I was stopped by the headline: "His" Generals. Aren't they OUR Generals, at least for now?
If you have read through the lines carefully, the President had said that they are not going to build a nation in America's image and rather let the Afghans govern themselves the way they like as per their complex customs. That is a pragmatic approach and a surge in force is required to reverse the enemy's gain there. Afghanistan is a very complex ,long riddle complicated by Pakistan's covert support to the enemy but faking friendship with the US. The President needs all the support that he can get in this problem.Any war is really sad but there are situation you have to flex the muscle and this is one such instance. You can't let the enemy and their supporters to think that we are weak and they are counting on it as it is their objective.The initial invasion didn't help. The restraint that followed definitely didn't help and in fact reversed the hard fought gains.It is heartening that the President didn't follow through his idea of complete withdrawal and heeding his General's wisdom. I sincerely hope this strategy will succeed in crippling the enemy if not outright success. Pray for the success, well being of our troops and wish them all the luck in this endeavor!
During the 2012 election, Obama promised that he, unlike Romney, had a plan to end the Afghan war and bring the troops home by 2014!!! What happened, Obama?!?
1
The generals have called for a holding pattern.....to stabilize....they have no
choice..
The State Department needs cooperate fully with Defense...
Trump is simply an annoyance to serious planning...
choice..
The State Department needs cooperate fully with Defense...
Trump is simply an annoyance to serious planning...
1
Erik Prince? Unaccountable mercenaries (recall the murder of Iraqi citizens by the repellent batch of mercs in Iraq)? Conflict of Interest (Prince' sister is Ed/Sec)+ acting as advisers in a matter which would enrich them?
If America determines that its vital interests are in play and war is the answer, then it should be fought by sworn, accountable (by the laws of war, US law and International law). Not mercenaries!
If America determines that its vital interests are in play and war is the answer, then it should be fought by sworn, accountable (by the laws of war, US law and International law). Not mercenaries!
6
The internal crisis is a political structure that culturally and regionally divides the country, and the external crisis is the overextension of military power without defined strategic goals. This is a recipe for defeat.
2
Maybe HE could ask Bush/Cheney for advice. What could go wrong???
3
I'll bet they sold trump on Afghanistan by saying three little letters: JFK.
Private contractors now make up 75% of US forces in Afghanistan. In war zones, contractors outnumber troops 3:1. Many contractors and employees are not American. Your patriotic tax dollars that you think are going to US troops are paying for private foreign contractors. imagine how much military money the pentagon is spending on contractors. Probably the largest proportion of funding goes to war contractors.
JFK didn't want to put more troops in Vietnam. LBJ ran on an anti war platform but he escalated the war. Why? LBJ learned from JFK that you don't tell the pentagon they can't spend money on war.
Read the Atlantic monthly story on how the US military relies on the private sector for war nowadays. I don't think I am allowed to put in a link, but it's easy enough to find: Atlantic mercenaries.
Private contractors now make up 75% of US forces in Afghanistan. In war zones, contractors outnumber troops 3:1. Many contractors and employees are not American. Your patriotic tax dollars that you think are going to US troops are paying for private foreign contractors. imagine how much military money the pentagon is spending on contractors. Probably the largest proportion of funding goes to war contractors.
JFK didn't want to put more troops in Vietnam. LBJ ran on an anti war platform but he escalated the war. Why? LBJ learned from JFK that you don't tell the pentagon they can't spend money on war.
Read the Atlantic monthly story on how the US military relies on the private sector for war nowadays. I don't think I am allowed to put in a link, but it's easy enough to find: Atlantic mercenaries.
1
I don't think it's a fair characterization by the NYT to label this article as Trump gave in to his advisors. This article probably barely touches the surface of all the facts and intelligence that went into the Administrations deliberations. What would NYT publish if the US did abandon Afghanistan, followed by an increase in terrorist attack.
This is another example of the lack of respect shown to the President by the media, headed by the NYT.
I thought there is an editorial section to the newspaper, it seems though that every article contains an editorial.
Dennis Hernreich, Lakewood Ranch, FL
This is another example of the lack of respect shown to the President by the media, headed by the NYT.
I thought there is an editorial section to the newspaper, it seems though that every article contains an editorial.
Dennis Hernreich, Lakewood Ranch, FL
1
I personally thought Bush made a huge mistake heading into Iraq while the Afghanistan exercise was underway. Finish one thing at a time. Nevertheless it is what it is- a mess with no easy answers. Obama, whom I'm. no fan of, was given a horrible mess. Trump, whom I can't quite understand, was given a horrible mess. If we leave the aTalliban and then ISIS have free reign. Their sights (especially ISIS) are set on American. Even if you hate Trump, pulling out is not the answer. What is the end game? We don't have one. How can we? Afghanistan has been tribal since Day One. No one has ever been able to tame it. But modern technology has brought us the internet for good and bad. ISIS can export whatever it wants if it has a secure base. A President, be he/she Democrat, Republican or Independent would be lying to America if he/she said they have an answer. Pray to your God, your Buddha, your moons,mountains, galaxies or whatever for an easy. I see no exit.
