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

[Foozool]

New plan: send more troops❗️

"Fight to win" ???

Idiot

[KunMatt]

So why is this war against Afghanistan continuing (after Obama promised to end it 9 years ago) and why does the UK need to send more troops?

[Bill Miller]

Afghanistan is not "winnable", with 180 years of attempted Western intervention to attest.
Yes, the British Imperial Forces got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan in 1842.
The Russians finally gave it up.
We have been embroiled there for what? Nineteen years now?

[Mac98]

This could be a token move meant to fail before turning the war over to his friend (the Blackwater founder and brother of Education secretary de Voss, Mr. Prince). Prince says he can run a privatized war in Afghanistan for $10 billion a year. Probably hire third-world troops for $2 billion, kick back $1 billion for Trump and pocket the rest.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Mac98
Spelling error by autocorrect.

[KunMatt]

New plan: send more troops[emoji779]️
"Fight to win" [emoji15]?[emoji23]
Idiot

Didn't Obama send more troops to Afghanistan for 8 years?

What would you say that makes him?


Also, part of his election campaign promise was to bring all troops back from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected "And you can take that to the bank!".

So what does that make him??

[Scott]

Off-topic, conspiracy posts and replies removed.  

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, KunMatt said:

Didn't Obama send more troops to Afghanistan for 8 years?

When Obama left office, US troop levels were lower by half than when he first took office. After consulting with the Pentagon ("his generals"), he decided to keep 8,400 there when he hands over to his successor in January 2017).

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

Like Trump he decided a troop surge would win the war. It didn't. Trump plans a troop surge of maybe 4,000. Obama's surge of 75,000 didn't end the war. And now insurgents hold 30-50% of the countryside. Think Trump will "win the war?"

 

[StraightTalk]

10 hours ago, maximillian said:

Balance of power restored ?  Wake up man, it's all about geostrategic interest, oil, gas or other resources.

you don't say!!

[simple1]

13 hours ago, Srikcir said:

That "strategy" was purely a  military strategy developed with the generals.

But what is the political strategy? It doesn't appear that Secretary of State responsible for diplomacy was involved in the new Afghanistan strategy.

 

Defeating terrorists (apart from the Taliban there are about four other groups in Afghanistan) is a great goal. But the Afghan government is very corrupt, nation very divided by Afghan tribes led by warlords, lacks sufficient wealth to develop vital infrastructure to secure economic security and professional security forces.

How will the US deal with Pakistan and other countries support for terrorist groups in Afghanistan? How will the US get Pakistan's nemesis India to support Afghan's security? 

 

Without a political strategy, Trump's military strategy will simply further waste US resources and lives.

Read somewhere that the SecState strategy office for Afghanistan was closed down when Trump came to power & still has not been reallocated resources.

[Srikcir]

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Read somewhere that the SecState strategy office for Afghanistan was closed down when Trump came to power & still has not been reallocated resources.

State Dept. Moves to Shut Office Planning Afghanistan Strategy (June 2017)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/asia/trump-obama-afghanistan-pakistan.html?mcubz=0

 

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

State Dept. Moves to Shut Office Planning Afghanistan Strategy (June 2017)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/asia/trump-obama-afghanistan-pakistan.html?mcubz=0

 

Thanks for clarification. Some Rand Corp members departed. Have read some of their public domain reports, some very interesting observations

Edited August 23, 2017 by simple1

[Srikcir]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Rand Corp

An interesting analysis from the Rand Blog on How Trump Should Manager Afghanistan (March 2017)

First priority - Diplomacy!

U.S. diplomats need to continue encouraging governance reform in the country, including helping organize transparent elections and undermining large-scale public corruption. U.S. policymakers should also encourage diplomatic reconciliation with the Taliban.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/03/how-trump-should-manage-afghanistan.html

I don't think diplomacy is Trump's idea of a "win." That's for "losers."

[iReason]

7 hours ago, KunMatt said:

Didn't Obama send more troops to Afghanistan for 8 years?
What would you say that makes him?
Also, part of his election campaign promise was to bring all troops back from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected "And you can take that to the bank!".

So what does that make him??

 

 

"So what does that make him??"

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by iReason

[Srikcir]

26 minutes ago, iReason said:

"So what does that make him??"

Ethically and morally bankrupt?

[oldhippy]

8 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

Didn't Obama send more troops to Afghanistan for 8 years?

What would you say that makes him?


Also, part of his election campaign promise was to bring all troops back from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected "And you can take that to the bank!".

So what does that make him??

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>So what does that make him??<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

? That makes him somebody who was thought a lesson - and learned?

However, the other pupil in the class was too self absorbed to pay attention.

 

[midas]

On 8/22/2017 at 8:47 AM, DaddyWarbucks said:

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

Nobody wins in Afghanistan.

But the private contractors win financially

Like most corporations, their business model is based on profit through growth, and growth is most rapid when wars and preparations for more of them are the favored options in Washington.

[Srikcir]

26 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

That makes him somebody who was thought a lesson - and learned?

Trump's Bold New Afghanistan Strategy: Neither Bold, Nor New, Nor a Strategy:

• Trump’s “dramatic shift” is a direct continuation of what the Obama administration and Congress had been doing over the past several years: cutting aid to Islamabad while strengthening military and security cooperation with New Delhi.
• “To be honest,” Derek Chollet, an assistant secretary of Defense in the Obama administration, told the Washington Post, “It’s probably pretty close to what a Hillary Clinton would do.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/trumps-bold-new-afghanistan-strategy-isnt-bold-nor-new.html

Lesson learned - Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

 

[oldhippy]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Trump's Bold New Afghanistan Strategy: Neither Bold, Nor New, Nor a Strategy:

• Trump’s “dramatic shift” is a direct continuation of what the Obama administration and Congress had been doing over the past several years: cutting aid to Islamabad while strengthening military and security cooperation with New Delhi.
• “To be honest,” Derek Chollet, an assistant secretary of Defense in the Obama administration, told the Washington Post, “It’s probably pretty close to what a Hillary Clinton would do.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/trumps-bold-new-afghanistan-strategy-isnt-bold-nor-new.html

Lesson learned - Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

 

To avoid missunderstandings.

