Clinton backs Obama's move to keep US forces in Afghanistan

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Clinton backs Obama's move to keep US forces in Afghanistan

KEN THOMAS, Associated Press

KEENE, New Hampshire (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she supports President Barack Obama's decision to keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan when he leaves the White House in 2017.

Clinton said Friday in an interview with CNN that Obama's moves were an example of "a leader who has strong convictions about what he would like to see happen but also pays attention to what's going on in the real world."

The president had originally planned to keep only a small U.S. military presence by the end of his presidency. But military leaders have said the Afghans need more support from the U.S. to fight the Taliban and maintain gains made during the past 14 years.

Clinton, who served as Obama's secretary of state during his first term, said the U.S. wants to bring its troops home and "we certainly don't want them engaged in on-the-ground combat. We want them to help support and train the Afghan army."

"So I can't predict where things will be in January of 2017. But I support the president's decision," she said.

The White House's announcement thrusts the future of Afghanistan into the 2016 race, an issue that has received scant attention up to this point and was not addressed during the first Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday.

Clinton has not talked extensively during her campaign about how she would pursue a peaceful transition from the war in Afghanistan.

She said in a June 2014 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations that she would be open to extending the timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan but it would depend upon "conditions on the ground and what was being asked for."

Clinton negotiated with then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai on a bilateral security agreement toward the end of her tenure that would have set the legal parameters for the residual force to stay in Afghanistan. She has said she was surprised when Karzai refused to sign it.

Clinton has said that setting a timeline for withdrawal was an important step but the Afghanistan government would need to step up to make it work.

As secretary of state, Clinton supported Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, writing in her book "Hard Choices" that she was "under no illusions about how difficult it would be to turn around this war. But all things considered I believed that the president had made the right choice and put us in the best position to succeed."

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-10-17

[chuckd]

It seems Hillary Clinton also thinks she knows more about military requirements than the military.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

Thursday, October 15, 2015

In the end, President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels, and he decided to split the difference.

Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency, about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country. It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief.

Article continues here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/obama-ignores-generals-on-troop-levels-for-unprece/

[AlphMichaels]

Understand your position BUT Washington Post editorial staff don't have a clue on what they write about and they're likely "influenced" to write their opines. And every write up on topic this year by the Post has been from editorial staff.

This entire debacle was created by the MIC, notably under his predecessor's administration and his "crony cabinet". Contractors have made trillions (OK, $ 1.6 Trillion) on this war. Add another $ 800 Billion+ on Iraq. At the end of the day, that's all this has been about and Obama has told every member of his Joint Chiefs to get their houses in order. But they drag their feet because they've got sweet deals waiting for them when they retire.

And at the end of the day, why are we really there? Time for the country's leaders to get their act together too.

My .02

[MaxYakov]

Understand your position BUT Washington Post editorial staff don't have a clue on what they write about and they're likely "influenced" to write their opines. And every write up on topic this year by the Post has been from editorial staff.

This entire debacle was created by the MIC, notably under his predecessor's administration and his "crony cabinet". Contractors have made trillions (OK, $ 1.6 Trillion) on this war. Add another $ 800 Billion+ on Iraq. At the end of the day, that's all this has been about and Obama has told every member of his Joint Chiefs to get their houses in order. But they drag their feet because they've got sweet deals waiting for them when they retire.

And at the end of the day, why are we really there? Time for the country's leaders to get their act together too.

My .02

And what about the Washington Times, since that was the source chuckd was quoting and the linked article?

Why are we really there? Didn't you already answer your own question (Hint: MIC, "sweet deals", etc)?

My .01 THB

Edited October 17, 2015 by MaxYakov

[connda]

Moar War!!!

Invest Long: Defense Stocks

[JakeSully]

Let the Afghans handle it. They were alive for 6500 years before we invaded. They'll be alive for another 6500 without our boots on the ground.