3
Trump's lives in a tunnel. It is the Trump Train Tunnel. The only thing that matters in the tunnel is Trump. He spoke these words at this appearance to promote Trump. Other people mean nothing. Afghanistan means nothing, it is just a pretext to get Trump's face on TV..
3
Trump was right: get out of Afganistan. We cannot afford war. We should not be in the empire business. Democracy cannot be imposed from without. Have we learned nothing?
1
Of course the generals want war. Job security and all. Plus, donnie boy gets a crack at being "commander in chief". That's probably how the generals sold him the idea....
Gee, he sort of does look commanding in the photo accompanying the editorial. Didn't catch the speech, though. Did he actually stay "on script"???
Gee, he sort of does look commanding in the photo accompanying the editorial. Didn't catch the speech, though. Did he actually stay "on script"???
3
For once, Trump did the right thing - to be sceptical. Compared to the 1962 Cuban crisis, Trump couldn't stand up to his three generals. JFK was surrounded by hawkish military men who called for an invasion of Cuba and a deployment of nuclear weapons, but he fended them off. Let's hope that Trump's generals are more rational than JFK's Joint Chiefs of Staff, who called him "a president who had no military experience at all, sort of a patrol-boat skipper in World War II."
2
Trump"s opinions -- all of them -- are uninformed. So he's always going to change his mind when he listens to reason, and be a fool when he doesn't.
1
If we are to continue to put our troops lives at risk, stop half-fast warfare, and destroy the Taliban completely ans swiftly by destroying their will to fight, then leave. We did that we Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan that were much more potent enemies than the Taliban. Or get out.
This story seems to indicate that Mr. Trump is not the shallow narcissistic moron that much of the left has portrayed him to be.
If true he appears to be a person with strong opinions who can be moved by others with accurate information and better ideas.
If true he appears to be a person with strong opinions who can be moved by others with accurate information and better ideas.
3
Well, we have an incompetent so-called president and are now ruled by, how you say, a junta?
5
We will see America's first war where grandfather, son and grandson all get to fight on the same battlefield. Oh when will they ever learn?
2
"So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle."
If so, Mr. President, you missed the object lesson and apparently so have "your" generals. The lesson is simple but difficult for some military enthusiasts to accept: generally it is not possible to win a war against entrenched patriots if you do not have the support of the population, and particularly if your supply lines are long.
The War for Independence could never have been won by the British, the United States could not have defeated the Vietnamese "Communists," and Afghanistan could not have been conquered by the Soviets.
Give it up Mr. Trump. If you are the Winner that you so frequently say you are, then you must know that Winners never play a win-lose game that cannot, by its nature, be won. Losers, on the other hand, cannot discern the difference.
If so, Mr. President, you missed the object lesson and apparently so have "your" generals. The lesson is simple but difficult for some military enthusiasts to accept: generally it is not possible to win a war against entrenched patriots if you do not have the support of the population, and particularly if your supply lines are long.
The War for Independence could never have been won by the British, the United States could not have defeated the Vietnamese "Communists," and Afghanistan could not have been conquered by the Soviets.
Give it up Mr. Trump. If you are the Winner that you so frequently say you are, then you must know that Winners never play a win-lose game that cannot, by its nature, be won. Losers, on the other hand, cannot discern the difference.
3
This is good. It is just as if Hillary Clinton won. It was only a question of time before the the media would make him do what they want.
1
As the son of a hero who sacrificed his life in service to his country, I hate war. I don't want to see one more child deprived of a parent on a battlefield.
When it comes to any military conflict, I start from that position. But, sadly, I know that a war, once started, ends only when one party surrenders or when both sides agree to cease hostilities. If one of the parties insists on continuing the war, it will continue and the other party must in turn continue to fight. The issues and decision making process in this war are far more complex than anything I understand. Therefor, despite my aversion to warfare, I cannot readily criticize the decisions being made about Afghanistan. I just don't know enough. Perhaps those who offer solutions or harsh criticism here know a lot more than I do.
This president, and any president, must rely upon the expert advice given to him. He must be critical, evaluate the advice, and then decide whether and how to act on it. Sometimes, that involves reversing a previously held opinion based upon insufficient information. A leader is to be commended, not condemned for doing do.
