stewing for years. Libya happened too fast.

I see in your eyes, Bush is always wrong, Obambam is always right.

I supported the Bush administration when it went into Afghanistan.

I do not think the draw down in Afghanistan by Obama is a good idea.

I think that the Obama adminstration is clearly in violation of the War Powers act when it comes to Libya.

Sorry, your own bias, once again, leads you to completely miss reality.

The only thing I am really biased against is stupidity. This probably explains why your opinions generally drive me up the wall.

[RandomGuy]

The conclusion that that we need to remain in Afghanistan for decades to come because bad guys might feel welcome there if we don't, is a sad parody of logic.
The reality is that the danger of terrorism, and of Afghanistan to us, is overhyped. You're overhyping it.
It's a big world. A terrorist can hide anywhere. Maybe we should occupy Hamburg Germany to prevent terrorists from regathering there.

Starts with a strawman, and ends with a strawman, and *I'm* the one who is being illogical?

It isn't a matter of being welcome so much as being able to operate active training camps and run recruiting drives for the disaffected across the muslim world. This provided a direct operational capability that was leveraged into an active and very real threat.


The determination of the people who adhere to the AQ philosophy to kill you has in no way slacked off in the last decade. Your attitude is akin to someone who stops taking an antibiotic the instant they feel better.

I don't advocate occupying every country that might harbor a terrorist, that is your second distortion. Germany, and other developed countries with real functioning governments can do it themselves. If Afghanistan was as developed as Germany, we wouldn't be there, simply because we wouldn't need to be.

In general, I do think the threat posed by these asshats is quite overhyped. The measures we take to get on planes long ago passed any sane trade off between security and cost, in my opinion.

If you want to say that the danger of these people is "overhyped", then you will have to flesh that bit out. How? What would be the appropriate level of concern/action?

[coyotes_geek]

The conclusion that that we need to remain in Afghanistan for decades to come because bad guys might feel welcome there if we don't, is a sad parody of logic.

Seems like a fair point RG. It's been damn near a decade. How long are we supposed to stick it out there?

[ElNono]

It isn't a matter of being welcome so much as being able to operate active training camps and run recruiting drives for the disaffected across the muslim world. This provided a direct operational capability that was leveraged into an active and very real threat.

The determination of the people who adhere to the AQ philosophy to kill you has in no way slacked off in the last decade. Your attitude is akin to someone who stops taking an antibiotic the instant they feel better.

So your suggestion for stopping the breeding grounds for these people in Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, Northern Africa, etc (I'm sure i'm missing a few) is? We invade them all? How long we stay?

[RandomGuy]

Seems like a fair point RG. It's been damn near a decade. How long are we supposed to stick it out there?

That isn't quite what he said, but this is a much better question/point.

Until the country can field an army fairly capable of providing its own security.

The problem is that the religious and clan chiefs are the only law/justice/social system. One has to provide a rational alternative to the zealots, both in terms of the rule of law, but also in terms of actively improving people's lives.

I think that will take the better part of another decade. To be able to afford that, though, I think we should drastically draw down, and fully withdraw from Iraq.

Staying is a hard call to make, but would finally put to bed the general perception that we don't have the stomach for the long haul. Not that we should stay just to prove that point, but that would be one of the benefits, i.e. credibility.

[RandomGuy]

So your suggestion for stopping the breeding grounds for these people in Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, Northern Africa, etc (I'm sure i'm missing a few) is? We invade them all? How long we stay?

No, we should not invade them all. We should simply not ignore them.

We also need to make plain that the consequences for harboring these kinds of camps is that we will come knocking.

Most of those countries you named had semi-functional governments that allow us to negotiate with.

When you dont' have that, you may have to step in and nation-build to fill up the security vacuum. It is in that security vacuum that our threats come from.

Each instance has to be measured carefully. I am not for willy nilly adventurism, but measured, considered responses to threats.

[ElNono]

But the general american population does not have the stomach for the long haul, that's not a myth or perception... part of the reason the guy that's in the WH is there is because he ran on a end-the-wars platform.

How long is 'the long haul'? What's the criteria for finally GTFO? Do we need to do nation building there? How much that is going to cost us? Are they even willing to?

[Winehole23]

Until the country can field an army fairly capable of providing its own security.How long will that be?

