Is this legal? No farangs welcome...

[webfact]

U.S. to withdraw 5,000 troops from Afghanistan, close bases - U.S. negotiator

By Hamid Shalizi and Abdul Qadir Sediqi

 

U.S. special representative for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad (L), meets with Afghanistan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah in Kabul, Afghanistan September 2, 2019. Afghan Chief Executive office/Handout via REUTERS

 

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States would withdraw almost 5,000 troops from Afghanistan and close five bases within 135 days under a draft peace accord agreed with the Taliban, the chief U.S. negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on Monday.

 

The deal, reached after months of negotiations with representatives from the insurgent movement, must still be approved by U.S. President Donald Trump before it can be signed, Khalilzad said in an interview with Tolo News television.

 

"In principle, we have got there," he said. "The document is closed."

 

In exchange for the phased withdrawal, the Taliban would commit not to allow Afghanistan to be used by militant groups such as al Qaeda or Islamic State as a base for attacks on the United States and its allies.

 

The distance that must still be covered before peace is achieved was underlined, however, by a large explosion that rocked the Afghan capital, Kabul, even as Khalilzad's interview was being aired, shaking buildings several kilometres away.

 

Khalilzad, a veteran Afghan-American diplomat, said the aim of the deal was to end the war and that it would lead to a reduction in violence, but there was no formal ceasefire agreement. It would be up to negotiations among Afghans themselves to agree a settlement, he said.

 

He declined to say how long the rest of the roughly 14,000 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan after the first stage of the withdrawal, although Taliban officials previously insisted that all foreign forces must leave.

 

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has been briefed on a draft of the accord and will look at details of the deal before giving an opinion, his spokesman said on Monday.

 

Khalilzad said "intra-Afghan" talks, which might be held in Norway, would aim to reach a broader political settlement and end the fighting between the Taliban and the Western-backed government in Kabul.

 

Details of any future negotiations remain unclear, with the Taliban so far refusing to deal directly with the government, which it considers an illegitimate "puppet" regime.

 

DIRECT NEGOTIATION

Ghani met Khalilzad and will "study and assess" details of the draft, spokesman Sediq Sediqqi told reporters earlier on Monday. "But for us, a meaningful peace or a path to a meaningful peace is the end of violence and direct negotiation with the Taliban," he said.

 

Many Afghan government officials have resented the exclusion of the government from the U.S.-Taliban talks, an issue that was underlined when Ghani was not allowed to keep a text of the draft agreement after it was shown to him.

 

Several details of the agreement remain to be clarified, including the status to be accorded to the Taliban, which the draft recognises under their preferred title as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Some Afghan officials object to that as they see it according the insurgents an equivalent status to the country's internationally recognised government.

 

At the same time, presidential elections, scheduled for Sept. 28 in which Ghani is seeking re-election to a second five-year term, were not covered in the agreement, Khalilzad said. The Taliban have consistently rejected the elections.

 

Khalilzad, who has completed nine rounds of talks with Taliban representatives, is scheduled to hold meetings with a number of Afghan leaders in Kabul this week to build a consensus before the deal is signed.

 

The peace talks have taken place against a backdrop of relentless violence, even before Monday's blast in Kabul, with the Taliban mounting two large-scale attacks on the major northern cities of Kunduz and Pul-e Khumri at the weekend.

 

Afghan security forces pushed back Taliban fighters from both cities, but a suicide bomber detonated his explosives on Monday in Kunduz, killing at least six policemen and wounding 15, officials and the Taliban said.

 

Trump has made little secret of his desire to bring the 14,000 U.S. troops home from Afghanistan, where American troops have been deployed since a U.S.-led campaign overthrew the Taliban in 2001.

 

But there are concerns among Afghan officials and U.S. national security aides about a U.S. withdrawal, with fears Afghanistan could be plunged into a new civil war that could herald a return of Taliban rule and allow international militants, including Islamic State, to find a refuge.

 

(Reporting by Hamid Shalizi and Abdul Qadir Sediqi; Additional reporting by Rupam Jain and James Mackenzie in Kabul, Ahmad Sultan in Nangarhar and Mustafa Andalib in Ghazni: Editing by Robert Birsel, Alison Williams and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-03

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[harada]

I can see boats loaded with Afghans headed for refuge in other countries as there was after the "Vietnamisation" of the Vietnam war, but sadly I don't think they will be welcomed with open arms as the Vietnamese were.