President Obama learned this his first day in office. He had vowed to, and then did in fact issue an order, closing Guantanemo. As we all know, Guantanemo remains open. I don't fault Obama for this. Reality often overrides ideals.
When it comes to any military conflict, I start from that position. But, sadly, I know that a war, once started, ends only when one party surrenders or when both sides agree to cease hostilities. If one of the parties insists on continuing the war, it will continue and the other party must in turn continue to fight. The issues and decision making process in this war are far more complex than anything I understand. Therefor, despite my aversion to warfare, I cannot readily criticize the decisions being made about Afghanistan. I just don't know enough. Perhaps those who offer solutions or harsh criticism here know a lot more than I do.
This president, and any president, must rely upon the expert advice given to him. He must be critical, evaluate the advice, and then decide whether and how to act on it. Sometimes, that involves reversing a previously held opinion based upon insufficient information. A leader is to be commended, not condemned for doing do.
President Obama learned this his first day in office. He had vowed to, and then did in fact issue an order, closing Guantanemo. As we all know, Guantanemo remains open. I don't fault Obama for this. Reality often overrides ideals.
2
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. While it's hard to second-guess military decisions of ongoing war, we can judge our leaders' views on PAST wars where most of the considerations at the time have come to light, as well as the consequences of our actions. I think our leaders should have to defend their views on wars during their tenures and on wars and military conflicts in our history. For this reason (and others), I support Bernie.
Strange days these are.... In effort to discredit Trump and Bannon, the liberal establishment has pushed to bring in the generals and has defended all members of the intelligence community, secret and otherwise. And once corporate CEOs started to criticize Trump, they too were lionized. If Manson were smart, he'd write a stinging anti-Trump piece before his next parole hearing. Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism - what's the difference? How many more will die in Afghanistan?
1
It is indeed a disaster. I was fortunate to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro in 2012, 5 years ago. We used the opportunity to raise $7,000 for a Veterans organization, by dedicating our climb to Pfc Sam Watts, of Wheaton, IL who was killed by an IED while on patrol in Afghanistan, and two of his friends who also died there, one by "green on blue" (is that what they call it when a trained Afghan soldier turns on a US soldier? Wouldn't it be great to just leave, but look at how ISIS rolled over Iraqi troops which greatly outnumbered them because of the Iraqi's weak will. It would be a shame to give ISIS a path to dominating another country as they did Iraq and Syria. Still, we ask so much of our troops and their families - going to war over there to try and keep a lid on this unending tragedy.
1
Why are we in Afghanistan?
1
Of course 4,000 more troops is the Answer. Of course!
Who knew that foreign policy was so hard. Sad.
5
I see a big parallel (keep reading; an inability to spell is not necessarily indicative of stupidity) between Trrump and Obama.
After Obama took office, he took a long time to develope an Afghanistan strategy.
After Trump took office, he took a long time to develope an Afghanistan strategy, and it his highly questionable whether his speech last night constitutes a strategy.
I think both men have been atrocious in taking so long to devise a strategy. Afghanistan is a critical issue and "kicking the can down the road," to leave the problem for the next president, is deplorable. Both Obama and Trump are guilty of dereliction of duty.
After Obama took office, he took a long time to develope an Afghanistan strategy.
After Trump took office, he took a long time to develope an Afghanistan strategy, and it his highly questionable whether his speech last night constitutes a strategy.
I think both men have been atrocious in taking so long to devise a strategy. Afghanistan is a critical issue and "kicking the can down the road," to leave the problem for the next president, is deplorable. Both Obama and Trump are guilty of dereliction of duty.
1
There is no indication that Mr Trump reads (anything), is aware of history, or ever goes beyond the shallows of cable TV. All the news articles of how he grilled the military, thought about this or that, developed a strategy is just so much three day old fish. The man does not have a clue. Stop pretending he is normal, or is plus or minus within 2 standard deviations of normal. It is insulting to your readers, and obscures the train wreck that is coming.
3
Circa 325 bce Alexander the Great attempted to conquer what is now Afghanistan. He repeatedly defeated & left garrisons in the various towns & cities. Invariably, upon Alexander & his army departing the natives mmediately revolted, & slaughtered the garrison left behind by Alexander.....
Now remember, Alexander had absolutely NO qualms about returning to crucify EVERY living creature in a town, as a (futile) warning to the next town
. Even willing to go to these sorts of extreme measures, Alexander couldn't pacify these tribes...
What POSSIBLE chance of a "military victory" do we have?!
Each and every individual that we kill only makes a half dozen or more enemies.
Now remember, Alexander had absolutely NO qualms about returning to crucify EVERY living creature in a town, as a (futile) warning to the next town
. Even willing to go to these sorts of extreme measures, Alexander couldn't pacify these tribes...
What POSSIBLE chance of a "military victory" do we have?!
Each and every individual that we kill only makes a half dozen or more enemies.
3
When have generals asked for less troops?
3
Before escalating the Afghanistan war, bring back the draft. Then see how enthusiastic Americans will be about sending in more troops to what is probably an unwinnable military, cultural, social, and political situation in Afghanistan.
Think not? See BBC Timeline of wars, conflicts, and coups in Afghanistan by foreign powers from 1848-2017. No one wins and Afghanistan is forever left in rubble, corruption, factions, instability, and political turmoil and conflict.!!!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12024253
Think not? See BBC Timeline of wars, conflicts, and coups in Afghanistan by foreign powers from 1848-2017. No one wins and Afghanistan is forever left in rubble, corruption, factions, instability, and political turmoil and conflict.!!!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12024253
6
That timeline doesn't go nearly far enough back; start with the Mongols in the 1200s...
At least 6 would-be empires have invaded Afghanistan, and none of them have succeeded
At least 6 would-be empires have invaded Afghanistan, and none of them have succeeded
2
donnie was duped, The military industrial complex won again!
9
Last night, when I was watching Trump delivering his address to the nation about sending more troops to Afghanistan, I had the distinct impression that I was watching an android that was trying to make me hallucinate that I was watching a human being. The problem was that the android wasn’t very good at impersonating a real person and could never quite pull it off. So I had the feeling I was in a bizarre sort of dream or perhaps surrounded by aliens from another planet trying to enact what they thought a president of the United States acts and sounds like. Honestly. I’m not rabidly anti-Trump, but that’s the impression he created.
8
Rolled again by Generals who haven't had a strategic thought in 60 years.
4
Ok. Let me get this straight: even CIA director Mike Pompeii would not commit his CIA fighters because Afghanistan we "have a difficult history there ."
Why doesn't the entire war making apparatus of the government pay attention to Pompeo's realistic assessment?
Something is very wrong within Trump's war. Council if these people continuously ignore the dismal facts of our time there.
Notice that nobody in this circle says no to Trump, or Pence or McMaster about Afghanistan. why?
Since Trump and Pence want war, then their eligible family members need to get into uniform....then Trump needs to reinstate the draft so the eligible sons and daughters of the ultra rich set need skin in Afghanistan, that is, if victory is that important to Trump, then everyone eligible for the military needs to fight.
After 16 years of tragic loss of life and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent, our best so called brilliant war planners wear the dunce cap because either they are so dumb, or they have the answers, but nobody in the past three admistrations, the last three presidents, just favor war, just ask old Dick Cheyne!
Why doesn't the entire war making apparatus of the government pay attention to Pompeo's realistic assessment?
Something is very wrong within Trump's war. Council if these people continuously ignore the dismal facts of our time there.
Notice that nobody in this circle says no to Trump, or Pence or McMaster about Afghanistan. why?
Since Trump and Pence want war, then their eligible family members need to get into uniform....then Trump needs to reinstate the draft so the eligible sons and daughters of the ultra rich set need skin in Afghanistan, that is, if victory is that important to Trump, then everyone eligible for the military needs to fight.
After 16 years of tragic loss of life and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent, our best so called brilliant war planners wear the dunce cap because either they are so dumb, or they have the answers, but nobody in the past three admistrations, the last three presidents, just favor war, just ask old Dick Cheyne!
1
Thought he knew more than the generals?
7
No leader of this country has ever explained what victory in Iraq or Afghanistan might look like. How would one know? We're fighting illegal entities, so how does one craft a "treaty" with such?
3
Without Taliban Afghanistan would not see a dime from the US, what to say the hundreds of millions of dollars spent there. Making sure war never ends is in the best interest of Afghan elite. War is good business for the US as much as it is for the Afghanistan.
8
trump knows he's a sniveling draft dodger and is no where near the man that most of our soldiers and sailors are. He'll do just what the generals tell him to do. They may have to "sell" him a bit but in the end, he'll always acquiesce.
10
In the foreseeable future I believe that we will be seeing the children of the soldiers first deployed to Afghanistan following their parents into this abyss. 16 years and nothing learned.
2
Dear Elected Official,
This travesty in our current WH admin. has gone far too long. We have even gotten to the point now where nuclear war and civil war are almost happening due to the seeming lack of conscience/values/adult behavior in our elected officials.