[ElNono]

No, we should not invade them all. We should simply not ignore them.

We also need to make plain that the consequences for harboring these kinds of camps is that we will come knocking.

Most of those countries you named had semi-functional governments that allow us to negotiate with.

When you dont' have that, you may have to step in and nation-build to fill up the security vacuum. It is in that security vacuum that our threats come from.

Each instance has to be measured carefully. I am not for willy nilly adventurism, but measured, considered responses to threats.

But we known for years that a lot of those nations do that. Heck, we even armed some of those nations. We pay hard cold cash to some of them and call them 'allies'. We only went there when they finally knocked on our door.

Where does it end? When does it end? We rationally cannot keep this military spending, much less expand it.

[Winehole23]

If you want to say that the danger of these people is "overhyped", then you will have to flesh that bit out. How? What would be the appropriate level of concern/action?It should be more in line with the statistical risk of mortality and a mature estimate of the stability and security of the United States vis a vis particular terrorist groups.

[Winehole23]

If terrorists gathering on the other side of the world is a proximate threat to the USA, only a global empire can protect us from them.

[Winehole23]

-coffeetime -

[coyotes_geek]

That isn't quite what he said, but this is a much better question/point.

Until the country can field an army fairly capable of providing its own security.

The problem is that the religious and clan chiefs are the only law/justice/social system. One has to provide a rational alternative to the zealots, both in terms of the rule of law, but also in terms of actively improving people's lives.

I think that will take the better part of another decade. To be able to afford that, though, I think we should drastically draw down, and fully withdraw from Iraq.

Staying is a hard call to make, but would finally put to bed the general perception that we don't have the stomach for the long haul. Not that we should stay just to prove that point, but that would be one of the benefits, i.e. credibility.

Wouldn't the same arguement towards remaining in Afghanistan apply to Iraq as well? Regardless of how flawed the motives to go into Iraq were, the fact remains that we went and we're there. If the Iraqi government isn't capable of providing their own security and we're concerned that the bad guys may set up camp there once we leave, don't we need to stay?

[boutons_deux]

Afghan Local Police ‘Are A Major Threat To Civilians And Stability’

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ALP.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/27/255035/afghan-local-police-major-threat/

[RandomGuy]

It should be more in line with the statistical risk of mortality and a mature estimate of the stability and security of the United States vis a vis particular terrorist groups.

The statistical risk of mortality of a Nagasaki resident in 1944 from atomic weaponry was nil.

Do we need to wait until an event happens that sharply affects this statistical risk to deal with a problem?

I can think of several things that a well-armed group of jackasses could do to markedly affect the entire US, just off the top of my head, smuggled nukes being at the top of the list. That list includes quite a few fairly plausible operations within the known capabilities of AQ and its subsidiaries/affiliates that have little to do with nukes.

That kind of attack will seem remote, right up until it happens, just like airliners bringing down skyscrapers seemed in 1999.

Yeah, I went there, old bloody shirt or not. I don't buy completely into the "world changed" schtick, but I think we finally woke up to the potential threat that such asymetrical warfare poses.

[RandomGuy]

Wouldn't the same arguement towards remaining in Afghanistan apply to Iraq as well? Regardless of how flawed the motives to go into Iraq were, the fact remains that we went and we're there. If the Iraqi government isn't capable of providing their own security and we're concerned that the bad guys may set up camp there once we leave, don't we need to stay?

Iraq's military and security forces are markedly more capable than anything Afghanistan can field.

The argument does applly to Iraq, but that metric has mostly been met by what I can see, although I have not been keeping up with the day-to-day goings on in Iraq recently.

[EVAY]

But the general american population does not have the stomach for the long haul, that's not a myth or perception... part of the reason the guy that's in the WH is there is because he ran on a end-the-wars platform?

Well, in all honesty, he ran on a 'get out of Iraq platform. He said during his campaign that he believed that we should be in Afghanistan, and that Bush had 'taken his eye off the ball' in Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq for a lot of wrong reasons.

Having said that, the Afghan war does not seem to have any potential good result short of nation-building, a task that would take an army a hell of a long time to accomplish, since soldiers are generally not trained for that so much as they are for fighting.

And, since Afghanistan has never really had a tradition of a national identity or culture, it seems unlikely to develop one between now and 2014.

[ElNono]

Well, in all honesty, he ran on a 'get out of Iraq platform. He said during his campaign that he believed that we should be in Afghanistan, and that Bush had 'taken his eye off the ball' in Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq for a lot of wrong reasons.

Having said that, the Afghan war does not seem to have any potential good result short of nation-building, a task that would take an army a hell of a long time to accomplish, since soldiers are generally not trained for that so much as they are for fighting.

And, since Afghanistan has never really had a tradition of a national identity or culture, it seems unlikely to develop one between now and 2014.

Plus you can't force civilians to build what they don't want. You can try turning them against each other (tribes/factions), but it looks they don't want any part on a fight. Didn't want it when the Russian were there, don't see why they would want it now that the US is there. They don't give two shits about nation building.

[Winehole23]

Afghanistan's army costs almost as much as their government's yearly budget. It's a totally untenable situation, after a solid decade of war.

They're not ready to take over security from us -- for starters, they can't afford it. And we've made precious little headway training them to do it for themselves. After ten years.

Is more training really the answer here?

[Winehole23]

Do we need to wait until an event happens that sharply affects this statistical risk to deal with a problem?No. But perhaps we could manage it a bit more efficiently without occupying two central Asian countries indefinitely.

[Winehole23]

Surely the Afghans won't mind if we continue to occupy their land, suborn their government and shoot at them for another decade or two until they get their shit together.

[Winehole23]

Supposing of course that we can afford to do it for so long.

[Winehole23]

How long, RG?

[Winehole23]

We're practically talking to the Taliban right now. A political deal they're part of could happen in the near future.

[coyotes_geek]

Afghanistan's army costs almost as much as their government's yearly budget. It's a totally untenable situation, after a solid decade of war.

They're not ready to take over security from us -- for starters, they can't afford it. And we've made precious little headway training them to do it for themselves. After ten years.

Is more training really the answer here?

Agreed. I see no reason to expect a second decade of occupation to produce different results from the first. Time to go.

[ElNono]

Among the Costs of War: $20B In Air Conditioning
"The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning). That's more than NASA's budget. It's more than BP has paid so far for damage during the Gulf oil spill. It's what the G-8 has pledged to help foster new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia."

[LnGrrrR]

Among the Costs of War: $20B In Air Conditioning
"The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning). That's more than NASA's budget. It's more than BP has paid so far for damage during the Gulf oil spill. It's what the G-8 has pledged to help foster new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia."

1 billion alone probably goes to the server farms :lol

[Winehole23]

Agreed. I see no reason to expect a second decade of occupation to produce different results from the first. Time to go.Had we left by 2004 or so, by now the war might be considered a win. Now we have to start facing the fact that we lost.

[coyotes_geek]

Had we left in, say, 2004 or so, by now the war might be considered a win. Now we have to start facing the fact that we lost.

We could also just say that we were there to take the taliban out of power and to get OBL. Mission accomplished, hooray for us, let's go home.

[Winehole23]

Sure, why not. I'm cool with that.

[boutons_deux]

Are y'all forgetting the natural gas line from the Eastern Caspian sea area?

http://www.rense.com/general15/game.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

[coyotes_geek]

What about it?

[Winehole23]

Geostrategery related to subsoil minerals.

[Winehole23]

Tell us more, maestro.

[coyotes_geek]

Sounds like something fun for Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to figure out amongst themselves.

[coyotes_geek]

Tell us more, maestro.


What about it?

boutons: has nothing to say. GFY.

[boutons_deux]

Are Attacks On U.S. Troops Up In Iraq Because Gates, Panetta Say U.S. Will Stay?


Top American officials, like outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his replacement Leon Panetta, in recent months have been saying publicly — often times in Iraq — that the U.S. military will stay in Iraq past the Dec. 31, 2011 withdrawal deadline if the Iraqis ask. At the same time, American casualties have sharply increased. This month marked the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since May 2009. Over at Foreign Policy Passport, Robert Zeigler reports that, according to a former Iraqi U.N. diplomat, “U.S. soldiers are likely being targeted more now because there is talk that Iraqi and American officials will try to keep additional troops” past 2011. “That’s the primary driver,” said Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Iranians and Sadrists are taking it very seriously.”

====
Suicide bombers attack landmark hotel in Afghan capital

At least five Taliban suicide bombers attacked a major hotel frequented by Westerners in Afghanistan's capital late on Tuesday, Afghan officials said, leading to a battle that drew in helicopters from the NATO-led force.

===

And so it goes on. UCA's kick-ass military, 10 years into Afghanistan, can't stop the kick-ass Taleban.

[Winehole23]

That's it?

[Winehole23]

OTOH, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/leaving-afghanistan-soon-not-exactly/2011/06/28/AGXnh2oH_blog.html

[RandomGuy]

No. But perhaps we could manage it a bit more efficiently without occupying two central Asian countries indefinitely.

I'm not arguing that we stay in Iraq. I think we should completely withdraw.

We have done what we said we would do, and the Iraqis seem to be capable of fending for themselves at this point.

As to what is efficient, that is a pretty fair point to make. The hard thing is that it is so difficult to evaluate.

It is hideously expensive to maintain the logistic pipeline required, a cost that is made worse by the constant destruction of materiel passing through Pakistan.

If it were just a question of the first order consequences, it would be fairly simple.

The main first order consquence with a full-scale withdrawal is that there really is no government, and the ignorant central asian version of rednecks that constitute what we conceive of as the taliban would simply drift back in.

It would be far cheaper in this case to simply lob a dozen cruise missles a month at any camps that we might find out about for years. Granted.

Among the second order consequences are that we would play into the narrative our enemies have set out. "America doesn't have the guts", "we beat them and all their might", bla bla bla.

We also would be giving up any gains we might have made towards bringing that part of the world out of the Iron Age and into the modern world. That would be a direct betrayal of those who have trusted us and worked with us, and risked so much to do so.

Both of these would feed the cynicism and paranoid conspiracy theories that make the AQ ideology so attractive.

There is more to it, as we can't even predict things beyond that.

I dunno, it isn't all that clear cut to me that we stay there. I just see it as the "least bad" alternative. The frustrating thing for me is that we would be much closer to getting the fuck out with a functioning government in place if the Bush administration hadn't fucked it up so badly by starving it of required resources. We don't have resources that I consider adequate there now.

I make these arguments for staying, but it is ultimately a gut check. My gut says its better if we stay.

[boutons_deux]

Number Of Contractors In Afghanistan Will Surge As U.S. Troops Withdraw

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/afghanistan_contractors.png


http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/29/256726/afghanistan-contractors-surge/


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/afghanistan_security.png

=======

As always, THEY'RE LYING TO US. And contractors certainly get paid/cost $Bs more than US military personnel.

[coyotes_geek]

As always, THEY'RE LYING TO US. And contractors certainly get paid/cost $Bs more than US military personnel.

........and apparantly there's some pipeline we're supposed to be worried about, the reasons for which boutons-bot has yet to elaborate on.

oh, and lol thinkprogress. lol boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

Paying the contractors those six figure numbers annually must be the democrats way of stimulating the economy.

[Winehole23]

I'm not arguing that we stay in Iraq. I think we should completely withdraw.Have you seen the State Department appropriation? Iraq is gonna be, like, 2/3 of it's entire budget as of now. I am not sanguine.

As to what is efficient, that is a pretty fair point to make. The hard thing is that it is so difficult to evaluate.The inefficiency of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time isn't a hard call.

The main first order consequence with a full-scale withdrawal is that there really is no government, and the ignorant central asian version of rednecks that constitute what we conceive of as the taliban would simply drift back in.Don't worry. There won't be a full scale withdrawal. And we'll still bomb their asses if they get out of line.


Among the second order consequences are that we would play into the narrative our enemies have set out. "America doesn't have the guts", "we beat them and all their might", bla bla bla. Face it, they beat us. They're on the other side of the negotiating table. They stay and they play. We leave.

We also would be giving up any gains we might have made towards bringing that part of the world out of the Iron Age and into the modern world. That would be a direct betrayal of those who have trusted us and worked with us, and risked so much to do so.The objective wasn't realistic, and adequate resources were not brought to bear. Where's Afghanistan's Marshall plan?

Both of these would feed the cynicism and paranoid conspiracy theories that make the AQ ideology so attractive.Beg pardon, but so what?

I make these arguments for staying, but it is ultimately a gut check. My gut says its better if we stay.My gut says the opposite. We overstayed our welcome. By about six or seven years.

