US admits Afghanistan policy...

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm surprised no one in here is talking about it. The big lie was that our troops were there just long enough to "train the Afghans to defend themselves". Now that we have suspended all joint efforts with Afghan troops because the cocksuckers keep shooting our guys the big lie has been exposed. So what the fuck are we doing there now? We should just tell that crooked ass Karzai and his crooked ass brothers to take the billions they have stolen and go back to London because we are packing up our shit and going home. Fuck that country.

[boutons_deux]

Wars are a lot easier to start, than to stop.

If Barry pulled out tomorrow, the MIC and Repugs would trash his cool black ass.

The Repugs were warned about Afghanistan, but they went AND stayed, and got their asses beat badly.

We'll hear the save-our-ass, it-ain't-our-fault Army say, like in VN, "we never lost a battle". :lol

btw, been several articles lately about $1T in minerals in some Afghan valley, mountains.

[clambake]

i would be surprised if they suspended all joint operations.

[CosmicCowboy]

i would be surprised if they suspended all joint operations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/nato-afghanistan-shatter-claims-progress


For months, if not years, Britain's defence chiefs have made it clear they are desperate to get out of Afghanistan. They have clung to the increasingly implausible claim that training and mentoring Afghan security forces was going well, indeed better than expected.

That claim has been shattered by Nato's decision, taken at the behest of the US, to suspend joint Nato-Afghan ground operations. The decision strikes at the heart of Nato and British strategy.

Worse, as far as Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, is concerned, officials have made it clear that the decision came as a complete surprise to him and his military commanders. Only on Monday Hammond, summoned to the Commons to answer an urgent question, told MPs that the latest wave of "insider" or "green on blue" attacks by Afghans could not derail progress.

He made no mention of the possibility of a decision to scale down joint operations with Afghan forces, even when such a possibility was raised specifically by the Conservative MP and former commander in Bosnia, Bob Stewart.

On Tuesday morning Hammond did his best to try and play down the significance of the decision by describing the Nato announcement as only a "draft order" that would have "minimal" impact on British operations in Afghanistan.

That claim sits rather awkwardly with repeated emphasis on the importance of the Afghan training programme, the very raison d'etre, according to the British government, of the continuing presence of British troops in the country.

It is understandable that Hammond would want to downplay the Nato decision, though it is likely to have a real impact on the morale of British troops, already affected by the recent attacks. Two soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment were shot on Saturday as they went to help a man wearing the uniform of the Afghan police militia. He claimed to be injured before opening fire on the soldiers at a checkpoint in Nahr-e-Saraj in Helmand province.

Yet the real reason for the deployment of British forces in Afghanistan was to ensure that Britain's real enemy – al-Qaida – is defeated there.

But that threat to Britain's national security has been long gone. Hammond appeared to admit as much last week. "We have to be clear why we came here in the first place," he said in an interview with the Guardian. Now that al-Qaida had been "eliminated" from the country, it was not right to ask British troops to put their lives at risk for nation-building.

"We can ask troops who are here to help build a better Afghanistan, but we cannot ask them to expose themselves to risk for those tasks," Hammond continued. "We can only ask them to expose themselves to risk for Britain's national security, which is what they signed up to do."

The UK had "not come here to defeat the insurgency". In that case, it may reasonably be asked, why are any British troops still putting their lives at risk in Afghanistan?

There is growing frustration – to put it no more than this – on both sides of the Commons at the confusing messages coming from the very top of Britain's defence and military hierarchy.

Hammond insists British strategy has not changed. "We have got a strategic plan," he said on Tuesday. "We are working towards an end to our combat operations in 2014." It is as simple as that, come what may.

[CosmicCowboy]

It didn't look good for Obama's election to have the almost daily executions of US and NATO troops by the Afghan army guys.

[clambake]

i was referring to US troops only. not surprised by nato.

[Winehole23]

force protection in an unpopular war. I guess you'd leave them exposed to harm so you could beat your chest and act all tuff.

[clambake]

It didn't look good for Obama's election to have the almost daily executions of US and NATO troops by the Afghan army guys.

wouldn't look good for any president. 3 1/2 years ago it was referred to as 'the white flag of surrender"

[boutons_deux]

i was referring to US troops only. not surprised by nato.

NATO will probably think twice, or more, about helping NATO ally America next time.

[CosmicCowboy]

force protection in an unpopular war. I guess you'd leave them exposed to harm so you could beat your chest and act all tuff.

Nope, I'd get them the fuck out of that country yesterday. Fuck Afghanistan.

