Obama Prepares for Afghan Exit

[Babur]

This is to be expected especially with the death of Osama Bin Laden a month ago.I am just wondering whether the ANA would be competent enough to fight back the Taliban especially when the latter's leadership remains in Quetta, Pakistan.

Obama Prepares for Afghan Exit




Thursday, 02 June 2011 20:28
Last Updated on Thursday, 02 June 2011 20:57
Written by TOLOnews.com


Now that the leader of al-Qaeda Osama Bin Laden is dead, President Obama is expected to soon announce an initial US troop drawdown from Afghanistan.

An analytic article published on the Reuters said some current and former US officials say Obama could easily announce a pullout of at least 10,000 troops over the next year.

President Obama has made no final decision and has received no formal recommendations from the Defence Department about how many soldiers should be pulled out starting in July from the 100,000 US force in Afghanistan, the article said.

The top US commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan is also expected to present his recommendations to Pentagon Chief in a couple of weeks.

The White House may also be more willing to a quick withdrawal of troops from Afghan war, which now costs over $110 billion a year, as fiscal pressures are on the rise back in the US.

Afghan experts predict that after the United States withdraws its troops from Afghanistan, the poorly equipped Afghan security forces wouldn't be able to ensure security while suffering from high desertion rate.

"Afghan national army should be equipped with logistical and modern arms so that they are completed in terms of quality and quantity," Shahnawaz Tanai, a former Afghan defence minster, said. "The defence capability of forces should be increased for a proper security and order in Afghanistan. International forces should gradually leave Afghanistan and it's beneficial to all both Afghanistan and international community.

Former US officials also emphasise that more focus should be put on the capability of Afghan security forces. Officials say they should grow enough potential to make them able to defend their own country.

Former US officials including a former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Ronald Neumann, say that more important than the size of the initial American drawdown is the performance of local forces that are left behind.

"You want to thin out in a measured way, where the price of failure for the Afghan forces is a bloody nose and not a broken head," Ronald Neumann said. "The real question is, can you hand over some of the hard areas?"

http://www.tolonews.com/index.php?op...mid=95&lang=en

[Roboute Guilliman]

I find it a bit to early. But maybe Iran can send some peacekeepers, at least they wont end up as corrupt as the Pakistanian ones.

[Babur]

I find it a bit to early. But maybe Iran can send some peacekeepers, at least they wont end up as corrupt as the Pakistanian ones.

I think the US is very weary of Iran getting involved in Afghanistan so that is very unlikely.

[The excited one]

they better be asap it is a waste of money and just nuke themselves up if they go to themselves you can't solve the problem of radical islamic extremist via millitary occupation its impossible.......... and iran send peace keepers? do they even want to do it in the first place?

[Captain Jin]

they better be asap it is a waste of money and just nuke themselves up if they go to themselves you can't solve the problem of radical islamic extremist via millitary occupation its impossible.......... and iran send peace keepers? do they even want to do it in the first place?

No one is trying to solve radical islamic extremism via military occupation.

[The excited one]

No one is trying to solve radical islamic extremism via military occupation.

ok sorry my bad i mean another wave of imperalism where you occupied a country in the name of freedom but coming to exploit natural resources there

[Vanoi]

ok sorry my bad i mean another wave of imperalism where you occupied a country in the name of freedom but coming to exploit natural resources there

US isn't getting anything from Afghanistan. If this was the US invading a country for resources, this would have been a horrible choice.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

US isn't getting anything from Afghanistan. If this was the US invading a country for resources, this would have been a horrible choice.

1 trillion dollars worth of lithium found in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...l?pagewanted=2

Withdrawing from Iraq really meant leaving bases and thousands of troops to stay behind and the same is the case with Afghanistan.

U.S. banking..sorry... foreign policy must keep the U.S. military flanking Iran.

[Admiral Piett]

ok sorry my bad i mean another wave of imperalism where you occupied a country in the name of freedom but coming to exploit natural resources there

We've heard it all before.

[motiv-8]

ok sorry my bad i mean another wave of imperalism where you occupied a country in the name of freedom but coming to exploit natural resources there

Rrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhhhttt...