[thaibeachlovers]

It's the beginning of the end for the pro western government, sadly, but Obama should have ended it when he became president. All that has happened since is that many US soldiers died for nothing, and much treasure has been spent.

IMO the government is probably too corrupt to last without US support. Their poorly paid soldiers will not be able to withstand dedicated fanatical Taliban warriors that are not afraid to die.

We've seen it all before of course, when the US abandoned Sth Vietnam. 

The only reason I've heard as to why the US is even there is so girls can go to school. 

[Tug]

It’s gonna get ugly fast and it doesn’t matter who’s administration ends it

[daoyai]

Crazy people, sick religion, no one from the outside has been able to civilize them since they converted from Buddhism a millennia ago, sad lost cause. Friends that traveled there in the past have said the common folk are extremely hospitable and friendly.

Edited September 2, 2019 by daoyai

[neeray]

"And another one bites the dust".

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

In exchange for the phased withdrawal, the Taliban would commit not to allow Afghanistan to be used by militant groups such as al Qaeda or Islamic State as a base for attacks on the United States and its allies.

As if the Taliban will control the whole country and all the tribes. 

 

[Tug]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

As if the Taliban will control the whole country and all the tribes. 

 

Or keep their word

[Emdog]

Part of deal should include "US can declare victory and go home" as Senator S.I. Hayakawa suggested as exit plan for Vietnam war

[JAG]

3 hours ago, harada said:

I can see boats loaded with Afghans headed for refuge in other countries as there was after the "Vietnamisation" of the Vietnam war, but sadly I don't think they will be welcomed with open arms as the Vietnamese were.

No boats, Afghanistan is landlocked. But the surrounding countries certainly won't want to take them.

[SinCityGr8One]

!8 years, 5.7 Trillion USD, Thousands of US military deaths and wounded, Uncountable Afghani dead and wounded and still keeps going. Afghanistan has never been conquered since the days of Genghis Khan. Afghanistan is a treasure trove of mineral wealth. A report done by the US conclude it contains 4 Trillion USD of Gold, silver and especially Rare Earths. Plus that report is decades old. It is my understanding that China is ready to move into Afghanistan and start projects and tap into the minerals there. Once the US is out, China will move in to develop the Country. 18 years for what US? Get out ASAP and learn one lesson. You cannot conquer unconquered people. If Genghis Khan failed along with others that followed, that should have given thought for going in the first time around. 

[blazes]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's the beginning of the end for the pro western government, sadly, but Obama should have ended it when he became president. All that has happened since is that many US soldiers died for nothing, and much treasure has been spent.

IMO the government is probably too corrupt to last without US support. Their poorly paid soldiers will not be able to withstand dedicated fanatical Taliban warriors that are not afraid to die.

We've seen it all before of course, when the US abandoned Sth Vietnam. 

The only reason I've heard as to why the US is even there is so girls can go to school. 

 

Thank you.  An excellent summing-up of the history of Western interference in Afghanistan.  Sure, we want the little girls of Kabul to go to school etc, BUT this is an Afghan problem not a Western one.

[usviphotography]

 

Good win for Trump and America, and hopefully he can get the rest pulled out before election day. Absolutely ridiculous that Americans are still dying for no reason whatsoever in Afghanistan. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by usviphotography

[Pedrogaz]

There will be no peace while US soldiers are occupying Afghanistan and are stationer don Afghan soil. They need to clear out and let whatever happens, happen. Civil wars need an outcome, a real outcome and the Afghan people must decide who they back (Taliban or the Western forces) and who has the might to defeat the other party. It seems that the Taliban are better positioned to win the war, but they will not tolerate US forces once they are in command of Kabul. I also don't see US forces standing by as the Taliban pushes int Kabul.

Seems more like a fake news/PR exercise than any real peace initiative.

 

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

There will be no peace while US soldiers are occupying Afghanistan and are stationer don Afghan soil. They need to clear out and let whatever happens, happen. Civil wars need an outcome, a real outcome and the Afghan people must decide who they back (Taliban or the Western forces) and who has the might to defeat the other party. It seems that the Taliban are better positioned to win the war, but they will not tolerate US forces once they are in command of Kabul. I also don't see US forces standing by as the Taliban pushes int Kabul.

Seems more like a fake news/PR exercise than any real peace initiative.

