Obama Calling it Quits on Afghanistan--and Redefining Why We ever went

[gatorev12]

If there were any doubts, President Obama’s press conference today with Afghan president Hamid Karzai should dispel them: We are so out of there, at least as a full-bore fighting force, and sooner than previously scheduled.

NATO had planned, with Karzai’s assent, to pull out all Western combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. But Obama said today that he will scale back U.S. troops to a “support role” starting this spring—that is, sometime in the next few months. From then on, he said, Afghan forces “will take the lead,” while “the nature of our work will be a training, assisting, and advising role.”

Obama spun the news as a victory lap. “It will be a historic moment,” he proclaimed, “another step toward full Afghan sovereignty.” That’s one way to put it.
When one reporter asked if our accomplishments in this war had been worth all the bloodshed, Obama recalled the reason we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place—the 3,000 Americans killed on Sept. 11, 2001, as a result of an attack that al-Qaida had planned on Afghan soil. Our “central goal” ever since, he said, has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida while also bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Mission accomplished.

But this answer was misleading. It sidestepped the fact that, at the end of 2009, Obama sent an additional 33,000 troops to Afghanistan, a surge of nearly 50 percent above the 68,000 already there—and that he did so not to go after bin Laden and al-Qaida (a task that could have been handled with far fewer forces) but rather to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy, at least in the cities, particularly in the southern districts. This strategy involved not only killing and capturing bad guys but also helping to reform the Afghan government and providing the people with basic services—in short, nation-building. What Obama didn’t mention is that this surge and this strategy were not a success.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/01/barack_obama_and_hamid_karzai_press_conference_the _president_is_pulling.html


Pretty good article on slate. Can't believe I find myself in agreement with Joe Biden...:whoa:

[HALLGATOR]

Anyone taking odds on how long it will be before the Taliban take the country back over?

[wargunfan]

We should start a pool on how long it will take Karzai to skip the country with the Afghan national treasury safely tucked away in Switzerland. If he hangs around more than a few days after US forces pull out, one of his body guards (a Taliban plant) is going to empty an AK47 magazine into him. I'll take the first guess: three days.

[g8orbill]

Anyone taking odds on how long it will be before the Taliban take the country back over?

less than 6 months

[wargunfan]

On another note: Will another major power ever try to make a nation out of the pustule that is Afghanistan? Obama certainly failed to do so. As far as I'm concerned when the Afghan army started killing our troops it was time to leave.

[Allanon]

On another note: Will another major power ever try to make a nation out of the pustule that is Afghanistan? Obama certainly failed to do so. As far as I'm concerned when the Afghan army started killing our troops it was time to leave.

Well, the Soviet Union couldn't do it. The British Empire couldn't do it. If you don't learn from history then you are doomed to repeat it.

[gatorev12]

Anyone taking odds on how long it will be before the Taliban take the country back over?

I doubt the Taliban manages to retake the entire country again since the northern and western regions of that country have historically been viciously opposed to Taliban rule--but their power/influence will grow in the Pashtun regions of eastern and southern Afghanistan.

Even then, the Taliban have worn out their welcome for most. Afghans may not like the US or Western forces in their country, but they certainly aren't keen on the idea of the Taliban returning.

Most likely, Afghanistan dissolves into a Somalia-type existence wherein the borders are fairly well-defined, but numerous warlords all over the country fight for local power in the south and east--while some semblance of national government attempts to form in the north and west, but never strong enough to unite the entire nation.

[gatorjack]

Good analysis, Rev.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I suspect the ruling elites have decided that there's little left for them to milk from the Afghanistan angle of the larger 9/11 false flag scam. It's probably time to focus our forces and efforts pushing the hegemonic boundaries of our neocolonial empire in some other direction.

The Puppet-in-Chief is just doing as he is directed.

[co_gator89]

It was time to get out as soon as soon as the first bullet entered Bin Laden's skull. Bring the troops home from there, Pakistan, Kuwait, and from countries where we haven't been fighting anyone for 60+ years but never left like Germany, Korea, and Japan.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It was time to get out as soon as soon as the first bullet entered Bin Laden's skull.

