It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US-Afghanistan withdrawal in 6-Months?

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Posting a reply in another thread I came across this article it's only a few hours old. In it there is a quote from the US to the Newly Elected[Cough, Weeez, Cough ...gag] Afghan President. It warns of the corruption within their government and if it does not stop the US and most likely her Allies as well would pull out. Now the question.

Is this the US administration telegraphing it's real intentions, using this as an excuse for a withdrawal or is it just BS?


Your thoughts?
US gives Karzai six-month ultimatum to stem Afghanistan corruption

“If he doesn’t meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out,” said an official with access to Mr Karzai’s inner circle. “Obama said they don’t want their soldiers’ lives wasted for nothing. They want changes in Cabinet, and changes in his personal staff.”

It is extremely unlikely that British troops would stay in Afghanistan if US forces were withdrawn.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by SLAYER69]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
'Afghan police have been infiltrated at every level by the insurgency'

I have always believed the term "Afghan police force" was a misleading one. The men who make up the force are not trained police officers in any sense that we would recognise. They are tribal militiamen who are wearing a uniform. Very few have been through a police academy and most are entirely untrained. Two guys are grabbed from a village, stuck in uniform and told: "You are now police." That's how it happens.

I served in Afghanistan twice with the British army, mentoring Afghan soldiers and police officers throughout Helmand in 2006/7 and again, with the Royal Irish Rangers, last year. And whether people will admit this openly or not, it is a fact that the Afghan police have been infiltrated at every level by the insurgency. They are not employed by governments, they are paid by governments – and if the Taliban come along and pay them more, their loyalties can be very fluid. The corruption that runs so deeply through Afghan culture is what drives them, and their motivations are less ideological than financial. So it is entirely possible that this incredibly shocking incident was because this young man had been influenced by the insurgency.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

The debate over the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan is reignited as five soldiers are killed by a 'rogue' Afghan policeman. Follow us on twitter at twitter.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Is this the US administration telegraphing it's real intentions, using this as an excuse for a withdrawal or is it just BS?


Your thoughts?
US gives Karzai six-month ultimatum to stem Afghanistan corruption

“If he doesn’t meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out,” said an official with access to Mr Karzai’s inner circle. “Obama said they don’t want their soldiers’ lives wasted for nothing. They want changes in Cabinet, and changes in his personal staff.”

It is extremely unlikely that British troops would stay in Afghanistan if US forces were withdrawn.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by SLAYER69]


Could be. This administration seems to make policy decisions by first sticking a wet finger in the air to see which way the popular winds are blowing rather than acting out of conviction.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Could be. This administration seems to make policy decisions by first sticking a wet finger in the air to see which way the popular winds are blowing rather than acting out of conviction.



This could be the main reason for all the foot dragging the administration has been doing over whether or not they are going to send more troops.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Slayer, consider our Commander-in-Chief. He's clueless on anything to do with foreign policy.

His hesitation in all things military is enough to knock a buzzard off a gut wagon. It's not even hesitation - it's an attempt to ignore the task before a Commander-in-Chief.

For any of his soldiers, Obama's "freezing" would be called "dereliction of duty."

He's looking for any way out whatsoever, and this current Afghan government would be the perfect excuse to pull out.

Then he can say, "we tried, but the Afghans didn't. We can't do it by ourselves."

He justifies his decision to the right, and tickles the left by getting entirely out of Afghanistan, and he can then accelerate the pullout of Iraq using a similar argument.

For Obama, this is a win/win.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper




For Obama, this is a win/win.



I hope the troops do come home. It will be a win/win for them also not to come home dead or maimed in body or spirit.

However I don't think withdrawal will happen in 6 mo. To much profit in war.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

From:John Burns on Ahmed Wali Karzai and the C.I.A.
Burn's give the Administration few options. The most obvious is for President Karzai to clean up his government:



Times reports from Washington indicate that the White House will make this a pillar of its new policy — is that Mr. Karzai will be held by the western allies, henceforth, to far stricter performance standards; and that part of that will entail ridding his government of the most egregious practitioners of corruption and incompetence. Ahmed Wali Karzai, surely, will be high on that list.


Looks like Wali will have to take his marbles on go on sabbatical!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Thanks.

I read that a few days ago. Now the big game is to spin the corruption bit. It seems all sides are trying to play it to their advantage.

Whether pro or con makes no difference.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I agree it a good excuse to save face for Uncle Barry. Yes there is a profit motive for war, but the borrowed money to fight a war might be needed to save the economy, or at least put off the financial collapse. Maybe America's lenders are saying "no more loans to fund a war, your economy is collapsing"



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jacksmoke
 


I don't know...
I wouldn't count the old girl out just yet.
US - Economy in Recovery or just smoke and mirrors?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by centurion1211
Could be. This administration seems to make policy decisions by first sticking a wet finger in the air to see which way the popular winds are blowing rather than acting out of conviction.