It is long-past time for you and your fellow Representatives/Congressmen to stand up clearly for the values/morals this country was founded upon. The fact that it has come to this degree should be weighing heavily on the conscience of EVERY ONE of you since if you have not done everything in your power to stand against hatred, bigotry, misogynism, intolerance, lack of empathy, etc--in a nutshell, The Golden Rule(that our President --and many of YOU)-- have been taught since elementary-age Sunday School(since so many CLAIM to have Christian values). Every one of you will have to account at the end of your days--like all of us do-- as to whether you stood FOR or against the WRONG behaviors by willingly serving shoulder-to-shoulder with a WH admin. that is behaving very un-American and does so more with every passing day. If you do not have the necessary skills to do this, please vacate your office and make way for someone who DOES. My prayer is that you will make the right choice while we still HAVE a country for God to Bless.
This travesty in our current WH admin. has gone far too long. We have even gotten to the point now where nuclear war and civil war are almost happening due to the seeming lack of conscience/values/adult behavior in our elected officials.
It is long-past time for you and your fellow Representatives/Congressmen to stand up clearly for the values/morals this country was founded upon. The fact that it has come to this degree should be weighing heavily on the conscience of EVERY ONE of you since if you have not done everything in your power to stand against hatred, bigotry, misogynism, intolerance, lack of empathy, etc--in a nutshell, The Golden Rule(that our President --and many of YOU)-- have been taught since elementary-age Sunday School(since so many CLAIM to have Christian values). Every one of you will have to account at the end of your days--like all of us do-- as to whether you stood FOR or against the WRONG behaviors by willingly serving shoulder-to-shoulder with a WH admin. that is behaving very un-American and does so more with every passing day. If you do not have the necessary skills to do this, please vacate your office and make way for someone who DOES. My prayer is that you will make the right choice while we still HAVE a country for God to Bless.
So we waste blood and treasure just to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist staging point, when ISIS is busy building other staging points in Libya, Sudan, Somalia and plenty of other failed states and territories. Seems to me Trump's new policy has been tried unsuccessfully before.
1
More troops needed? If the generals had their way-always more troops- my grandson would be on his way to Vietnam.
1
You write "Mr. Obama, who felt boxed in by his generals in 2009, his first year in office, when he agreed to send 30,000 additional troops.."
Actually, he first sent over 20,000 on his own shortly after taking office. His "boxed" decision to send another 30,000 came late in that year.
Trump was right the first time.
Actually, he first sent over 20,000 on his own shortly after taking office. His "boxed" decision to send another 30,000 came late in that year.
Trump was right the first time.
If we're "nor nation-building again", what is it that we are doing again in Afghanistan?
Whenever Donald says he is breaking free from Barack Obama's legacy, whether it's in foreign policy or with respect to Obamacare we witness a president who isn't remotely on the same level intellectually or in possession of any of our former president's leadership skills.
Every day President Obama's shadow grows larger and Trump appears smaller and almost insignificant by comparison.
Whenever Donald says he is breaking free from Barack Obama's legacy, whether it's in foreign policy or with respect to Obamacare we witness a president who isn't remotely on the same level intellectually or in possession of any of our former president's leadership skills.
Every day President Obama's shadow grows larger and Trump appears smaller and almost insignificant by comparison.
1
Not sure that this is any different from WWI, where the generals kept doing the same thing over and over and over, at the cost of so many lives!
October 2001 General states: "We need more troops!"
2002 - General states: "We need more troops!"
2003 - 2016 General states: "We need more troops!"
2017 - General states: "We need more troops!"
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't written to their elected leaders, including President Trump, voicing their opposition to this futile war.
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't started an online petition demanding this pathetic war end....
Do Nothing Liberals... OH Wait... they do post nasty comments on the NYT website... which accomplishes so much!
October 2001 General states: "We need more troops!"
2002 - General states: "We need more troops!"
2003 - 2016 General states: "We need more troops!"
2017 - General states: "We need more troops!"
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't written to their elected leaders, including President Trump, voicing their opposition to this futile war.
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't started an online petition demanding this pathetic war end....
Do Nothing Liberals... OH Wait... they do post nasty comments on the NYT website... which accomplishes so much!
2
The Amerikan war state is futile, just as President Eisenhower warned in 1961 with his "military industrial (Congressional) complex" speech.
As for the futility of Afghanistan, I quote Kipling, 1895:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
The Amerikan god is defense spending and employment. Wyoming's largest single employer: USAF strategic threat to the world, in the name of "deterrence" (which we don't want anyone else to have- against us).
As for the futility of Afghanistan, I quote Kipling, 1895:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
The Amerikan god is defense spending and employment. Wyoming's largest single employer: USAF strategic threat to the world, in the name of "deterrence" (which we don't want anyone else to have- against us).
2
Of course he "gave in." His billionaire buddies need rights to those rare earth minerals.
1
I wonder if those "generals" will share with us, the American people, just what those "goals" are in Afghanistan? Are the goals similar to Bush's WMDs? Or are they definable, with a future date to attain them?
2
War criminal Obama did a great job murdering doctors by bombing hospitals, but he didn't make a dent in Islamic terror
3
I wonder if there will come a day when the New York Times congratulates our President for having the guts to admit that he had to change his mind to protect our interests and further the progress of the Afghan people. This progress towards women's rights and a better life for children was made with the blood and sacrifice of their own soldiers and ours. Snide remarks by this paper to emphasize the past and not celebrate the present and hopeful future do not do honor to our troops or our ideals as a nation.
I never thought that I would regret Bannon's departure from the White House; I am having second thoughts about who would I rather have Bannon or the Hawks and the Military Generals whose only interest is to show how destructive a force US military is and what kinds of new weapons they possess.
It appears that President trump was bamboozled into accepting the policy designed by three Generals around Trump, Nikki Haley at the UN, and John Bolton. This policy is as asinine as could be made. It is stupid to use the same input and expect a different outcome. And this is what the policy tells us. More over bringing in India in the equation (Haley's contribution) of AFPAK theatre is a nonstarter as it freezes any cooperation with Pakistan.
The two countries Afghanistan and Pakistan needs to be on our side to deliver any kind of progress. Inclusion or just making a statement about inclusion of India essentially kills any chance of Peace in Afghanistan as both India and Pakistan would use this theatre of war to demonstrate their superiority on each other by ruining any chance for peace in Afghanistan.
One positive way to make it truly a regional solution would be to work and resolve the Kashmir issue between the two. There is an insurgency going on in Kashmir as we speak and has been going on for the last 70 years.
In the White House we need Peace Makers and not war makers. We live in a very unstable world and having the Military lead our country should be a non-starter.
It appears that President trump was bamboozled into accepting the policy designed by three Generals around Trump, Nikki Haley at the UN, and John Bolton. This policy is as asinine as could be made. It is stupid to use the same input and expect a different outcome. And this is what the policy tells us. More over bringing in India in the equation (Haley's contribution) of AFPAK theatre is a nonstarter as it freezes any cooperation with Pakistan.
The two countries Afghanistan and Pakistan needs to be on our side to deliver any kind of progress. Inclusion or just making a statement about inclusion of India essentially kills any chance of Peace in Afghanistan as both India and Pakistan would use this theatre of war to demonstrate their superiority on each other by ruining any chance for peace in Afghanistan.
One positive way to make it truly a regional solution would be to work and resolve the Kashmir issue between the two. There is an insurgency going on in Kashmir as we speak and has been going on for the last 70 years.
In the White House we need Peace Makers and not war makers. We live in a very unstable world and having the Military lead our country should be a non-starter.
3
From all of the top stories today, there have been too many stating that Trump gave a great speech, a somber one, a measured one, etc. Those were not his words but those of someone who can actually write. Does this actually reflect Trump's thoughts at all? Hardly likely. The fact that he said he studied the Afghanistan conflict from every direction is quite amusing unless it was with pictures, which is about all he understands. His words indicate that in the end he will blame the generals for this game plan. I fail to understand what 4,000 more troops will effect except for putting 4,000 lives in danger. No timelines, no direction, no plan, nothing that tells me this will work. Trump is still being led around by his nose, not by Bannon this time but the generals.
Trump needs to be stopped before any more damage is done. Pruitt, Zinke, Sessions, Trump's entire family, Pence, Mnuchin need to be swept back into the swamp from which they came and they can take Paul Ryan and McConnell with them. They are despicable.
Trump needs to be stopped before any more damage is done. Pruitt, Zinke, Sessions, Trump's entire family, Pence, Mnuchin need to be swept back into the swamp from which they came and they can take Paul Ryan and McConnell with them. They are despicable.
5
"Angry Trump". The headline pretty much sums up the fix we are in. An angry, petulant ignoramus is our president. Every new day is worse than the day before. My health is suffering.
3
Nikki Haley, when asked about Trump's change of mind regarding the war in Afghanistan, answered that what he said during the campaign was based on what he thought but as president he makes decisions based on what he knows.
In other words we elected a president who, according to one of the biggest supporters in his administration, didn't know what he was talking about.
Now that he thinks he knows, he's even more dangerous.
In other words we elected a president who, according to one of the biggest supporters in his administration, didn't know what he was talking about.
Now that he thinks he knows, he's even more dangerous.
10
He didn't know how tough it was to deal with affordable care. He didn't know how difficult it was to get out of Afghanistan. He didn't know how impossible it is to get rid of 11 million undocumented persons. He didn't know that you cannot exclude people simply because they are Muslims. He didn't know that you can't run foreign affairs without diplomats. He didn't know that berating members of your party is not the way to get things done. So, WHAT does he know?