[boutons_deux]

4 Trillion Dollars? New Report Shows the Hidden Costs of War

A new report just published by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies measures the categories of cost to make the point that the pay out is miniscule, if there's any at all. The report uses September 11 as a paradigm for cost and return: "Nineteen hijackers plus other al Qaeda plotters spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 on the plane attacks that killed 2,995 people and caused $50 billion to $100 billion in economic damages. What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since." Catherine Lutz, co-director of the study and head of the anthropology department at Brown said "We decided we needed to do this kind of rigorous assessment of what it cost to make those choices to go to war," she said. "Politicians, we assumed, were not going to do that kind of assessment."

The report found that:

While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (just over 6000), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 550,000 just through last fall. Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.

At least 137,000 civilians have died and more will die in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict.

The armed conflict in Pakistan, which the U.S. helps the Pakistani military fight by funding, equipping and training them, has taken as many lives as the conflict in neighboring Afghanistan.

Putting together the conservative numbers of war dead, in uniform and out, brings the total to 225,000.

Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. The current number of war refugees and displaced persons -- 7,800,000 -- is equivalent to all of the people of Connecticut and Kentucky fleeing their homes.

The wars have been accompanied by erosions in civil liberties at home and human rights violations abroad.

The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet. Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.

As with former US wars, the costs of paying for veterans’ care into the future will be a sizable portion of the full costs of the war.

The ripple effects on the U.S. economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases, and those effects have been underappreciated.

While it was promised that the US invasions would bring democracy to both countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, both continue to rank low in global rankings of political freedom, with warlords continuing to hold power in Afghanistan with US support, and Iraqi communities more segregated today than before by gender and ethnicity as a result of the war.

Serious and compelling alternatives to war were scarcely considered in the aftermath of 9/11 or in the discussion about war against Iraq. Some of those alternatives are still available to the U.S.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/newsandviews/626650

===========

OBL is laughing his ass off, having suckered UCA into two foreign wars without end or benefit to Human-Americans, and with serious, multi-dimensional harm to Human-Americans. Of course, the VRWC/UCA financial sector is and will be a much bigger threat to Human-Americans, and nobody can stop it.

[RandomGuy]

My gut says the opposite. We overstayed our welcome. By about six or seven years.

Honestly, the more I have thought about it in the last few days, the less and less convinced I am that we really try to ride this out. Gotta get going for today, but will try to get to this later today/weekend.

Stepping back and having to outline it, I think the underlying assumptions for staying in force in Afghanistan are fairly weak.

[Winehole23]

UBnyGnCfolw

[Winehole23]

oh eff

[leemajors]

My opinion is that we should've GTFO (at least) 3+ years ago. The reality is that nobody in that shithole wants to change anything, so why keep burning money in that pit?
It's only a matter of time until them (Iraq too, IMO) will revert back to being a clusterfuck. If you're worried about terror, then spend all that money you're spending there securing the borders properly. I guarantee it will be a lot cheaper and way more effective. Not to mention that the fear of training camps is somewhat irrelevant, because I'm willing to bet those things also exist (or can be set up) in Syria, Lybia, regions of Africa and that's just locations off the top of my head.

Gotta keep guarding those poppy fields so the CIA can fund their funny business.

[boutons_deux]

"we must stay and keep dying to honor those who have already died" -- dubya

[boutons_deux]

Afghan Reconciliation Efforts Have Failed

Three months ago I met Haji Ismael, the head of Khost’s Program Tahkim Sulh (commonly referred to as the PTS, the government’s former National Program for Reconciliation), set up in 2005 to reconcile and reintegrate insurgents with the objective of “healing national wounds.” The program failed, due to poor funding and a lack of political support, which meant that opportunities to bring in Taliban were squandered. The Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) now proposes to integrate the existing capacities of the PTS into its framework, although it is unclear how, with the added risk that this will simply revive former failed efforts under a new name.