[Thaidream]

I don't see Obama or Clinton offer any relief for the poor or middle class who have been burdened by a transfer of their tax money to the defense establishment to continue this foolhardy war. Congress just passed a $630 Billion defense bill- the largest in the World- and it was just announced that people on Social Security and Disabled Veterans would get no increase this year. There is no justification for this continual caving in to the Generals and military industrial complex except one- Greed. If Clinton approves this kind of scenario- she sure won't get my vote and I hope she gets no one else s. None of the politicians care about the American people- they care only about how long they can remain in power and eat off the taxes paid by the people.There appears to be no one who will challenge this abuse of power by a succession of administrations. I probably will vote for none of them and write in my own candidate- Mickey Mouse.

[Rancid]

Well Hillary did get all excited and giggly about Gaddafi being sodomised and murdered, so no real stretch as to which way she leans.

Got to love all the gung ho war politicians that lead from the a/c rear.

[Soutpeel]

Moar War!!!

Invest Long: Defense Stocks

And pipe line construction companies

[AlphMichaels]

Understand your position BUT Washington Post editorial staff don't have a clue on what they write about and they're likely "influenced" to write their opines. And every write up on topic this year by the Post has been from editorial staff.

This entire debacle was created by the MIC, notably under his predecessor's administration and his "crony cabinet". Contractors have made trillions (OK, $ 1.6 Trillion) on this war. Add another $ 800 Billion+ on Iraq. At the end of the day, that's all this has been about and Obama has told every member of his Joint Chiefs to get their houses in order. But they drag their feet because they've got sweet deals waiting for them when they retire.

And at the end of the day, why are we really there? Time for the country's leaders to get their act together too.

My .02

And what about the Washington Times, since that was the source chuckd was quoting and the linked article?

Why are we really there? Didn't you already answer your own question (Hint: MIC, "sweet deals", etc)?

My .01 THB

My point was chuckd's referenced post was an editorial because there's little basis in fact to make the claims rendered in it AND..., well, that's why they call them "editorials". Everyone wants to blame Obama for everything. I find it comical on nearly every topic. Pervasive political stupidity and those who have tried to derail him have written their own (bad) history in the process.

I posed the question "why are we really there?" to share my opine that we have no business being there, above and beyond the cost of it. And I wasn't asking the question because I don't have the answer. In modern times (say last 100 years), terrorist organizations have learned to move quickly, splinter, relocate, and to stay beyond reach of those who seek them out.

[AlphMichaels]

I don't see Obama or Clinton offer any relief for the poor or middle class who have been burdened by a transfer of their tax money to the defense establishment to continue this foolhardy war. Congress just passed a $630 Billion defense bill- the largest in the World- and it was just announced that people on Social Security and Disabled Veterans would get no increase this year. There is no justification for this continual caving in to the Generals and military industrial complex except one- Greed. If Clinton approves this kind of scenario- she sure won't get my vote and I hope she gets no one else s. None of the politicians care about the American people- they care only about how long they can remain in power and eat off the taxes paid by the people.There appears to be no one who will challenge this abuse of power by a succession of administrations. I probably will vote for none of them and write in my own candidate- Mickey Mouse.

Just noted in a prior reply but will keep this simple; these kinds of actions (and inaction) are indeed misplaced when the US has domestic issues aplenty and the money spent on the military would better serve the people who foot the bill in the first place. But let's be candid..., this began LONG before Obama and Clinton.

[AlphMichaels]

Gaddafi got what he deserved. I complete lunatic.

[Soutpeel]

Gaddafi got what he deserved. I complete lunatic.

And the west in some respects is getting exactly what it deserves for meddling in countries they should have stayed out of in the first place and all on the basis of lies and economic motivation from "big business"

[Gene1960]

Obviously 5,000 troops is not enough. It will allow Taliban and ISIS to build up their forces in the Northern A-Stan and move in the direction of Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. I envision Russia to be involved there soon.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk