Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Time to Leave Afghaistan

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:10:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are two inter-related articles here that I believe make it painfully clear that the US need to reshape its strategic priorities, and first and foremost would be to leave Afghanistan ... immediately.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

http://rt.com...

This first article there is an explanation as to why Russia can do what he wants. He has us in a strategic vise in which he can threaten logistics trains, running through Russia and make us dependent upon a notoriously sticky Pakistani government that has routinely effected our supply lines. Simply put Afghanistan gives Russia, not us, a great deal of leverage.

It also ties up a significant portion of our military resources, and with so many so isolated and tied down - even a four year old could figure out how to exploit this opportunity.

The second is what we gain - a political partner who wastes billions and practically spits on the graves of our Soldiers to deliberately disagree with us? Has Karzai completely lost all sense? Is he about to let the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtu, and the Hazaraa divide up the country of Afghanistan on a vote?

And what are we getting? Is there a sizable economic return for this strategic blood letting? Are we gaining any leverage with the application of our military force? Or are we creating vulnerabilities and simply pouring money down the drain? Blocking terrorism? Given the links of the Pakistani ISI to these networks, it would seem holding Pakistan accountable for their actions is a better way forward than waiting for them to be training n Pakistan and then sent across the border to be killed indefinitely. No matter how badly be bludgeon them, they can just recruit more and start the whole process over again.

IMHO, Crimea is providing an excellent example of why we need acknowledge where our strategic priorities are, and the sooner that recalibration happens - they better.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:10:28 AM, neutral wrote:
There are two inter-related articles here that I believe make it painfully clear that the US need to reshape its strategic priorities, and first and foremost would be to leave Afghanistan ... immediately.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

http://rt.com...

This first article there is an explanation as to why Russia can do what he wants. He has us in a strategic vise in which he can threaten logistics trains, running through Russia and make us dependent upon a notoriously sticky Pakistani government that has routinely effected our supply lines. Simply put Afghanistan gives Russia, not us, a great deal of leverage.

It also ties up a significant portion of our military resources, and with so many so isolated and tied down - even a four year old could figure out how to exploit this opportunity.

The second is what we gain - a political partner who wastes billions and practically spits on the graves of our Soldiers to deliberately disagree with us? Has Karzai completely lost all sense? Is he about to let the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtu, and the Hazaraa divide up the country of Afghanistan on a vote?

And what are we getting? Is there a sizable economic return for this strategic blood letting? Are we gaining any leverage with the application of our military force? Or are we creating vulnerabilities and simply pouring money down the drain? Blocking terrorism? Given the links of the Pakistani ISI to these networks, it would seem holding Pakistan accountable for their actions is a better way forward than waiting for them to be training n Pakistan and then sent across the border to be killed indefinitely. No matter how badly be bludgeon them, they can just recruit more and start the whole process over again.

IMHO, Crimea is providing an excellent example of why we need acknowledge where our strategic priorities are, and the sooner that recalibration happens - they better.

You keep your hands out of Crimea, and I'll stop targeting Burger Kings. But yes, I do agree with you. Get American troops out of Crimea to fight the Democrats at home!
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 12:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:10:28 AM, neutral wrote:
There are two inter-related articles here that I believe make it painfully clear that the US need to reshape its strategic priorities, and first and foremost would be to leave Afghanistan ... immediately.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

http://rt.com...

This first article there is an explanation as to why Russia can do what he wants. He has us in a strategic vise in which he can threaten logistics trains, running through Russia and make us dependent upon a notoriously sticky Pakistani government that has routinely effected our supply lines. Simply put Afghanistan gives Russia, not us, a great deal of leverage.

It also ties up a significant portion of our military resources, and with so many so isolated and tied down - even a four year old could figure out how to exploit this opportunity.

The second is what we gain - a political partner who wastes billions and practically spits on the graves of our Soldiers to deliberately disagree with us? Has Karzai completely lost all sense? Is he about to let the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtu, and the Hazaraa divide up the country of Afghanistan on a vote?

And what are we getting? Is there a sizable economic return for this strategic blood letting? Are we gaining any leverage with the application of our military force? Or are we creating vulnerabilities and simply pouring money down the drain? Blocking terrorism? Given the links of the Pakistani ISI to these networks, it would seem holding Pakistan accountable for their actions is a better way forward than waiting for them to be training n Pakistan and then sent across the border to be killed indefinitely. No matter how badly be bludgeon them, they can just recruit more and start the whole process over again.

IMHO, Crimea is providing an excellent example of why we need acknowledge where our strategic priorities are, and the sooner that recalibration happens - they better.

If it's so simple to you then don't you think it would be simple to the American government too? It's not and that is because you aren't acknowledging the reason why the US has an interest in Afghanistan. And of course the US government can't either.

US presence in Afghanistan is strategic for US oil interests in the ME. The US is attempting to solidify it's sphere of influence and has been actively involved in doing that since the fall of the Soviet Union. Hence, two wars on Iraq and all the meddling in other ME countries. Wesley Clarke told us this quite clearly and even went on to say that Syria and Iran were on the schedule for future aggression.

Afghanistan is critical, not for it's oil but because of it's strategic location. The US needs Afghanistan stabilized and firmly under it's influence before it leaves. It likely won't happen if the Us leaves on schedule because Karzai's interests aren't in tune with US interests. His interests are aligning with Pakistan's interests and that means Russian interests too. Russia may actually step in to grab the loyalty of Karzai and Afghanistan without having to fire a shot.

If the US can uninstall Karzai and reinstall a more amenable puppet then that would be the short term solution. That has become a much more difficult task at this late date.

It appears that the US will have to leave military strength behind in Afghanistan just as it had to do in Iraq. Only the situation in Afghanistan will be much more tenuous and prone to slip away from US control.

Is Russia asserting it's influence in Afghanistan more because of US/Nato meddling in the Ukraine? I wouldn't think any more than it's always been doing. Afghanistan has always been of interest to Russia as it's a block to more US/Nato encroachment on the Stans.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:38:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 12:09:07 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/24/2014 2:10:28 AM, neutral wrote:
There are two inter-related articles here that I believe make it painfully clear that the US need to reshape its strategic priorities, and first and foremost would be to leave Afghanistan ... immediately.

http://finance.yahoo.com...

http://rt.com...

This first article there is an explanation as to why Russia can do what he wants. He has us in a strategic vise in which he can threaten logistics trains, running through Russia and make us dependent upon a notoriously sticky Pakistani government that has routinely effected our supply lines. Simply put Afghanistan gives Russia, not us, a great deal of leverage.

It also ties up a significant portion of our military resources, and with so many so isolated and tied down - even a four year old could figure out how to exploit this opportunity.

The second is what we gain - a political partner who wastes billions and practically spits on the graves of our Soldiers to deliberately disagree with us? Has Karzai completely lost all sense? Is he about to let the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtu, and the Hazaraa divide up the country of Afghanistan on a vote?

And what are we getting? Is there a sizable economic return for this strategic blood letting? Are we gaining any leverage with the application of our military force? Or are we creating vulnerabilities and simply pouring money down the drain? Blocking terrorism? Given the links of the Pakistani ISI to these networks, it would seem holding Pakistan accountable for their actions is a better way forward than waiting for them to be training n Pakistan and then sent across the border to be killed indefinitely. No matter how badly be bludgeon them, they can just recruit more and start the whole process over again.

IMHO, Crimea is providing an excellent example of why we need acknowledge where our strategic priorities are, and the sooner that recalibration happens - they better.

If it's so simple to you then don't you think it would be simple to the American government too? It's not and that is because you aren't acknowledging the reason why the US has an interest in Afghanistan. And of course the US government can't either.

US presence in Afghanistan is strategic for US oil interests in the ME. The US is attempting to solidify it's sphere of influence and has been actively involved in doing that since the fall of the Soviet Union. Hence, two wars on Iraq and all the meddling in other ME countries. Wesley Clarke told us this quite clearly and even went on to say that Syria and Iran were on the schedule for future aggression.

Afghanistan is critical, not for it's oil but because of it's strategic location. The US needs Afghanistan stabilized and firmly under it's influence before it leaves. It likely won't happen if the Us leaves on schedule because Karzai's interests aren't in tune with US interests. His interests are aligning with Pakistan's interests and that means Russian interests too. Russia may actually step in to grab the loyalty of Karzai and Afghanistan without having to fire a shot.

If the US can uninstall Karzai and reinstall a more amenable puppet then that would be the short term solution. That has become a much more difficult task at this late date.

It appears that the US will have to leave military strength behind in Afghanistan just as it had to do in Iraq. Only the situation in Afghanistan will be much more tenuous and prone to slip away from US control.

Is Russia asserting it's influence in Afghanistan more because of US/Nato meddling in the Ukraine? I wouldn't think any more than it's always been doing. Afghanistan has always been of interest to Russia as it's a block to more US/Nato encroachment on the Stans.

What strategic location is Afghanistan close to?

A trade route?

An economic source of power?

Every country that sets foot into Afghanistan has to deal with a country that is ungovernable. The only thing we need from Afghanistan is for the Taliban to control the terrorists, that is it. The British used to march their sepoys up into the mountains and slaughter the wild pashto tribesman until they got it.

Whenever a country has tried to govern it for their own ends? They fail. British, Russia, now us. We are pouring money into a black hole that cannot even govern itself. The last time Afghanistan was stable was with the Iron Emir, and as soon as he died ... the country went fruit cake again.

In the mean time, our logistics and troops are held homage by the Pakistani and Russian governments, we poor money and manpower into a country that will fail shortly after we leave. We interfere in the politics at our own peril (as the Russian frequent changing of leaders should have warned us).

There is no reason to be there, save to enjoy watching every two bit wanker the world has take advantage of the over extended nonsense we have.

All we really need do is remind the Taliban that we still have B52's. Any more strikes from them? We will strike back - and we will not stop bombing until we are convinced they get it.

What are we getting from Afghanistan? Other than dead sons and daughters?