[Imperial]

ok sorry my bad i mean another wave of imperalism where you occupied a country in the name of freedom but coming to exploit natural resources there

We have plenty of rocks in the US. We don't need to occupy a tribal country just to get some, thanks.

Anyways, Obama would have been a fool if he didn't use the death of Osama as a reason to leave Afghanistan. Al-Qeada has been splintered beyond all repair and the most wanted man was brought to justice in the most brutal way possible with two bullets in his dome, courtesy of the red, white, and blue.

[Border Patrol]

ok sorry my bad i mean another wave of imperalism where you occupied a country in the name of freedom but coming to exploit natural resources there

Can you just once give your post a teency amount of thought? Just this once?

[Babur]

they better be asap it is a waste of money and just nuke themselves up if they go to themselves you can't solve the problem of radical islamic extremist via millitary occupation its impossible.......... and iran send peace keepers? do they even want to do it in the first place?

America isn't there to occupy Afghanistan, they attacked the Taliban because they were sheltering those behind 9/11

This is the exact same scenario that played out in Afghanistan in the 80's. Moving in was the controversial part; if we move out before the region is stablized, any negative circumstances after the withdrawal would be blamed on the United States, and more problems would ensue (just like what happened to the U.S. in Afghanistan).

I am afraid it isn't, the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan to prop up the unpopular Democratic Republic of Afghanistan while the Americans went in to overthrow the Taliban who had sheltered Al Qaeda the perpetrators of 9/11

Now before you make any further silly remarks:

Last interview by New York Times of Najibullah, days before his downfall:


Now be a good boy and go and do your homework on Afghanistan.

Najibullah met a pretty nasty end

[Vanoi]

10,000 troops isn't much, US will still have alot of troops there.

[Angrychris]

obama says alot of things like most politicians

[Angrychris]

thats how its been done for thousands of years

[Simon Cashmere]

Should have left years ago, the mission is a waste of time as long as the enemy can hide in Pakistan, run across the border, fight, run away again. Just leave it and let if fail if its going to. There is no point fighting a war with both hands tied behind your back, and the enemy is given safe haven in a neighbouring country. Just a pointless waste of taxpayer money, and worse, soldiers' lives.

[Vanoi]

Should have left years ago, the mission is a waste of time as long as the enemy can hide in Pakistan, run across the border, fight, run away again. Just leave it and let if fail if its going to. There is no point fighting a war with both hands tied behind your back, and the enemy is given safe haven in a neighbouring country. Just a pointless waste of taxpayer money, and worse, soldiers' lives.

There is also no point in leaving now since we have been there for 10 years. It would destroy any progress we have made in the first place.

[Simon Cashmere]

There is also no point in leaving now since we have been there for 10 years. It would destroy any progress we have made in the first place.

Have you ever heard of 'cut your losses' ? How long does the US taxpayer, and the Western taxpayer, have to keep fighting an unwinnable war? What is the strategy, just keep hanging around and let groups of people, that are supplied, paid, fed, in a neighbouring state, shoot people and kill our soldiers with IEDs? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Longer?

The way to finish wars is to win them. If you can't do that - then leave. Sticking around to be an expensive and tempting target for people who can run away into a safe haven, is just pointless.

[Imperial]

Have you ever heard of 'cut your losses' ? How long does the US taxpayer, and the Western taxpayer, have to keep fighting an unwinnable war? What is the strategy, just keep hanging around and let groups of people, that are supplied, paid, fed, in a neighbouring state, shoot people and kill our soldiers with IEDs? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Longer?

The way to finish wars is to win them. If you can't do that - then leave. Sticking around to be an expensive and tempting target for people who can run away into a safe haven, is just pointless.

You just can't leave when things get tough, it ruins your credibility. If the US left and the ANA were to be overrun and civil war were to ensue that would be our fault. If the US got a reputation for leaving when things get tough, why would anyone want to help us militarily?


No, you find your golden nugget, and that nugget is the death of Osama. With his death and the Taliban being run out of Afghanistan it would show that the US accomplished what it was set out to do. Therefore it builds credbility in your foreign policies.