Trump OKs sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan - Fox News

[webfact]

Trump OKs sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan - Fox News

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. troops take part in a medevac exercise in Helmand province, Afghanistan July 6, 2017. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has signed off on sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Fox News reported on Monday, citing a senior U.S. official.

 

The report comes before Trump addresses the nation on his strategy for Afghanistan at 9:00 p.m. EDT Monday (0100 GMT on Tuesday).

 

(Reporting by Eric Walsh; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-22

[Get Real]

And the world though that this billionarie was a financial genius. The facts clearly speak a totally different language.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Get Real

[mikebike]

[Chou Anou]

[DaddyWarbucks]

Someone should tell these idiots that the war was lost a long time ago.

Nobody wins in Afghanistan.

[mikebike]

10 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Someone should tell these idiots that the war was lost a long time ago.

Nobody wins in Afghanistan.

Yet 45 and the establishment are doubling down. Interested to see how this will go over at Breitbart. Let the games begin.

[Rancid]

A symbolic gesture to keep the profits (and heroin?) rolling in, at least the troops will know they are fighting for freedom, justice and the American way of life. Why is it people are now supposed to say thank you for your service? In WW2 the troops were at war with a foreign invader and it certainly would have been appropriate, but how so in a war of invasion, with high civilian body count, on the other side of the world that has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting  the homeland?

[DaddyWarbucks]

3 minutes ago, Rancid said:

A symbolic gesture to keep the profits (and heroin?) rolling in, at least the troops will know they are fighting for freedom, justice and the American way of life. Why is it people are now supposed to say thank you for your service? In WW2 the troops were at war with a foreign invader and it certainly would have been appropriate, but how so in a war of invasion, with high civilian body count, on the other side of the world that has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting  the homeland?

I think you're right.

All the important lessons were learned in Vietnam.

They couldn't believe otherwise. They couldn't be that stupid.

[impulse]

28 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

I think you're right.

All the important lessons were learned in Vietnam.

They couldn't believe otherwise. They couldn't be that stupid.

 

I think the most pertinent lessons on Vietnam were learned in Dealy Plaza.  And in the stock tickers showing the defense contractors' market cap.

 

 

[DaddyWarbucks]

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I think the most pertinent lessons on Vietnam were learned in Dealy Plaza.  And in the stock tickers showing the defense contractors' market cap.

 

 

Dallas was lesson one.

Others followed as the Vietnam War progressed.

[oldhippy]

Why does the US not follow the example of the USSR?

 

Swallow your pride, admit defeat and run.

(If the US could do that in Vietnam, why not in Afganistan?)

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Dallas was lesson one.

Others followed as the Vietnam War progressed.

 

If a president doesn't heed the first one, the rest don't really matter.

 

Sad, too.  I was hoping he'd be going the other way like he promised during the campaign.  Time to concede that we could be in there for 100 years and the results won't be different than pulling all our kids out this year.

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Rancid said:

A symbolic gesture to keep the profits (and heroin?) rolling in, at least the troops will know they are fighting for freedom, justice and the American way of life. Why is it people are now supposed to say thank you for your service? In WW2 the troops were at war with a foreign invader and it certainly would have been appropriate, but how so in a war of invasion, with high civilian body count, on the other side of the world that has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting  the homeland?

You seem to have forgotten what started all this. Going through another terrorist attack like the WTC is unacceptable. Time to get tough on nations that support terrorists. Pakistan being one.

 

The troops know exactly what they are fighting for. Preventing a safe harbor for terrorists. Sadly, the current tactics don't seem to be working.

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

Sad in'it just shows me at the end of the day US President's are just Puppets no matter who they are. 

[mikebike]

I knew it... from Breitbart:

 

Trump’s ‘America First’ Base Unhappy with Flip-Flop Afghanistan Speech;

 

His McMaster’s Voice: Is Trump’s Afghanistan Policy THAT Different from Obama’s?;

 

Donald Trump Echoes Obama ‘Blank Check’ Rhetoric in Afghanistan Speech.

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You seem to have forgotten what started all this. Going through another terrorist attack like the WTC is unacceptable. Time to get tough on nations that support terrorists. Pakistan being one.