[Winehole23]

so, is there something wrong with protecting the lives of US troops from their deadly Afghan allies while we're drawing down operations there?

[CosmicCowboy]

i was referring to US troops only. not surprised by nato.

US is the one that pushed for the suspension.

Afghan troops have shot and killed 51 NATO troops so far this year.

[CosmicCowboy]

so, is there something wrong with protecting the lives of US troops from their deadly Afghan allies while we're drawing down operations there?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? See the OP and quit building strawmen.

[clambake]

so what

[clambake]

i don't think for a second that US troops will suspend joint operations with afghan troops.

[CosmicCowboy]

i don't think for a second that US troops will suspend joint operations with afghan troops.


Under the rules issued on Sunday, a general’s approval will be required for foreign forces to work with Afghans on a tactical level — a broad category that covers everything from joint patrols into Taliban territory to hands-on training behind the fortified walls of a shared outpost.

Until now, junior officers from both sides were able to organize patrols or small operations on their own. An American captain, for instance, could send men from his company to reinforce Afghans in a firefight without seeking higher approval.

But now those officers would need approval from a two-star general who commands thousands of service members.

[clambake]

thats what i said.

[Winehole23]

Do you have reading comprehension issues? See the OP and quit building strawmen.hardly a strawman. you directly suggested doing so was a cynical political calculation and nothing more.

[CosmicCowboy]

thats what i said.

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

hardly a strawman. you directly suggested doing so was a cynical political calculation and nothing more.

Of course political calculation was a factor in the decision. You would be an idiot to think otherwise.

[Winehole23]

that's what I thought he was referring to. joint operations won't stop completely; there's a bureaucratic hurdle now.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the problem isnt the taliban....the fkn karzai family is responsible...when u hire monkeys, u get monkeys

[Winehole23]

Of course political calculation was a factor in the decision.of course it is. war is inherently political, but so is your selective emphasis.

[clambake]

looks like the old man will buy this like he did powell's address to the UN. lol

[Winehole23]

Romney has no great enthusiasm for this topic either; probably because he differs so little from the President.

[RandomGuy]

Wars are a lot easier to start, than to stop.

If Barry pulled out tomorrow, the MIC and Repugs would trash his cool black ass.

The Repugs were warned about Afghanistan, but they went AND stayed, and got their asses beat badly.

We'll hear the save-our-ass, it-ain't-our-fault Army say, like in VN, "we never lost a battle". :lol

btw, been several articles lately about $1T in minerals in some Afghan valley, mountains.

No matter what Obama does, the right will criticise him for it, even if his action are exactly the same as what Bush did and they all clapped like trained seals about.

We could have been out long ago, but for Iraq.

I think the current president has not taken enough of a stand to get enough resources to actually solve the problem, and is trying to hew to his promises to get out.

The only trick/problem is how to do that without letting the fucktards we are fighting have a credible claim to some sort of "see, we made them leave" victory. That would be a defeat that would concern me.

[clambake]

The only trick/problem is how to do that without letting the fucktards we are fighting have a credible claim to some sort of "see, we made them leave" victory. That would be a defeat that would concern me.

umm, that was a given the instant bush wanted a new toy.

[TDMVPDPOY]

everytime u clowns start a new administration for the new liberated country, why do you clowns always select fkn fagots who have no leadership qualities, let alone any form of recognize education....

the fkn muppets u guys always put in charge are dumb like shit, as long they willing to listened and take orders from you guys, u keep them in the job....fck them incompetent fucks...

[leemajors]

I'm surprised no one in here is talking about it. The big lie was that our troops were there just long enough to "train the Afghans to defend themselves". Now that we have suspended all joint efforts with Afghan troops because the cocksuckers keep shooting our guys the big lie has been exposed. So what the fuck are we doing there now? We should just tell that crooked ass Karzai and his crooked ass brothers to take the billions they have stolen and go back to London because we are packing up our shit and going home. Fuck that country.

On the bright side, heroin availability/use has skyrocketed in the US since we have been over there!

[boutons_deux]

"to get enough resources to actually solve the problem"

there is no solution,

because the problem is that the Afghanis and Pakis will simply outwait this current chapter of invaders who will eventually give up and retreat in defeat.

iow, quite simply

It's Their Country

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, I'd get them the fuck out of that country yesterday. Fuck Afghanistan.

While that sounds nice, what you end up with are the Taliban moving back in and we are back to where we were in 2000.

What we need to do is depose Karzai and go old school colonial and have a nice puppet with one of our own in complete control.

[CosmicCowboy]

While that sounds nice, what you end up with are the Taliban moving back in and we are back to where we were in 2000.

What we need to do is depose Karzai and go old school colonial and have a nice puppet with one of our own in complete control.

Yeah, that philosophy really kicked ass in Vietnam.


Ngo Dinh Diem says hi!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, that philosophy really kicked ass in Vietnam.


Ngo Dinh Diem says hi!

The Vietnamese Governement was autonomous. They were dependent on our aid but we did not have fiat powers. Vietnam was the beginning of our 'joint government' strategy and the beginning of our failures. Ngo was an organic creation that we tried to make powerful. I am proposing we become the state.

It is not the same thing.

We handle domestic, defense, law enforcement et al. I would even be down with the Tea Party running the fiscal policy over there. Maybe you boomers can be useful after all.

We would be labeled as subjugators and imperialists but they cannot have selfdetermination and we have our national security interests at the same time.

We leave them alone we get AQ. We hold their hand and they bite it. They need to get in the back.

It's not as if their government did not attack us.

[boutons_deux]

"their government did not attack us."

OBL and AQ were not part of the Afghan govt.

"we have our national security interests"

so after 12 years of build up of the USA INTERNAL police/surveillance state and $1.5T every year in imperial spending, the USA is still not secure?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"their government did not attack us."

OBL and AQ were not part of the Afghan govt.

"we have our national security interests"

so after 12 years of build up of the USA INTERNAL police/surveillance state and $1.5T every year in imperial spending, the USA is still not secure?

Sweet i have CC and boutie both disagreeing with me and siding with one another. i must be doing something right.

The Taliban set up AQ in Jalalabad and gave them all manner of support. Their leader was the same Mullah Omar. If you want to argue that they are proxies for other interests then fine but that does not mitigate the point.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Vietnamese Governement was autonomous. They were dependent on our aid but we did not have fiat powers. Vietnam was the beginning of our 'joint government' strategy and the beginning of our failures. Ngo was an organic creation that we tried to make powerful. I am proposing we become the state.

It is not the same thing.

We handle domestic, defense, law enforcement et al. I would even be down with the Tea Party running the fiscal policy over there. Maybe you boomers can be useful after all.

We would be labeled as subjugators and imperialists but they cannot have selfdetermination and we have our national security interests at the same time.

We leave them alone we get AQ. We hold their hand and they bite it. They need to get in the back.

It's not as if their government did not attack us.

Organic?????

Dude was living in the US from 1950 until he went back as President in 1955. He was supposed to be a puppet. Hell he was even pushing Christianity as the preferred religion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Organic?????

Dude was living in the US from 1950 until he went back as President in 1955. He was supposed to be a puppet. Hell he was even pushing Christianity as the preferred religion.

After he was exiled. I suppose you think the Khomeini was a product of the French?

If anything what you should take from this is Karzai is the parallel here.

[CosmicCowboy]

After he was exiled. I suppose you think the Khomeini was a product of the French?

If anything what you should take from this is Karzai is the parallel here.

Of course. Hell, the CIA may end up killing him like they did Ngo Dinh Diem.

[Winehole23]

Over the last decade, the United States has provided hundreds of thousands of small arms—including machine guns, grenade launchers, and rifles—to the Afghan security forces. But the US and its Afghan counterparts are doing an inadequate job of tracking these weapons, government investigators claim (http://www.sigar.mil/pdf/Audits/SIGAR-14-84-AR.pdf), increasing the likelihood that they could wind up in the hands of the resurgent Taliban, which has recently made key military advances (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/world/asia/taliban-making-military-gains-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0) that are threatening Afghanistan's fragile stability.


In 2010, following reports (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-267) that the US military was losing track of the guns it was providing to Afghan troops (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-lost-track-of-guns-in-afghanistan/), Congress required the Defense Department to register and monitor all weapons given to the Afghan National Security Forces, which includes the army and police. But the primary US databases that track these arms aren't up to the task; they don't communicate with each other and are riddled with incomplete information, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reports. Auditors examined serial numbers recorded in one database and found that 203,888 weapons—or 43 percent—had missing information or duplicate numbers. Many entries that included serial numbers lacked shipping or receiving dates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/sigar-afghanistan-us-weapons-wind-up-insurgents

[Wild Cobra]

That doesn't surprise me. They lost track of the fast and furious guns too.

Nice going Obomba...

[boutons_deux]

That doesn't surprise me. They lost track of the fast and furious guns too.

Nice going Obomba...

nothing do with Obama, AND everything to do with your adored military assholes who can't count, won't count,and waste $Ts of taxpayer dollars.

[Winehole23]

But Anand Gopal’s No Good Men Among the Living shows that everything has not been said. His new and shocking indictment demonstrates that the failures of the intervention were worse than even the most cynical believed. Gopal, a Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor reporter, investigates, for example, a US counterterrorist operation in January 2002. US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had identified two sites as likely “al-Qaeda compounds.” It sent in a Special Forces team by helicopter; the commander, Master Sergeant Anthony Pryor, was attacked by an unknown assailant, broke his neck as they fought and then killed him with his pistol; he used his weapon to shoot further adversaries, seized prisoners, and flew out again, like a Hollywood hero.



As Gopal explains, however, the American team did not attack al-Qaeda or even the Taliban. They attacked the offices of two district governors, both of whom were opponents of the Taliban. They shot the guards, handcuffed one district governor in his bed and executed him, scooped up twenty-six prisoners, sent in AC-130 gunships to blow up most of what remained, and left a calling card behind in the wreckage saying “Have a nice day. From Damage, Inc.” Weeks later, having tortured the prisoners, they released them with apologies. It turned out in this case, as in hundreds of others, that an Afghan “ally” had falsely informed the US that his rivals were Taliban in order to have them eliminated. In Gopal’s words:



The toll…: twenty-one pro-American leaders and their employees dead, twenty-six taken prisoner, and a few who could not be accounted for. Not one member of the Taliban or al-Qaeda was among the victims. Instead, in a single thirty-minute stretch the United States had managed to eradicate both of Khas Uruzgan’s potential governments, the core of any future anti-Taliban leadership—stalwarts who had outlasted the Russian invasion, the civil war, and the Taliban years but would not survive their own allies.

Gopal then finds the interview that the US Special Forces commander gave a year and a half later in which he celebrated the derring-do, and recorded that seven of his team were awarded bronze stars, and that he himself received a silver star for gallantry.http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/06/afghanistan-shocking-indictment/?insrc=hpss

[Winehole23]

Or consider Gopal’s description of the fate of several principal Afghan politicians in the book:



Dr. Hafizullah, Zurmat’s first governor, had ended up in Guantanamo because he’d crossed Police Chief Mujahed. Mujahed wound up in Guantanamo because he crossed the Americans. Security chief Naim found himself in Guantanamo because of an old rivalry with Mullah Qassim. Qassim eluded capture, but an unfortunate soul with the same name ended up in Guantanamo in his place. And a subsequent feud left Samoud Khan, another pro-American commander, in Bagram prison, while the boy his men had sexually abused was shipped to Guantanamo….


Abdullah Khan found himself in Guantanamo charged with being Khairullah Khairkhwa, the former Taliban minister of the interior, which might have been more plausible—if Khairkhwa had not also been in Guantanamo at the time….


Nine Guantanamo inmates claimed the most striking proof of all that they were not Taliban or al-Qaeda: they had passed directly from a Taliban jail to American custody after 2001.

[boutons_deux]

More excellent treatment of USA's REAL allies who saved lots of military lives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplQL5eAxlY&list=UU3XTzVzaHQEd30rQbuvCtTQ

[Fabbs]

https://twitter.com/ml_maria_/status/1107982807694016512?s=12

So many Afghan threads, I picked this one.
Still going on 20 years later.
What a farce.

[boutons_deux]

https://twitter.com/ml_maria_/status/1107982807694016512?s=12

So many Afghan threads, I picked this one.
Still going on 20 years later.
What a farce.

War is above all a business.

War profiteers, their investors, and the politicians they own, supplying the American Capitalistic Empire's never-ending, unwinnable wars are loving it, just another way the oligarchy redistributes upwards the wealth of the non-oligarchy.

Trash's budget, handed to him by the oligarchy, is unlimited increases in war making funds, while cutting $Ts for the non-oligarchy.

[midnightpulp]

And conservatives would rather throw trillions at this shit than something like universal health care because, "Them boys are heee-rows."

[Winehole23]

Military-Keynesianism is a twofer: massive government spending is an economic stimulus, along with tax cuts, it creates a fiscal deficit that provides a pretext for cutting direct services to human beings, so that in our case, social control is also a result.

[Winehole23]

While we complain about Trump's silly tweets, he wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid by trillions, Social Security by billions.

Why?

To pay for tax cuts and military spending hikes.

[Winehole23]

Redistribution of wealth good now.