“I regret joining this process; all of my brothers regret it as well,” one of them told me. “We have received no assistance from the government, nothing that they promised. We gave up everything in Miram Shah [the capital of Pakistan’s North Waziristan agency, and a center of Taliban-affiliated groups] and now we have nothing, we can’t get jobs. Our six families share a single room. Not even animals live the way we do now. We receive threatening calls from Miram Shah, that we will be found and killed and our home attacked.”


http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/reconciliation_efforts_fail_afghan_insurgents_2011 0702/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig+Truthdig%3A+Drilling +Beneath+the+Headlines

[Capt Bringdown]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/costsofwar_500.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Government in Afghanistan Nears Collapse

last year’s parliamentary election was so chaotic and flawed that it resulted in the near-total disenfranchisement of Afghanistan’s Pashtun ethnic minority, which makes up a healthy 40 percent of the population. Many Pashtuns either didn’t vote, because of sympathy or support for the Taliban and dislike of the Afghan government, or couldn’t vote, because of Taliban threats and violence. As a result, in some provinces in the south and east where Pashtuns dominate, not a single Pashtun was elected to parliament. For Karzai, that was a disaster, especially since he’s trying to reach out to his Pashtun base as part of his search for a deal with the Taliban and its allies. Earlier this year, a special court appointed by Karzai ruled that 62 members of parliament, mostly non-Pashtuns, were elected fraudulently, a step toward installing Pashtun members in their place. Not surprisingly, Karzai’s opponents in parliament, especially Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras who oppose Karzai’s outreach to the Taliban, cried foul, challenged the constitutionality of the court, and demanded the impeachment of Karzai.

If the war in Afghanistan ever made any sense at all, this stuff makes it clear that it's close to hopeless

http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/161818/government-near-collapse-afghanistan

=======

There's no govt or country there for the US to prop up. Just like in Viet Nam.

[RandomGuy]

Have you seen the State Department appropriation? Iraq is gonna be, like, 2/3 of it's entire budget as of now. I am not sanguine.
The inefficiency of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time isn't a hard call.
Don't worry. There won't be a full scale withdrawal. And we'll still bomb their asses if they get out of line.
Face it, they beat us. They're on the other side of the negotiating table. They stay and they play. We leave.
The objective wasn't realistic, and adequate resources were not brought to bear. Where's Afghanistan's Marshall plan?
Beg pardon, but so what?
My gut says the opposite. We overstayed our welcome. By about six or seven years.

I am of the general opinion that improving the lot of the impoverished areas of the world is the way to make the US more secure in the long run, and that hasn't changed.

That said, I have come to agree about staying.

I think the objectives were realistic, but vastly under-resourced by a corrupt and incompetant Bush administration.

It is time to cut our losses in the area.

If the Paki's don't want to play ball, the Indians will, and, quite frankly, India is far more important in the long run.

I just don't see the long term value any more, as much as I loathe giving an inch to the fundamentalist rednecks of the area. We have gotten some measures of success but the cost is now far outweighing the benefits.

[boutons_deux]

"Iraq is gonna be, like, 2/3 of it's entire budget as of now"

I saw a calculation where defense budget + State dept budget + etc is more like $1.5T/year to support The Great American Empire's policy of making the world safe for US corporations.

[Winehole23]

The former officials said that four to eight Taliban representatives had traveled to Qatar from Pakistan to set up a political office for the exiled Afghan insurgent group.



The comments suggested that the Taliban, who have not publicly said they would engage in peace talks to end the war in Afghanistan, were gearing up for preliminary discussions.



American officials would not deny that meetings had taken place, and the discussions seemed to have at least the tacit approval of Pakistan, which has thwarted previous efforts by the Taliban to engage in talks.



The Afghan government, which was initially angry that it had been left out, has accepted the talks in principle but is not directly involved, a potential snag in what could be a historic development.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/world/asia/taliban-have-begun-talks-with-us-former-taliban-aides-say.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[Winehole23]

“Currently there are no peace talks going on,” said Maulavi Qalamuddin, the former minister of vice and virtue for the Taliban who is now a member of the High Peace Council here. “The only thing is the negotiations over release of Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo, which is still under discussion between both sides in Qatar. We also want to strengthen the talks so we can create an environment of trust for further talks in the future.”



The State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has said only that Marc Grossman, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, had “a number of meetings” related to Afghanistan when he visited Qatar last week.
same

[Winehole23]

The U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan had planned to use his latest foray to the region to build Afghan government support for the nascent U.S. effort to kindle peace talks with the Taliban.