 

 

And as a bonus for such a withdrawal, you could always bash the USA for the outcome anyway. Win win, for some.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Morch

[tonbridgebrit]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's the beginning of the end for the pro western government, sadly, but Obama should have ended it when he became president. All that has happened since is that many US soldiers died for nothing, and much treasure has been spent.

IMO the government is probably too corrupt to last without US support. Their poorly paid soldiers will not be able to withstand dedicated fanatical Taliban warriors that are not afraid to die.

We've seen it all before of course, when the US abandoned Sth Vietnam. 

The only reason I've heard as to why the US is even there is so girls can go to school. 

Yes, it was a massive mistake when America got involved in Vietnam, and it was also a mistake to have US soldiers in Afghanistan. Let the local people fight and butcher each other.

We have to ask, what's the real reason for American soldiers being in these foreign countries ?  Is it really because Washington wants to see Afghan girls in schools ? Is that really why Washington has spent billions of US tax-payers dollars ?

[tonbridgebrit]

8 hours ago, SinCityGr8One said:

!8 years, 5.7 Trillion USD, Thousands of US military deaths and wounded, Uncountable Afghani dead and wounded and still keeps going. Afghanistan has never been conquered since the days of Genghis Khan. Afghanistan is a treasure trove of mineral wealth. A report done by the US conclude it contains 4 Trillion USD of Gold, silver and especially Rare Earths. Plus that report is decades old. It is my understanding that China is ready to move into Afghanistan and start projects and tap into the minerals there. Once the US is out, China will move in to develop the Country. 18 years for what US? Get out ASAP and learn one lesson. You cannot conquer unconquered people. If Genghis Khan failed along with others that followed, that should have given thought for going in the first time around. 

China is going to move into Afghanistan ?  China wants to tap into Afghanistan's natural resources, and send in tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers ?

I hope they don't. Nobody wants to see Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan. 
Russia sent soldiers there. America sent soldiers there. Let's hope China does not repeat the disaster, third time round.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

China is going to move into Afghanistan ?  China wants to tap into Afghanistan's natural resources, and send in tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers ?

I hope they don't. Nobody wants to see Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan. 
Russia sent soldiers there. America sent soldiers there. Let's hope China does not repeat the disaster, third time round.

And if that "disaster" is in the form of rebuilding infrastructure and focused economic development  it will be  an embarrassment  for the  militaristic attempts of   domination that have historically  failed. Soldiers  are  the cause of resistance, not the solution. So why the assumption  China  will  attempt  a proven way to  failure?

If Afghanistan has  resources the world  desires then being a partner in the extraction makes more sense than trying to claim by militaristic domination based  on other contrived cause.

 

[Brigand]

The US should withdraw, this is a fool's errand really, as these people will be haters forever and you can't save or change everyone. If I was Trump then I'd say to them make peace with yourselves/be realistic and have a country that is not too screwed up like some mainstream Muslim countries and don't go FUBAR on all fronts, then fine. US should get out, but the Mullahs need to not go south and be nutjob stuff etc. and they need to quell/control it despite what their inner hateful feelings want. If they do go silly lunatic style again, then just carpet bomb the religious Nazis for being liars. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Brigand

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

And if that "disaster" is in the form of rebuilding infrastructure and focused economic development  it will be  an embarrassment  for the  militaristic attempts of   domination that have historically  failed. Soldiers  are  the cause of resistance, not the solution. So why the assumption  China  will  attempt  a proven way to  failure?

If Afghanistan has  resources the world  desires then being a partner in the extraction makes more sense than trying to claim by militaristic domination based  on other contrived cause.

 

 

If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war. And it's not that things are great even now, with the USA presence keeping things under some semblance of control. 

 

Dealing with Afghanistan on an economic level related to large infrastructure and mining operations would require a stable government. Kinda doubt that the Chinese will have a reliable partner to do business with.

 

China is not all that coy about projecting military might and more, when it suits. More so when the things are (relatively) in its (expanding) neighborhood.

 

And while you may tout the resistance bit, I don't think that all people of Afghanistan are thrilled about the possibility of the USA withdrawing. Nice co-opting effort there.

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war. And it's not that things are great even now, with the USA presence keeping things under some semblance of control. 

 

Dealing with Afghanistan on an economic level related to large infrastructure and mining operations would require a stable government. Kinda doubt that the Chinese will have a reliable partner to do business with.

 

China is not all that coy about projecting military might and more, when it suits. More so when the things are (relatively) in its (expanding) neighborhood.