This could be the main reason for all the foot dragging the administration has been doing over whether or not they are going to send more troops.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by SLAYER69]


Maybe the foot dragging is because there hasn't been enough "breeze" for a reading.

What to do, what to do?




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The case for withdrawal from Afghanistan is not yet made

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Yesterday was a black day for the British Army and the Western mission in Afghanistan.

The appalling slaughter of five soldiers in Helmand – killed in their base by a rogue member of the Afghan security services – is likely to undermine public support for the mission here in Britain. But how should it influence policy-makers? A single attack must, of course, be seen in its wider context. Yet that wider context is looking increasingly bleak. This atrocity comes in the wake of Hamid Karzai's disputed presidential election victory and a growing feeling that his regime is corrupt and illegitimate.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Karzai seems to be playing everyone, and seems to be overly friendly with the Iranians.

The truth is, if we're not going to kick some serious ass in a serious manner and rack up some serious credibility, then bring everyone home.

Or better, man a remote outpost. A place all enemies would have to cross multiple layers of surveillance to reach, yet a place we would have boots on the ground in the event someone needed some major killing.

We leave, but we maintain a presence. For just in case.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Whatcha gonna do Barry??? I thought you said it was the "right" war. Can't win it and can't pull out.

I say you decide to pull out and pander to the left...We'll have another terrorist event and you'll be gone. Oh wait they didn't attack us to begin with.

Win it or Get em out!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jacksmoke
 


I don't know...
I wouldn't count the old girl out just yet.
US - Economy in Recovery or just smoke and mirrors?


I S&F that thread for ya, excellent discussion. I shall return to it to debate the other side.

As far as the U.S. threating Karzai's job by pulling out, who knows? Lots of money and people without an ounce of humanity or humility pulling the strings. To early to tell. Whats Web-bots or TWZ's prediction? good a guess as any



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Karzai seems to be playing everyone, and seems to be overly friendly with the Iranians.

The truth is, if we're not going to kick some serious ass in a serious manner and rack up some serious credibility, then bring everyone home.

Or better, man a remote outpost. A place all enemies would have to cross multiple layers of surveillance to reach, yet a place we would have boots on the ground in the event someone needed some major killing.

We leave, but we maintain a presence. For just in case.


Dooper, if we do what you just wrote, then we become the evil men in your signature.
Edit to add: If we aren't already considered evil by the non-combatant Afghani's

[edit on 4-11-2009 by jacksmoke]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I read about this awhile ago... what do you think? New strategy developing?


Davis was a liaison officer between the Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-A) and the Central Command in 2005, just as the Afghan insurgency was becoming a significant problem for the U.S. military. In that assignment he both consulted with the top U.S. officers and staff of the CFC-A and traveled widely throughout Afghanistan visiting U.S. and NATO combat units. He also commanded a U.S. military transition team on the Iraqi border with Iran in 2008-09.

In the paper, Davis suggests what he calls a "Go Deep" strategy as an alternative to the recommendation from McChrystal for a larger counterinsurgency effort, which he calls "Go Big".

The "Go Deep" strategy proposed by Davis would establish an 18-month time frame during which the bulk of U.S. and NATO combat forces would be withdrawn from the country. It would leave U.S. Special Forces and their supporting units, and enough conventional forces in Kabul to train Afghan troops and police and provide protection for U.S. personnel.

The forces that continue to operate in insurgent-dominated areas would wage "an aggressive counterterrorism effort" aimed in part at identifying Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. The strategy would also provide support for improved Afghan governance and training for security forces.


U.S. Veteran Army Officer Urges Afghan Troop Drawdown

[edit on 4-11-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

If he doesn’t meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out,” said an official with access to Mr Karzai’s inner circle.


It's always some mysterious "official" with no name or designation. It's another way of saying, "We just made up some BS to sell papers and/or manipulate opinions".

I don't buy it!

IRM



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jacksmoke
 

Now Jack, your reply was understandable, given the brief comment I made there.

On many other threads, I'm fairly consistent. Get in, kill as many as you have to - as fast as you can - to win - and then let's get the boys home.

Anything less is an abomination. Anything less prolongs the suffering of soldiers AND civilians.

Anything less costs unnecessary blood on both sides. Anything less prolongs the misery of the country.

Two men knew how to win in Afghanistan, and did. They were the only two to defeat the Afghanis. It took three years of all-out effort.

We've improved transport, so it shouldn't take more than two if we get serious now. And then we're done with it.

Tell Karzai to take care business in his corrupt administration, and we'll take care of business in the field.

One, big, free-fire zone.

Easy to spot. Those that run are enemy. Those that don't run are just well-disciplined enemy.

Guerrillas have to have mobility, ingress and egress, resupply, and water.

It's not about fighting.

It's about HUNTING. The prey always falls to a determined, skillful hunter.







 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join