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.

 

Troops Withdrawing From East Afghanistan..Are They Gathering Troops On The West To Invade Iran???

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I did a search for this but didn't come up with anything so I'm posting a really great link to a article in the NY Times..It says we're abandoning a Vital Pass on the Eastern border we have been fighting for since the beginning of the invasion.. A place that is Extremely Active and a lot of good men have died trying to secure..Well if it was so vital why are we withdrawing?Have the objectives changed?? Please don't get me wrong I want our troops home as much as anybody but thats not the case they're just redirecting their resources for whatevers next in thier war plan.. here's a piece of the Article General Campbell said. “I would tell you that there are places where we’ll continue to build up security and it leads to development and better governance, but there are some areas that are not ready for that, and I’ve got to use the forces where they can do the most good.”

President Obama’s Afghan troop buildup is now fully in place, and the United States military has its largest-ever contingent in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama’s reinforced campaign has switched focus to operations in Afghanistan’s south, and to building up Afghan security forces.

I may be mistaken but weren't we trying to withdrawl from Afghanistan???To me the largest ever troop buildup doesn't seem like what you'd expect to see before withdrawing..So how long before the invasion you think??do you think they need a false flag to invade?? here's another quote from the page in case people don't go to the link I wanted them to see this.. “What we figured out is that people in the Pech really aren’t anti-U.S. or anti-anything; they just want to be left alone,” said one American military official familiar with the decision. “Our presence is what’s destabilizing this area.”

www.nytimes.com...



edit on 24-2-2011 by ArieZ because: forgot the link




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I think the point is that they are not abandoning the valley, they are turning it over to afghan troops, and the privince is rearranging its troops to protect population centers instead of this godforsaken piece of desolation......



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ArieZ
 


I would think any sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan would be in anticipation of redeploying them to Libya. President Obama mentioned in his statement on the 23rd that he is discussing possible actions that can be taken in response to the Libyan crisis with our allies and the UN etc.

www.politicsdaily.com...

Iran is probably later on the agenda.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ArieZ
 


The new york times has CIA operatives working as reporters and editors so why would you believe crap that comes out of it? It has been documented that the intelligence community uses the ny times but my real question is whether its disinformation in order to make the insurgents think we are pulling out (they read our journalism too) or is it real info?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Ariez....U2U me.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


cant sorry I dont have 200 posts yet



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Right...Iran would be a longer shot. More likely as someone said Libya or maybe even to get out of the way of something...revolution (considering that's being rumored) or worse (considering the government there is none to happy with one of the commanders over there over civilian deaths). The best thing of all would be if they could get the hell out of Dodge altogether. I know...keep dreaming..



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EssenceOfSilence
reply to post by ArieZ
 


I would think any sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan would be in anticipation of redeploying them to Libya. President Obama mentioned in his statement on the 23rd that he is discussing possible actions that can be taken in response to the Libyan crisis with our allies and the UN etc.

www.politicsdaily.com...

Iran is probably later on the agenda.


Maybe..Hugo Chavez said today that he believes the U.S. is really after Libyan oil an instigated the revolution which is possible but I would think Iran is still the bigger worry with thier Nuclear program and sworn hatred with Israel..



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


That's exactly what I'd tell the world to justify troop movement if I was trying to use disinfo.. Sure we're moving our troops south and turning over a Vital Pass to Afghanistan Military.. don't mind us pulling our troops together on your border we're just passing through..



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArieZ
 


I don't rule out Iran at all, I just think that Libya may be lower hanging fruit at this point. Lots of human rights outcries etc gives him a little more moral high ground. (If morals mean anything nowadays.)

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentblue
reply to post by ArieZ
 


The new york times has CIA operatives working as reporters and editors so why would you believe crap that comes out of it? It has been documented that the intelligence community uses the ny times but my real question is whether its disinformation in order to make the insurgents think we are pulling out (they read our journalism too) or is it real info?


I didn't know about the CIA operatives but I figured as much for any popular News source..but that's what I was kinda getting at was that maybe this article is disinfo for the actual reason why we're pulling troops from a active warzone..I mean if the object is to eradicate Taliban an Al Queda and we know they're right there why are we pulling back?? Must be a new objective on the table is my thought



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArieZ
 


You need 20 not 200. 2nd div 2nd rcn Bn



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
To any military tactician worth his weight in salt, it is clear that this is a tactical retreat. In fact, we have had to retreat on many other occasions, to include the Korengal Valley last year. This is the allied forces losing ground to enemy forces, a retreat. Holding ground in this war is proving difficult, as this isn't Iraq where the enemy is only a loosely defined insurgency. In Afghanistan, we are fighting a very well organized and experienced opposing military force that is well funded, trained and equipped. The war in Afghanistan isn't going nearly as good as most Americans think it is. Most Americans and westerners realize that we are having problems in the country, though they are unaware of the tactical difficulties of this conflict and instead believe that the difficulties are political or diplomatic. Our leaders in government and the American or mainstream media would have us believe that the tactical front to this war is easily being won, and it is clear from these retreats that this just isn't the case, unfortunately. Now, this doesn't mean that we are losing the war, it just means that it's a much tougher tactical conflict than what we are lead to believe, much more so than Iraq. We are losing ground and have been for some time, unfortunately. However, just as we lose some ground to the enemy, we gain ground in other areas of the country (sometimes).

The media will spin these retreats into something other than what they are, in an effort to keep confidence in the western world that our military can easily beat their military. While I do believe that our military can beat their military, especially if all or even more of our resources were available, we are having some very real tactical difficulties in this conflict to where we are actually losing ground to the enemy. We are actually being forced to retreat and cede former allied strongholds to the enemy.

While I don't support this war, I do support our military and it bothers the hell out of me that we are being forced to retreat and lose ground. We need to either put enough resources into this conflict to win on a tactical front, or declare victory and pull out all together. Otherwise this conflict will drag on for ever and more of our young heroes will keep paying the ultimate sacrifice or they will keep coming home maimed.

Regardless, the Afghans (Taliban) are giving us one hell of a fight, at least with the limited resources that we are committing. However, make no mistake about it, we are not voluntarily pulling forces from these regions for any of the reasons that the media is reporting on and instead, we are being beaten back, forced to retreat and losing ground to the enemy in some areas of the country.

Our problems in Afghanistan aren't only political or diplomatic in nature. We don't have military superiority over the country, as is evident by our lost ground due to retreating, regardless of the reasons that the media gives for our troops being pulled out of a region. It's quite simple really, we are being forced to retreat from certain areas, which means we are losing ground to the enemy.



--airspoon









edit on 26-2-2011 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Iraq was not a loose insurgency either. Now, yes. When we went in they had an organized opposing force. We eliminated much of this force into what you can now call a loose insurgency.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join