 

And while you may tout the resistance bit, I don't think that all people of Afghanistan are thrilled about the possibility of the USA withdrawing. Nice co-opting effort there.

"If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war".  I think you should accept that basically, instead of believing that the Americans are the solution to the problem, well, they have unfortunately become part of the problem.

About China sending soldiers into Afghanistan, look, it's extremely unlikely that Beijing will send Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan. Suspicion and belief that Beijing will send soldiers is based on a fantasy world, created by some of the media. Yes, this absurd and fake picture that is being created, is trying to tell us that China is willing to use military force outside of China.
China is not going to send soldiers to places outside of China. China is not going to send soldiers to Afghanistan. It's extremely unlikely Beijing will send soldiers. If they do, well, it might justify the views of the anti-China bits of the media. It means that they can say "oh look, China is a danger and threat to world peace, they've got their soldiers in Afghanistan".

[Scott]

Troll post and replies along with post violating Fair Use Policy removed.  

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war".  I think you should accept that basically, instead of believing that the Americans are the solution to the problem, well, they have unfortunately become part of the problem.

About China sending soldiers into Afghanistan, look, it's extremely unlikely that Beijing will send Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan. Suspicion and belief that Beijing will send soldiers is based on a fantasy world, created by some of the media. Yes, this absurd and fake picture that is being created, is trying to tell us that China is willing to use military force outside of China.
China is not going to send soldiers to places outside of China. China is not going to send soldiers to Afghanistan. It's extremely unlikely Beijing will send soldiers. If they do, well, it might justify the views of the anti-China bits of the media. It means that they can say "oh look, China is a danger and threat to world peace, they've got their soldiers in Afghanistan".

China is already a threat to world peace. China has military in Tibet, parts of the South China Sea, Africa and elsewhere bordering Afghanistan, plus disputed claims of Chinese troops already in Afghanistan on missions. 

 

The US led NATO presence in Afghanistan has assisted the Afghan military with countering Taliban and IS forces. On the downside it is claimed in recent years more civilians have been killed by the 'good guys', due to airstrikes, than by the Islamists.

 

There are many opinions on why NATO / Afghan forces have been unable to contain the Islamic extremists, for me it is unclear why the current state of affairs exist. 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"If and when the USA steps out, the country will most likely descend into some sort of civil war".  I think you should accept that basically, instead of believing that the Americans are the solution to the problem, well, they have unfortunately become part of the problem.

About China sending soldiers into Afghanistan, look, it's extremely unlikely that Beijing will send Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan. Suspicion and belief that Beijing will send soldiers is based on a fantasy world, created by some of the media. Yes, this absurd and fake picture that is being created, is trying to tell us that China is willing to use military force outside of China.
China is not going to send soldiers to places outside of China. China is not going to send soldiers to Afghanistan. It's extremely unlikely Beijing will send soldiers. If they do, well, it might justify the views of the anti-China bits of the media. It means that they can say "oh look, China is a danger and threat to world peace, they've got their soldiers in Afghanistan".

 

I think you should accept that I haven't claimed USA presence is "the solution to the problem".

 

As for the second part of your "post" - you've merely repeat the same opinion snippet over and over again. The only reason offered in support is that it would be bad for China's international image. While obviously animated, this bit is just as bogus as the first.

 

I haven't even made any actual assertion China will send troops to Afghanistan. It was pointed out that without the country enjoying some semblance of stability economic development on par with China's usual efforts are unlikely. If you think Afghanistan's stability is going to improve following a possible USA withdrawal - do tell.

 

Whether you like it or not, China projects military power and leverages it. Some mentioned in @simple1's post above. Same goes for China's international image.

[billd766]

16 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

And if that "disaster" is in the form of rebuilding infrastructure and focused economic development  it will be  an embarrassment  for the  militaristic attempts of   domination that have historically  failed. Soldiers  are  the cause of resistance, not the solution. So why the assumption  China  will  attempt  a proven way to  failure?

If Afghanistan has  resources the world  desires then being a partner in the extraction makes more sense than trying to claim by militaristic domination based  on other contrived cause.

 

From your post

"Soldiers  are  the cause of resistance, not the solution."

 

I have to disagree with you here. Soldiers NEVER start wars, politicians do that for them and then expect the military to sort out the mess that the politicians made.