Rather, it was time to get out as soon we put out the phoney baloney story that this alleged Osama bin Laden killing ever took place.

[G8trGr8t]

I suspect the ruling elites have decided that there's little left for them to milk from the Afghanistan angle of the larger 9/11 false flag scam. It's probably time to focus our forces and efforts pushing the hegemonic boundaries of our neocolonial empire in some other direction.

The Puppet-in-Chief is just doing as he is directed.

there are incredible copper and other mineral deposits there so don't think it is because there is nothing left worth taking

[ChartsandGrafs]

there are incredible copper and other mineral deposits there so don't think it is because there is nothing left worth taking

Multinational corporations and their contractors/mercenaries can take care of resource extraction and security. The U.S. military doesn't need to hang around for that, especially when they've got that pro-U.S. puppet government in place.

[cocodrilo]

Multinational corporations and their contractors/mercenaries can take care of resource extraction and security. The U.S. military doesn't need to hang around for that, especially when they've got that pro-U.S. puppet government in place.

I think you may be right. The MIC was mainly interested in making all it possibly could off another war. It was the neocons who took over the government in 2000 who wanted to go over there and stay ("Pax Americana" and "expanding the zones of democratic peace" and other such imperialistic PNAC BS), but fortunately they are out of power at least for now, though inexplicably not disgraced. Their hope for a return to power is Marco Rubio.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I think you may be right. The MIC was mainly interested in making all it possibly could off another war. It was the neocons who took over the government in 2000 who wanted to go over there and stay ("Pax Americana" and "expanding the zones of democratic peace" and other such imperialistic PNAC BS), but fortunately they are out of power at least for now, though inexplicably not disgraced. Their hope for a return to power is Marco Rubio.

I don't believe the Obama administration represents any meaningful shift from the neocon agenda, and by neocon agenda, I mean the agenda of the Zionist U.S. shadow government (MIC)/New York finance oligarchy. So while the neocons appear to be out of power, the pursuit of their broader globalist agenda still marches on under the "Hope and Change" banner. That's why Obama's first term looked almost exactly like a George W. Bush third term.

There's simply nothing left to do in Afghanistan and it was getting harder and harder for them to justify this ridiculous, decade-long occupation. The question is, "what's next?".

[gatorev12]

I don't believe the Obama administration represents any meaningful shift from the neocon agenda, and by neocon agenda, I mean the agenda of the Zionist U.S. shadow government (MIC)/New York finance oligarchy. So while the neocons appear to be out of power, the pursuit of their broader globalist agenda still marches on under the "Hope and Change" banner. That's why Obama's first term looked almost exactly like a George W. Bush third term.

There's simply nothing left to do in Afghanistan and it was getting harder and harder for them to justify this ridiculous, decade-long occupation. The question is, "what's next?".

You're forgetting the *real* powers that be in this whole sordid affair: Disney.

Lord only knows what that mouse has up his sleeve, but it's downright scary to speculate about online.

[gatorev12]

there are incredible copper and other mineral deposits there so don't think it is because there is nothing left worth taking

I doubt those minerals will ever really be accessed--there's very little in the way of infrastructure to ship the minerals to the outside world...and even if there were efforts made in that arena, it's highly likely warring factions/clans would do everything they could to extort the mining companies to the point of where it wouldn't be profitable.

[Swampmaster]

the country is unconquerable---filled with savages--the US should have left long ago

[dangolegators]

Glad we're getting out.

[g8orbill]

one of the few decisions the 47%ers prez has made that I agree with-it is past time to get out and not lose any more of our soldiers

[G8trGr8t]

Multinational corporations and their contractors/mercenaries can take care of resource extraction and security. The U.S. military doesn't need to hang around for that, especially when they've got that pro-U.S. puppet government in place.

Chinese won all the contracts (bribes) but cannot work due to security issues

[northgagator]

Chinese won all the contracts (bribes) but cannot work due to security issues

Sort of like how the mining company in Avatar got its butt kicked. The land and the people makes it impossible for outsiders to dominate.