10
This is a back up plan for the military industrial complex as the Korea stuff is too complicated to play with.
A surgeon wants to cut, a general wants to send men into battle. There is no money in withdrawing all troops, so that idea isn't up for discussion.
Generals all stack themselves up against their predecessors from MacArthur to Hannibal. Of course they are going to advocate for more power and continued conflict. A lot of it is about their ego and personal legacy. It's too disingenuous of anyone to imply that Trump had no choice but to escalate this failing Afghanistan theatre after "grilling" "his generals" (one has to know something about a subject to grill, btw)---Trump is in fact the one who has put them in charge of every major facet of his administration. It's up to congress to put the brakes on this insanity with the checkbook, but I have little faith in their common sense or their care for the brave service people who are dying or are physically/psychologically debilitated over there, for absolutely nothing.
1
If we keep trying, eventually we will figure out how to secure access to their heavy metals. Then, decades of warfare will seem worth it.
Read: Armed Forces Journal, "Truth, Lies and Afghanistan," from 2012. http://armedforcesjournal.com/truth-lies-and-afghanistan/
A lot of people writing here fail to remember that president Trump graduated a Military High School, and thus recognizes something familiar.
Thought you might want to know ...
Thought you might want to know ...
1
Oh yeah? Well Obama cheered for the VC while watching Platoon, that counts for something!
When I was in High School, and that was the same time DJT was, all the bad boys were shipped off to military school because they were problems and the thought was that a military school would discipline them.
1
I wish I could say I surprised at the love and support the traitor Democrats are giving ISIS and the Taliban
1
It's difficult to get behind Donald and support his "plan for Afghanistan". The first thing he does is to hedge his bets and state that deeper involvement was against his gut instincts. Not exactly the encouraging words the troops want to hear on D-Day. (Someone should inform the president that the D doesn't stand for Donald.)
Some of what was offered (precious little though it was) makes sense. Leaning on Pakistan in particular to limit their support as they shamelessly try to play both sides.
Most encouraging was how Donald stayed on script, without an adlib. There were no references to the size of his electoral college win. He seems to have grasped the seriousness of the subject, reading the prepared statement in full. Most likely this watershed moment occurred because of the departure of Steve Bannon and his new mentors, the generals on his staff, now have full sway. Let's hope they know what they are doing because Donald, as we know, is a novice to all things presidential.
Some of what was offered (precious little though it was) makes sense. Leaning on Pakistan in particular to limit their support as they shamelessly try to play both sides.
Most encouraging was how Donald stayed on script, without an adlib. There were no references to the size of his electoral college win. He seems to have grasped the seriousness of the subject, reading the prepared statement in full. Most likely this watershed moment occurred because of the departure of Steve Bannon and his new mentors, the generals on his staff, now have full sway. Let's hope they know what they are doing because Donald, as we know, is a novice to all things presidential.
Good theater. He tried to keep his campaign promise but was beaten back.
"This is not nation building" he shouts. We'll leave no nation standing is the whisper.
"This is not nation building" he shouts. We'll leave no nation standing is the whisper.
Afghanistan is more a loose collection of independent and autonomous tribes than a nation. Russia, Pakistan and the US would all rather play the spoiler than let one of the other countries bring Afghanistan under its hegemony.
It is not Afghanistan we need to come to peace with, it's Pakistan and Russia. Until then, those tribes will be ungovernable. We should resign ourselves to playing the spoiler until we can find a way to peace with Pakistan and Russia.
It is not Afghanistan we need to come to peace with, it's Pakistan and Russia. Until then, those tribes will be ungovernable. We should resign ourselves to playing the spoiler until we can find a way to peace with Pakistan and Russia.
Not sure that this is any different from WWI, where the generals kept doing the samething over and over and over, at the cost of so many lives!
October 2001 General states: "We need more troops!"
2002 - General states: "We need more troops!"
2003 - 2016 General states: "We need more troops!"
2017 - General states: "We need more troops!"
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't written to their elected leaders, including President Trump, voicing their opposition to this futile war.
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't started an online petition demanding this pathetic war end....
Do Nothing Liberals... OH Wait... they do post nasty comments on the NYT website... which accomplishes so much!
October 2001 General states: "We need more troops!"
2002 - General states: "We need more troops!"
2003 - 2016 General states: "We need more troops!"
2017 - General states: "We need more troops!"
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't written to their elected leaders, including President Trump, voicing their opposition to this futile war.
It is a shame that the "Do Nothing Liberals" haven't started an online petition demanding this pathetic war end....