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

China is already a threat to world peace. China has military in Tibet, parts of the South China Sea, Africa and elsewhere bordering Afghanistan, plus disputed claims of Chinese troops already in Afghanistan on missions. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Whether you like it or not, China projects military power and leverages it. Some mentioned in @simple1's post above. Same goes for China's international image.

Look, let me put it this way. If Beijing sends Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan, in that case, I demand that NATO sends soldiers to Afghanistan. Yes, NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, to boot the Chinese soldiers out. That's because, yes, the presence of Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan means that China is a threat and danger to world peace.
There is no evidence of Chinese troops in Afghanistan, but if there is, in that case, I think American soldiers must stay in Afghanistan.

Chinese soldiers in Tibet ? Tibet is part of China, it's inside China. Hence, China is allowed to send soldiers into Tibet. There's the Kashmir, it's part of India, hence, I don't reckon that NATO should send soldiers into Kashmir, in order to remove the Indian soldiers.

But Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan, (or indeed Indian soldiers in Afghanistan) , yes, NATO must act. We must not allow such acts of aggression to happen, such acts of aggression must be stopped and punished.

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

There are many opinions on why NATO / Afghan forces have been unable to contain the Islamic extremists, for me it is unclear why the current state of affairs exist. 

Unclear as to why the current state of affairs exist ?

Well, it might be because, for a start, some of the people in Afghanistan actually support "extreme Islamic ideas". 
Yes, I think there are some people in Afghanistan who reckon that it's a good idea to punish shoplifters and other thieves by chopping off their hands. Yes, there's people in Afghanistan who reckon that producing books and videos that insult Islam should be a capital offence. Not all Muslims reckon that insulting Islam should be treated as harmless fun or punished with a slap on the wrist, they want to see a bigger punishment.

Also, the Afghans who are moderate Muslims, well, their attitude might be this. They look at the NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, and they've got belief and suspicion regarding the actual motive for NATO having it's soldiers present in Afghanistan. Yes, the people of Afghanistan are suppose to accept that NATO soldiers are in their country, in order to benefit Afghanistan. But some of them Afghan people, they reckon that the real reason for the NATO soldiers being there, is some other reason or reasons.

It's a bit like when American soldiers where in Iraq. Not all the Iraqis regarded Washington's presence in Iraq, was, was to save Iraq. And indeed, Vietnam, not all the Vietnamese reckoned that the foreign soldiers who were in their country, foreign soldiers were there to save Vietnam ?


Trying to tell and convince the locals, "we are here to save and help you". Sometimes, it's not an easy thing to do.

Edited September 4, 2019 by tonbridgebrit

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

From your post

"Soldiers  are  the cause of resistance, not the solution."

 

I have to disagree with you here. Soldiers NEVER start wars, politicians do that for them and then expect the military to sort out the mess that the politicians made.

I have to agree with your retort in the sense of cause. Unfortunately it is the presence of soldiers that provoke resistance and in Afghanistan that has been so since  British experience in the mid  1800's.

Afghanistan has long been a pawn in foreign political games that have  taken advantage of civil infighting resulting only in magnifying the number of  deaths and human suffering.

A significant irony is that in assisting resistance to the Soviet invasion by the Mujahideen and associates  gave rise to more civil war and eventually to the now so called  Al Qaeda ultra Islamists .

A reduction of 5000 from the nominal 14000 military personel is hardly going to appease a sworn enemy.

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Look, let me put it this way. If Beijing sends Chinese soldiers to Afghanistan, in that case, I demand that NATO sends soldiers to Afghanistan. Yes, NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, to boot the Chinese soldiers out. That's because, yes, the presence of Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan means that China is a threat and danger to world peace.
There is no evidence of Chinese troops in Afghanistan, but if there is, in that case, I think American soldiers must stay in Afghanistan.

Chinese soldiers in Tibet ? Tibet is part of China, it's inside China. Hence, China is allowed to send soldiers into Tibet. There's the Kashmir, it's part of India, hence, I don't reckon that NATO should send soldiers into Kashmir, in order to remove the Indian soldiers.

But Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan, (or indeed Indian soldiers in Afghanistan) , yes, NATO must act. We must not allow such acts of aggression to happen, such acts of aggression must be stopped and punished.

 

You. Demand. You're a poster on a public forum.

The offered reasoning for your bogus "demand" doesn't stand by itself, nor does it relate to posts quoted.

 

Your nonsense spins aside - China doesn't shy away from projecting military might, threatening neighbors, taking over territories, and getting into wars.