[cocodrilo]

Sort of like how the mining company in Avatar got its butt kicked. The land and the people makes it impossible for outsiders to dominate.

Yeah, but we showed Iran (on behalf of British Petroleum) back in 1953 when Iran tried to dominate its own oil.

[northgagator]

Yeah, but we showed Iran (on behalf of British Petroleum) back in 1953 when Iran tried to dominate its own oil.

You sort of missed my point (not by much). I was also referring how the actual landscape of Afghanistan is very isolated and unforgiving.

[cocodrilo]

You sort of missed my point (not by much). I was also referring how the actual landscape of Afghanistan is very isolated and unforgiving.

Point taken. We need to start invading only countries that are easily overrun and occupied. (Remember how easy Iraq was? "Thank you, Mr. Bush!")

[rpmGator]

We never cared what the Taliban was doing to the people of that nation until 911. Now the anti-spenders, want to continue throwing bad money after bad money.

You can wait a year, five years or a decade, and the Taliban will do what they do at that time. They just smiled and waved goodbye, sitting on that sack of seed.

Just wish we had gotten spot head and Mullah Omar, which with BL was our only job there.

[cocodrilo]

Just wish we had gotten spot head and Mullah Omar, which with BL was our only job there.

No, the real job was to let BL escape. He served us well for years. As for Omar, we had him in the crosshairs and let him go. Not sure who spot head is, but I'm sure he must be another one who could not be eliminated too quickly, else there could be no years-long "war on terror."

[northgagator]

Point taken. We need to start invading only countries that are easily overrun and occupied. (Remember how easy Iraq was? "Thank you, Mr. Bush!")

Two problems with us going into Iraq (there are more),
1, The diversity of the general population promotes adversity instead of unity. Civil war there is inevitable,
2, Not enough boots in the ground with the initial invasion. The insurgents were able to organize and raid the Iraqi weapon depots.

Both items created the need for the surge.

Iraq militarily was a victory.

Unfortunately it was a political defeat in many ways.

[cocodrilo]

Iraq militarily was a victory.

Unfortunately it was a political defeat in many ways.

Iran may have been behind it, but I'm not sure how. Qui bono? The MIC certainly, for a relatively short time, but certainly Iran for the long haul.

Who's that Iranian-born news correspondent who married the guy formerly at the State Department? (I have trouble nowadays remembering names.) I'll bet she had something to do with it!

[ChartsandGrafs]

What's funny about the American retreat from Afghanistan is the fact that Afghanistan is one of the nearest examples of anarchism left on Earth. It's not truly anarchist, but it's fairly close in its lack of political structure and cohesion. Statists always make the argument that anarchy is a pipe dream, mainly due to the fact that a state of anarchy would be too easy for outside nations to conquer. Yet, in real world practice, Afghanistan (anarchy) seems to be the place where empires go to die. Governments want to come in, control, and exploit anarchy, but they can't. They end up running away with their tails between their legs.

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

[northgagator]

What's funny about the American retreat from Afghanistan is the fact that Afghanistan is one of the nearest examples of anarchism left on Earth. It's not truly anarchist, but it's fairly close in its lack of political structure and cohesion. Statists always make the argument that anarchy is a pipe dream, mainly due to the fact that a state of anarchy would be too easy for outside nations to conquer. Yet, in real world practice, Afghanistan (anarchy) seems to be the place where empires go to die. Governments want to come in, control, and exploit anarchy, but they can't. They end up running away with their tails between their legs.

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

Cannot dispute your post.
Here are factors to support your post.
1, The combination of being landlocked and extremely isolated.
2, Requires long and logistically supply lines.
3, Harsh climate in the winter.
4, Impossible alliances t manage or take advantage of with the multiple warlords and their tribes.
5, intrigue and treachery with other countries hoping to capitalize on a failed mission.
6, Time. A factor that can wear down and tire a war weary invader.

As far as the anarchy, Afghanistan has a long history of warring tribes that have on again off again feuds. These tribes have existed for centuries off the drug trade and taking protection money from the trade caravans. The irony is the thing that keeps them apart is the same thing that defeated their invaders. If they cannot govern themselves then how can an invader.