 

The troops know exactly what they are fighting for. Preventing a safe harbor for terrorists. Sadly, the current tactics don't seem to be working.

You'd be right if he was starting with Saudi... Absolutely pointless to be in Afghanistan.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You'd be right if he was starting with Saudi... Absolutely pointless to be in Afghanistan.

The middle East is a mess. No easy answers.

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sadly, the current tactics don't seem to be working.

And nothing else will either,  why don't US get advice from Russia how to pull out.

[mikebike]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

The middle East is a mess. No easy answers.

Follow the money. No funding. No terrorism.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Follow the money. No funding. No terrorism.

#1 problem in the world today. Corruption and black money.

 

8 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

And nothing else will either,  why don't US get advice from Russia how to pull out.

Russia didn't lose thousands in a terrorist attack like the US did. And were there to help prop up their puppet communist government.

[heybuz]

1 hour ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

I think you're right.

All the important lessons were learned in Vietnam.

They couldn't believe otherwise. They couldn't be that stupid.

they dont remember and dont listen to any body they in the offices of the pentagon believe their own propaganda "we are the best at everything" .They did not listen to the british and australian experts in vietnam who had just fought against communist forces in asia and had been successful.they had no experience and pompously disregarded expert advise.

[Jim1000]

Seems he found that script at the bottom of the draw  when he moved in ...............................

[simple1]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

You seem to have forgotten what started all this. Going through another terrorist attack like the WTC is unacceptable. Time to get tough on nations that support terrorists. Pakistan being one.

 

The troops know exactly what they are fighting for. Preventing a safe harbor for terrorists. Sadly, the current tactics don't seem to be working.

It is usually forgotten that at the time the people of Afghanistan generally despised the "Arab fighters". US had the opportunity and capability to wipe out the primary target in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, but didn't do so due to some errors of judgement, mainly  by Rumsfeld. After Al Qaeda & Taliban senior leadership crossed over to Pakistan. matters in Afghanistan were successfully being stabilised. As you know the US switched focus to Iraq and all went downhill.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the the Afghan Taliban have attacked Western interests outside of their home country. Thankfully Khorasan Daesh and Afghan Taliban view each other as enemies. It has been claimed Daesh are attracting fighters because they pay more than the Taliban.

 

It's been said for a number of years by military leadership, Afghanistan requires a political solution which to date does not seem to be a Trump strength. In addition, IMO, for Trump to state during his announcement concerning Afghanistan that he wants to build a stronger relationship with India wasn't the smartest approach - it's just so transparent, no sublimity.

Edited August 22, 2017 by simple1

[Kwasaki]

36 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

#1 problem in the world today. Corruption and black money.

 

Russia didn't lose thousands in a terrorist attack like the US did. And were there to help prop up their puppet communist government.

Yes l agree but Russia more clever than ever before now.

[webfact]

Trump commits to more troops in Afghanistan, vows 'fight to win'

By Steve Holland and Ayesha Rascoe

 

U.S. President Donald Trump announces his strategy for the war in Afghanistan during an address to the nation from Fort Myer, Virginia, U.S., August 21, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump opened the door on Monday night to an increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan as part of a retooled strategy for the region, overcoming his own doubts about America's longest war and vowing "a fight to win."

 

Trump, in a prime-time televised address at a military base near Washington, said his new approach was aimed at preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for Islamist militants bent on attacking the United States.

 

The Republican president, who has repeatedly criticized the Afghanistan strategies of his predecessors, now inherits the same challenges, including a resurgent Taliban and a weak government in Kabul. He is laying the groundwork for greater U.S. involvement without a clear end in sight or providing specific benchmarks for success.

 

In a speech with few details, Trump did not specify how many more troops would be added, gave no timeline for ending the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and put pressure on Pakistan, India and NATO allies to step up their own commitment.

 

But officials said he had signed off on Defense Secretary James Mattis' plans to send about 4,000 more to add to the 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan.

 

He warned U.S. support was not open-ended - "our support is not a blank check" - and insisted he would not engage in "nation-building," a practice he has accused his predecessors of doing at huge cost.