Instead, Ambassador Marc Grossman found himself last week putting out a fire ignited by a meeting between four U.S. Congress members and Afghan opposition leaders in Germany. At that meeting, the American lawmakers discussed constitutional reforms that would devolve power from Afghanistan's central government to the provinces — triggering suspicions that the United States was secretly plotting to partition Afghanistan along ethnic lines.
The U.S. Embassy said there was no such plan and immediately denounced the reports. But the damage had been done.


Afghan President Hamid Karzai was "incredibly angry," said a former Afghan official who maintains close contact with the presidential palace and who, like others interviewed by McClatchy Newspapers, requested anonymity. Karzai's ire was on display in a Jan. 21 speech to Parliament in which he denounced "foreigners" for using Afghanistan "to do their political experiments."


The episode dealt a setback to the U.S. bid to launch peace talks, which began with the opening of a Taliban political office in Qatar this month. It also reinforced just how difficult it will be for the Obama administration to broker a settlement that's robust enough to allow U.S. and allied combat troops to complete their withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014 as planned.


Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/u-s-lawmakers-meeting-sets-back-afghan-plan/article_0f4112ed-2f93-5846-9f59-acd9868056a5.html#ixzz1krhMPmD3

[Winehole23]

State Department halves (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/world/middleeast/united-states-planning-to-slash-iraq-embassy-staff-by-half.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=all) it's embassy staff. Turns out we're less welcome in Iraq than we anticipated.


The swift realization among some top officials that the diplomatic buildup may have been ill advised represents a remarkable pivot for the State Department, in that officials spent more than a year planning the expansion and that many of the thousands of additional personnel have only recently arrived.
Michael W. McClellan, the embassy spokesman, said in a statement, “Over the last year and continuing this year the Department of State and the Embassy in Baghdad have been considering ways to appropriately reduce the size of the U.S. mission in Iraq, primarily by decreasing the number of contractors needed to support the embassy’s operations.”



Mr. McClellan said the number of diplomats — currently about 2,000 — was also “subject to adjustment as appropriate.”

[Wild Cobra]

State Department halves (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/world/middleeast/united-states-planning-to-slash-iraq-embassy-staff-by-half.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=all) it's embassy staff. Turns out we're less welcome in Iraq than we anticipated.
I think it's that their politicians are learning from ours. Have to try to appease all the people if possible, find that middle ground. You still have Iraqi's who want our presence and those who don't.

[Winehole23]

I think it's that their politicians are learning from ours. what a frightening thought

[Wild Cobra]

what a frightening thought
No shit!

[TDMVPDPOY]

when you put dumbshits into govt, then they start putting their dumbshit families and friends into position of power, fraud and corruption happens...any form of govt is like that anyway

the west doesnt have a good record of managing puppets who they help liberated and put into power...

[Wild Cobra]

when you put dumbshits into govt, then they start putting their dumbshit families and friends into position of power, fraud and corruption happens...any form of govt is like that anyway

the west doesnt have a good record of managing puppets who they help liberated and put into power...
The problem is, we haven't stopped trying to make them our puppets.

[LnGrrrR]

My opinion is that we should've GTFO (at least) 3+ years ago. The reality is that nobody in that shithole wants to change anything, so why keep burning money in that pit?
It's only a matter of time until them (Iraq too, IMO) will revert back to being a clusterfuck. If you're worried about terror, then spend all that money you're spending there securing the borders properly. I guarantee it will be a lot cheaper and way more effective. Not to mention that the fear of training camps is somewhat irrelevant, because I'm willing to bet those things also exist (or can be set up) in Syria, Lybia, regions of Africa and that's just locations off the top of my head.

Well said. It's much easier to secure our borders than to try and go securing every third world country in the middle east.

[TDMVPDPOY]

The problem is, we haven't stopped trying to make them our puppets.

the fkn dog you guys put in charge of afghanistan, wtf has he ever done to get into that position???? another dog who ran away and lived overseas for a couple of years and returns like he brought something....yet i dunno why the ppl allowed this clown to be their president when he hasnt done shit to earn their approval...

that clown seems to be like the clown runnin pakistan, pulling americas leg every opportunity it can get as long the money keeps on going in.....

havnt you clowns learn anything from the VN war, and continue to pour money into a govt that only wants ur money while doing shit all to improve things besides their own personal wealth?

[LnGrrrR]

The training camps were gone long ago.

If you don't take out the government that allowed them in the first place, then you simply get them right back after you leave.