[cocodrilo]

Who controls the Afghan rug trade? This could be an overlooked factor in the conflict.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Cannot dispute your post.
Here are factors to support your post.
1, The combination of being landlocked and extremely isolated.
2, Requires long and logistically supply lines.
3, Harsh climate in the winter.
4, Impossible alliances t manage or take advantage of with the multiple warlords and their tribes.
5, intrigue and treachery with other countries hoping to capitalize on a failed mission.
6, Time. A factor that can wear down and tire a war weary invader.

As far as the anarchy, Afghanistan has a long history of warring tribes that have on again off again feuds. These tribes have existed for centuries off the drug trade and taking protection money from the trade caravans. The irony is the thing that keeps them apart is the same thing that defeated their invaders. If they cannot govern themselves then how can an invader.

It's very difficult to govern people who either don't want to be governed or simply reject the notion of government. It's so difficult, in fact, that it's rarely if ever worth the effort. It's much easier to find and target people who want to be governed.

That's why this particular attack on anarchy is so incorrect. A state of anarchy is like bug spray to a government. It's a repellent. A government may decide to land and suck some blood, but they can't get to any of the blood without also sucking in an awful-tasting mouthful of government repellent, so they often end up flying away looking for tastier targets.

[Minister_of_Information]

I don't care about the rationale, if O is getting us out of Afghanistan I'm in favor of it.

[northgagator]

That's why this particular attack on anarchy is so incorrect. A state of anarchy is like bug spray to a government. It's a repellent. A government may decide to land and suck some blood, but they can't get to any of the blood without also sucking in an awful-tasting mouthful of government repellent, so they often end up flying away looking for tastier targets.

Strange analogy but in this case it is accurate.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Strange analogy but in this case it is accurate.

LOL, yeah that was pretty strange.

I wrote it while drinking a bad cup of coffee.

[gatorev12]

What's funny about the American retreat from Afghanistan is the fact that Afghanistan is one of the nearest examples of anarchism left on Earth. It's not truly anarchist, but it's fairly close in its lack of political structure and cohesion. Statists always make the argument that anarchy is a pipe dream, mainly due to the fact that a state of anarchy would be too easy for outside nations to conquer. Yet, in real world practice, Afghanistan (anarchy) seems to be the place where empires go to die. Governments want to come in, control, and exploit anarchy, but they can't. They end up running away with their tails between their legs.

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

So you're warming to including Afghanistan as a member of the anarchy club, are you?

That's funny--since for years you and Anne Arbor would claim "Afghanistan and Somalia don't count!!!"

Or just trying to have your cake and eat it too?

[ChartsandGrafs]

So you're warming to including Afghanistan as a member of the anarchy club, are you?

That's funny--since for years you and Anne Arbor would claim "Afghanistan and Somalia don't count!!!"

Or just trying to have your cake and eat it too?

Link?

[gatorev12]

Link?

Shirley, you are aware that not every thread is archived, right?

Since you were banned most of this past year, the furthest back your posts go is whenever you started posting again a few weeks ago.

I get it: you forgot that you'd previously railed against including Afghanistan in the anarchist club. It's cool, I forget things all the time.

Really though, now that you've brought the topic up, I would think Afghanistan is the perfect place for you: weak and ineffective central government, large swaths of the country are not governed, the people there hate America, almost no taxation, etc. Sounds like your kinda paradise.

Oh...and no Disney agents either. Disney's not allowed...:joecool:

[ChartsandGrafs]

Shirley, you are aware that not every thread is archived, right?

Since you were banned most of this past year, the furthest back your posts go is whenever you started posting again a few weeks ago.

I get it: you forgot that you'd previously railed against including Afghanistan in the anarchist club. It's cool, I forget things all the time.

Really though, now that you've brought the topic up, I would think Afghanistan is the perfect place for you: weak and ineffective central government, large swaths of the country are not governed, the people there hate America, almost no taxation, etc. Sounds like your kinda paradise.

Oh...and no Disney agents either. Disney's not allowed...:joecool:

LOL, TL;DR...

Still no link I presume?