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 suckers keep shooting our guys the big lie has been exposed. So what the 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 and going home. that country.
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".
btw, been several articles lately about $1T in minerals in some Afghan valley, mountains.
i would be surprised if they suspended all joint operations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...laims-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.
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.
i was referring to US troops only. not surprised by nato.
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.
wouldn't look good for any president. 3 1/2 years ago it was referred to as 'the white flag of surrender"
NATO will probably think twice, or more, about helping NATO ally America next time.
Nope, I'd get them the out of that country yesterday. Afghanistan.
so, is there something wrong with protecting the lives of US troops from their deadly Afghan allies while we're drawing down operations there?
US is the one that pushed for the suspension.
Afghan troops have shot and killed 51 NATO troops so far this year.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? See the OP and quit building strawmen.
so what
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.
thats what i said.
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.
that's what I thought he was referring to. joint operations won't stop completely; there's a bureaucratic hurdle now.
the problem isnt the taliban....the fkn karzai family is responsible...when u hire monkeys, u get monkeys
of course it is. war is inherently political, but so is your selective emphasis.
looks like the old man will buy this like he did powell's address to the UN. lol
Romney has no great enthusiasm for this topic either; probably because he differs so little from the President.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