I was referring to Obama.

Obama made a mistake but learned.

Agent Orange will never learn.

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

Didn't Obama send more troops to Afghanistan for 8 years?

What would you say that makes him?


Also, part of his election campaign promise was to bring all troops back from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected "And you can take that to the bank!".

So what does that make him??

 

Really? Withdrawal from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected was part of Obama's campaign? You got a source for that?

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.  

[oldhippy]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Withdrawal from Afghanistan within 6 months of being elected was part of Obama's campaign? You got a source for that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/obama-promises/

 

The article mentions the promise of withdrawl, but not the 6 months limit.

It also mentions that other promise, Guantanamo bay.

 

[DoneTravelling]

For all those who think NATO led forces including US forces should withdraw from Afghanistan, what do you think will happen to the country then and what may be the follow on repercussions for the west.

 

In my opinion and I spent 3 years in Absurdistan, the country will collapse, the government will breakdown, Taliban will take over, major conflict will occur between ISIL and the Taliban, warlords will once again rule. There will be a mass exodus of the population like never seen before as the Taliban an IS will take revenge on anyone who supported NATO.  Remember Pakistan are already deporting Afghans back to Afghanistan. Migration will grow to the EU and USA. Terrorism will increase countless times in the western world.

 

All US leaders have always said the same thing "Better to fight them over there".

 

[oldhippy]

4 minutes ago, DoneTravelling said:

For all those who think NATO led forces including US forces should withdraw from Afghanistan, what do you think will happen to the country then and what may be the follow on repercussions for the west.

 

In my opinion and I spent 3 years in Absurdistan, the country will collapse, the government will breakdown, Taliban will take over, major conflict will occur between ISIL and the Taliban, warlords will once again rule. There will be a mass exodus of the population like never seen before as the Taliban an IS will take revenge on anyone who supported NATO.  Remember Pakistan are already deporting Afghans back to Afghanistan. Migration will grow to the EU and USA. Terrorism will increase countless times in the western world.

 

All US leaders have always said the same thing "Better to fight them over there".

 

In retrospect, I think that we should have let the Soviets handle the barbarians. They were doing well, untill the US started to arm the Taliban.

 

As for warlords taking over after a withdrawal: warlords run the country now too, but admittedly half of them are "our" warlords.

 

You can not force people to become civilised.

Cynical but true.

 

 

 

[DoneTravelling]

"You can not force people to become civilised. " yes quite true and this can always been seen in more ways than one.

 

In the last 30 years how many countries has the USA invaded or entered into an undeclared war.

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

In retrospect, I think that we should have let the Soviets handle the barbarians. They were doing well, untill the US started to arm the Taliban.

 

As for warlords taking over after a withdrawal: warlords run the country now too, but admittedly half of them are "our" warlords.

 

You can not force people to become civilised.

Cynical but true.

 

 

 

Cynical but untrue. Before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan it wasn't posing a threat to anybody. It was the Soviet destabilization of the country and the resulting refugee camps that created the conditions for outside Islamic fundamentalists to become embedded in the country.

[DoneTravelling]

Very true, Afghanistan under the last king was a peaceful, progressive Islamic country. Then the Russians came, then the USA armed the warlords and then the Taliban, now it comes back to bite the USA for interfering as always.

 

Interesting photos of Afghanistan at the following link. I also have plenty of my own personal photos with wonderful Afghan people. They are not all insurgents nor barbarians.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3404803/Life-Taliban-Fascinating-photographs-idyllic-Afghanistan-1960s-residents-free-enjoy-outdoor-picnics-colourful-markets.html

[gummy]

On ‎22‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 9:10 AM, 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.

Actually the thing is they understood eventually what lessons should have be learned from Vietnam.  The problem is they just choose not to remember what they should have learnt.  Hence the mess in every country they interfere in

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Cynical but untrue. Before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan it wasn't posing a threat to anybody. It was the Soviet destabilization of the country and the resulting refugee camps that created the conditions for outside Islamic fundamentalists to become embedded in the country.

I believe Britain invaded Afghanistan before the Soviets. The Soviets were next trying to prop up their puppet communist government. With the US supporting the other side.

 

Like Syria, too many outside players.

[Srikcir]

14 minutes ago, DoneTravelling said:

Afghanistan under the last king

There was no "then the Russians came" per se.

The king was overthrown by a military coup led by the king's brother-in-law General Mohammad Daud Khan who proclaimed Afghanistan a republic with himself as its president in 1973. Then followed several marxist regime changes resulting in the USSR military occupation in 1979. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution#Communist_rule

In the context of the Cold War between the US and USSR, the US armed Afghan anti-marxists to oppose the USSR's occupation.

[Opl]

"Afghanistan claims to be "open for business", and some super-rich Afghans have begun investing in their own country. But how soon can their money start replacing the billions of dollars in overseas aid the country has had so far? "

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32008567

 

(2005) US soldiers needed goods and equipment, and Mr Hashimy was able to provide them                

 

 The exclusive Palm Jumeirah resort in Dubai attracts many rich Afghans - and former warlords