 

"We are not nation-building. We are killing terrorists," he said.

 

Trump laid out a tougher approach to U.S. policy towards Pakistan. Senior U.S. officials warned he could reduce security assistance for Pakistan unless the nuclear-armed nation cooperates more in preventing militants from using safe havens on its soil.

 

"We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens," Trump said. "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbour terrorists."

 

A Pakistani army spokesman said on Monday that Pakistan had taken action against all Islamist militants including the Haqqani network, which is allied to Afghan Taliban insurgents.

 

"There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. We have operated against all terrorists, including (the) Haqqani network," spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor told a media briefing in Islamabad.

 

Trump expanded the U.S. military's authority for American armed forces to target militant and criminal networks. He said that U.S. enemies in Afghanistan "need to know they have nowhere to hide - that no place is beyond the reach of American arms."

 

"Our troops will fight to win," he added.

 

A U.S.-led coalition invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Islamist Taliban government for harbouring al Qaeda militants who plotted the Sept. 11 attacks. But U.S. forces have remained bogged down there through the presidencies of Republican George W. Bush, Democrat Barack Obama and now Trump. About 2,400 U.S. forces have died in Afghanistan since the invasion.

 

 

PAST SCEPTICISM

 

The speech came after a months-long review of U.S. policy in which Trump frequently tangled with his top advisers on the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents have been making territorial gains.

 

U.S. military and intelligence officials are concerned that a Taliban victory over Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State’s regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot attacks against the United States and its allies.

 

"The unfortunate truth is that this strategy is long overdue and in the interim the Taliban has made dangerous inroads," said senior Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

The Republican president overcame his own scepticism about the war that began in October 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He said repeatedly on the campaign trail last year that the war was too costly in lives and money.

 

"My original instinct was to pull out," he said in his speech, but added he was convinced by his national security advisers to strengthen the U.S. ability to prevent the Taliban from ousting the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

 

Trump's speech came as the president tries to rebound after he was engulfed in controversy for saying both sides were to blame for violence between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month.

 

In an allusion to the Charlottesville uproar, Trump said: "We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other."

 

Trump also said the United States wanted India to help more with Afghanistan, especially in the areas of economic assistance and development.

 

He made clear his patience had limits in support of the Afghanistan government, saying Kabul needed to increase its cooperation in order to justify a continued American commitment.

 

Trump said it could be possible to have a political settlement with elements of the Taliban.

 

"But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen," he said.

 

U.S. commanders have long planned for a possible shift in resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as the fight against Islamic State comes off its peak, following gains made in the Iraqi city of Mosul and other areas.

 

One reason the White House decision took so long, two officials who participated in the discussions said on Sunday, is that it was difficult to get Trump to accept the need for a broader regional strategy that included U.S. policy towards Pakistan.

 

Trump received a wide range of conflicting options, the officials said.

 

White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other advisers favoured accepting a request for an 4,000 additional U.S. forces.

 

But recently ousted White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon had argued for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces, saying the war was still not winnable, U.S. officials said. Bannon was fired on Friday by Trump.

 

(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, David Alexander, Yeganeh Torbati and Jeff Mason in Washington; Writing by Steve Holland and Alistair Bell; Editing by Frances Kerry and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-22

 

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The report comes before Trump addresses the nation on his strategy for Afghanistan at 9:00 p.m. EDT Monday (0100 GMT on Tuesday).

Holy bat crap.... trump has a strategy!

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Holy bat crap.... trump has a strategy!

Yep, Trump strategy in essence - "We are not nation-building. We are killing terrorists," he said. The guy is a complete fool.

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Yes l agree but Russia more clever than ever before now.

Right. Invading other countries mean they are clever? And having international sanctions that's crippling their economy? Far from clever.

[blazes]

Well, now we know for certain what we already knew: the military/industrial complex is calling all the shots.

 

 

[blazes]

Yes, it's amusing for Trump to call this a "strategy" when the man probably can't even spell the word.

On the other hand, at least generals (the parents of the latest "strategy") live and (sometimes) die by their chosen strategy.