Reply With Quote
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.
Announced last night by the Prez (link)
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.
Here it is, from yesterday:
C-Span: Presidential Address on Troop Levels in Afghanistan
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.
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.
oh, the ol' tride and true "afghan pullout". make sure to all over that burka!
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.
My opinion is that we should've GTFO (at least) 3+ years ago. The reality is that nobody in that hole 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 cluster . 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.
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.
It's not pulling out if you leave more than the tip still in.
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.
Barry sent 30,000 more and by election time he is taking them out?
There is no opium left?
Just pull the 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 . 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.
That hardly qualifies as a pullout. Getting ed by a semi-flaccid penis is still getting ed.
SnakeBoy has a point. US troop levels will be about where they were when Obama took office, after the "pullout."
they were but then they found that mineral deposit so mine baby mine
Basically
lol why must usa support the dumb french/uk wankers going after a small oil reserve country? lmao
seriously they did all in iraq/afghanistan, what 4000 troops on the floor is like only 2-4% what the american put on the ground...
fck this....
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.
When military decisions are made for political reasons they usually end badly. Remember pulling out of Vietnam and the fall of Saigon?...
It was set up that way, CC. In our system, civil power calls the shots, for better and for worse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
