General: We’re Staying in Afghanistan, No Matter What Obama Said

I just read this and thought it was interesting that General Dunford would go against the Obama administration on getting out of Afghanistan.

Talks began on Thursday between U.S. and Afghan diplomats, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) noted, to craft the details of the U.S.’s continued presence, a long, long-telegraphed process Dunford says he wants to see wrapped up by May 2013. The general testified that the U.S. can “absolutely” cut its troop levels, but will need a residual force for “counterterrorism” operations and to backstop the fledgling Afghanistan army and police. (As well as to use Afghanistan as a platform to strike militant targets in Pakistan.) Regardless of the ultimate size of that force, Dunford’s testimony signaled that he intends to spend his time in Afghanistan telling whomever will listen that the U.S. is in Southwest Asia for the long haul, never mind what the president says.

source: www.wired.com...

On second thought, I guess with the U.S. thinking about coming home and a smaller military, maybe a General Dunford's comments are so crazy. If you are a hammer, you see every problem as a nail.

Just my two cents...

Seems like it's time for this Gen to retire. If the president tells the military to leave then the military has to leave.

reply to post by TheHistorian


We can't leave, we initially went over to keep the taliban from destroying the poppy fields as we use that in our drug trade for money for black ops projects. While we were there we discovered there is a multi-billion dollar lithium deposit for the taking. As lithium is in all your cellphone batteries and too many other applications to list.

Now this got me thinking maybe thats why Russia has been trying to beat the afgans for the last 30 years or so.

We aren't leaving anytime soon.

then who is supposed to guard the opium fields??!

reply to post by TheHistorian


I think your title is a bit misleading...

'General: We’re Staying in Afghanistan, No Matter What Obama Said'

It makes it sound as if the General made that statement when in fact it was the writers perspective on the General's formal discussion of the long term US Afghan strategic situation.

Dunford’s testimony signaled that he intends to spend his time in Afghanistan telling whomever will listen that the U.S. is in Southwest Asia for the long haul, never mind what the president says.

reply to post by SLAYER69


When I said he was going to against the Obama Administration I meant more in terms of policy. I find the political power these generals have to be fascinating. Gen Dunford is right we will probably be engaged in southeast asia for the foreseeable future. I just feel like too many of these high ranking officers make foreign policy decisions or influence policy decisions while they put us in a situation whenever there is conflict, it has to be resolved with military force. Going back to what I said in my original post, the hammer views every problem as a nail. If we keep thinking like this we are never going to be able to have our troops come home and start paying off the last two major wars.

Plus, there is a major sector of the U.S. economy that needs conflict. Defense contractors need to sell goods, if the US is not in a conflict less goods get sold. These companies lose revenues and people are laid off. Sometimes I think that this system is set up to continually drive conflict, and eventually it will lead to our demise.

Nice try blaming the general the US and Afghanistan made a deal long ago to be there til 2024.

dawn.com...

And here:

The US and Afghanistan reached a deal on Sunday on a long-delayed strategic agreement that ensures US military and financial support for at least a decade beyond 2014, the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw.

english.al-akhbar.com...

Exposing another campaign lie.

Originally posted by neo96
Nice try blaming the general the US and Afghanistan made a deal long ago to be there til 2024.

dawn.com...

And here:

The US and Afghanistan reached a deal on Sunday on a long-delayed strategic agreement that ensures US military and financial support for at least a decade beyond 2014, the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw.

english.al-akhbar.com...

Exposing another campaign lie.

you've closed the thread. Love it. So many times i read something on ATS and think to myself how deluded people can be, believing only what they want to believe. Your president (any western president for that matter) is a puppet and someone else is pulling the strings. How come American people can't see that?

reply to post by neo96


nice try but "military and financial support" doesnt necessarily mean boots on the ground

exposing another neo lie

reply to post by sirhumperdink


Civilian commander in chief same thing.

So no the war in Afghanistan continues until 2024 as long as troops stay in theatre and that finacial support continues.

reply to post by neo96


i may be missing some information that would allow me to understand how this pertains to what i just said so ill ask for you to explain again how a vague agreement of military support explicitly means that we have boots on the ground

reply to post by sirhumperdink


Because the Afghani government only exists because of what they US has done, if they ever leave the Taliban seize power once again.

The war in Afghanistan is not over and won't be for a long time to come and actually is just a based to deal with the coming actions in Asia.

reply to post by TheHistorian


For the OP, No matter what the cost, America will have a presence in the Nations, it butt-rapes. If this is built into Contractor money for CORPS and their interests, or if The U.S, has a Petro-Dollar influence. However We have far more money making Corpo-Government Schemes available these days, including Medical & engineering research, which can be done Cheaper abroad with American dollars POST-GRAD, than can be done here. It's a Circle Jerk, Use The military first, hire contractors to mop up, research wise, and force of arms wise.

reply to post by neo96


and the united states has the right to dictate who the population of any given country allows control why?

you understand these are social problems right? and that until the real issues are addressed even under a forced democracy people will vote in the same people perpetuating these problems (oh look at that ........a trait that most of the world shares)
....just because you disagree with the decision does not mean that it wasnt the peoples choice

do you really need to make me point out egypt?

(and this is all completely disregarding the fact that even if you were correct in your assesment that the wording of the agreement does not in fact mean that we have boots on the ground until 2024 only that we will provide assistance)