We can't go until we have a government there capable and willing to keep those kinds of camps from coming right back.

As I said, we let central Asia fester once, and it didn't do us much good, although it would be highly amusing to me to see this area become China's problem.

The problem I see with this is... do we have a force that knows how to set up an effective and functioning government? Because while they're leaning more towards it, the military isn't meant to be that sort of force. I'd argue that we should stay out of that, frankly.

[TDMVPDPOY]

The problem I see with this is... do we have a force that knows how to set up an effective and functioning government? Because while they're leaning more towards it, the military isn't meant to be that sort of force. I'd argue that we should stay out of that, frankly.

whatever happen to the good ol CIA days, when the muppet didnt listen you just replace them.... :D

[LnGrrrR]

Just curious. What's your answer to containing terrorist groups in Afghanistan? You think these groups won't grow and get stronger w/o our being there?

We've basically just found out Pakistan has been an accomplice with these terrorists and it's widely thought that Pakistan has nuclear capability Iirc.

Were learning worse shit about the Middle East and your answer to this is what? Because it means nothing to criticize w/o providing a more viable alternative.

One could argue that if we spent even a fraction of the resources that we used in Afghanistan/Iraq on, say, security and intelligence, we might be in as good a position to prevent an attack.

Plus, we probably would've killed a lot less innocent civilians. So that's a bonus.

[LnGrrrR]

Do we need to wait until an event happens that sharply affects this statistical risk to deal with a problem?


I don't think we have to wait for an event, but I think the measures taken to defend against such should be appropriate. So far, we've spent how much in money/life/resources in response to 9/11?

To take your wording, some sort of astral body (comet/meteorite) could potentially come on a collision course with Earth, causing devastation far greater than a nuke.

Given that we know this, we should then dedicate efforts even greater than those that went into Iraq/Afghanistan in order to find a way to deal with this eventuality, per that logic.

The big problem is that the RISK of these events is relatively low. I would say the risk of 9/11 is probably low. Of course, we take a chance at increasing our risk by some factor by leaving Afghanistan, but we can try to mitigate that through better border procedures, better intel, etc etc.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it's time to slowly pull out. Over time so we can reduce forces by attrition and bring the equipment back. It isn't much more costly to stay now that we are there, so no hurry to leave. Put all nations on notice that if the harbor terrorists, they risk being attacked by us.

Once we are out of these other nations. Shift spending back to military personnel from contract personnel in the areas that bit us in the ass. Primarily supply and food services. It was a total joke that we had contract civilians going to war with us.

Thank-You president Clinton.... NOT!

[LnGrrrR]

Damn necrothreads :lol

[Winehole23]

A NATO airstrike killed eight children in Afghanistan's Kapisa province northeast of the capital Kabul, President Hamid Karzai said Thursday.

The president "strongly condemned the aerial bombing by foreign troops that killed a number of children in Nejrab district" on Wednesday, said a statement from his office.



"Based on information by (the) provincial governor, as a result of an air strike conducted on February 8... eight children were killed," the statement said.
Karzai had assigned a delegation "to launch an all-out probe into the NATO bombing in the province of Kapisa", it added.


A NATO spokesman said he could "confirm there has been a situation. A joint assessment team went there to identify the situation".


The Afghan president, who has a strained relationship with his Western allies, has regularly condemned NATO for civilian deaths in the decade-long war against Taliban insurgents fighting to overthrow him.


Kapisa district police chief Abdul Hamid Erkin told AFP: "Two nights ago foreign special forces carried out a raid on a house in Geyawa village in Nejrab district.
"The next morning their plane carried out an airstrike on a house in the village as a result of which seven children and one adult were martyred."


He said commanders of French troops who operate in the area "claimed that the target was a group of Taliban facilitators, but we checked the area and there were no Taliban.


"In fact the people in the area have very strong anti-Taliban feelings. We filmed the victims, who were children, and showed it to the French commanders," Erkin said.


The children were aged between about seven and 15, he said, while the adult was a mentally-handicapped 20-year-old.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hIiu3cKsF8JkeD8a7kazjYRaujxA?docId=CNG.f8382 debfb716340b7f1999eebbef0ff.991

[boutons_deux]

he could "confirm there has been a situation

what relief! So much better to be a "situation" rather than a universally dreaded "issue".