Do Nothing Liberals... OH Wait... they do post nasty comments on the NYT website... which accomplishes so much!
Trump should have followed his instincts to get out. It's a bottomless pit. We've upped our kill ratio of innocent civilians already, hence making more terrorists not less. War is the business of generals, so who thinks they would say anything other than let's double-down! They've lied to presidents from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. It's a terrible squandering of human and material resources!
What Afghan war? Didn't King Obama promise us that once he gave his Cairo speech the terrorists would be so in love with him that they'd give up terror? Obama's mere presence would make the world perfect!!!
1
It pains me too say, The continued denial, especially by mainstream media, of admitting to the "why" we are fighting this war is 90% of the reason nothing will change. We are in the Middle East to protect Israel and rid her of her enemies. There is no longer the "national security" argument for oil when we and our neighbor and truly good friend Canada is awash with the stuff, now it must be admitted it's all about Israel and the House of Saud. Until there is a serious discussion as to how long this is to be allowed to go on we will be fighting and losing wars against a people who will wait us out for a hundred years if necessary, such are their beliefs, which they are entitled too. The only solution possible is a diplomatic one that will necessarily involve concessions by Right Wing Netanyahu supporters and Saudi Royals. Had Tzipi Levni been elected we might have a different situation by now. All these wars of choice have done is create an enemy where one didn't exist. Had we not involved ourselves in wars going back to the days of Pahlavi and Iranian oil there would still be a Lebanon, long considered a Paris of the East, there would be a Baghdad which Herb Caen used to compare to San Francisco as "Baghdad by the Bay", an Egypt that many of my most well travel friends once considered to be the most fascinating place on earth. Trump is being pushed into escalating these wars, that was the Hillary plan, it looks as though A.I.P.A.C. and the neocons won after all.
1
Do the Democrats now regret normalizing anti-Semitic hate by putting Keith Ellison is such a prominent leadership role? The Democrats must stand up to their hate-filled anti-Semitic base
1
So much for "knowing more than the Generals".
So where will Trump get all these thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of additional troops?
a) White supremacist groups - they're already well-armed and eager to shoot at... somebody! I'd be glad to send them far, far away. But would they be so tough against well-armed, determined enemies defending their home turf?
b) Immigrants! We may even need more of them! (We still need plenty at home to harvest our produce and you know, do all those other jobs Americans won't do) Bienvenido, inmigrantes!
a) White supremacist groups - they're already well-armed and eager to shoot at... somebody! I'd be glad to send them far, far away. But would they be so tough against well-armed, determined enemies defending their home turf?
b) Immigrants! We may even need more of them! (We still need plenty at home to harvest our produce and you know, do all those other jobs Americans won't do) Bienvenido, inmigrantes!
1
Trumpy said he would do one thing and turned around and did the opposite.
Sounds like every other day with the Clown.
When do we get tired of being lied to?
Sounds like every other day with the Clown.
When do we get tired of being lied to?
If you like your plan, you can keep! Period!! And don't spend the $2500 you got from ObamaCare all at once!
1
I was stunned to hear that the disgraced mercenary Prince even involved in this discussion! His Blackwater company disgraced us in Iraq!
10
The problem is about loyalty.
Because of their military ethos, the generals who surround Trump are foremost loyal to their leader.
Their leader is dutiful to the generals.
Because of their military ethos, the generals who surround Trump are foremost loyal to their leader.
Their leader is dutiful to the generals.
Aside from 'been there, done that', I believe Trump is enamored with the brass and has been persuaded to change his campaign promise by reformatting the purpose and covering all activities beneath a cloak of secrecy. This is how they sold it to him, playing into bad nation building and bad notification of movements.
2
Lunacy.
4
Once again, like all these "Wars Without End" (WWE), there is no clear metric for "winning". Just like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, ISIS, and Syria + some less public "wars". Remember a "metric" is a quantitative value expressing the status of a system.
Why?
Because these War Businessmen and their politicians and generals don't want one. Because once achieved, they would have to quit and go home.
Well, isn't that good!!?
Yes to the poor folks who risk ending their lives face down in mud or sand among destroyed villages and their dead.
NO!! to the War Businessmen, their politicians and generals who continue to funnel tax payers dollars that could help the tax payer into their pockets so they can hire retired politicians and generals so all can have a good life on the backs of the common man.
That's why.
Why?
Because these War Businessmen and their politicians and generals don't want one. Because once achieved, they would have to quit and go home.
Well, isn't that good!!?
Yes to the poor folks who risk ending their lives face down in mud or sand among destroyed villages and their dead.
NO!! to the War Businessmen, their politicians and generals who continue to funnel tax payers dollars that could help the tax payer into their pockets so they can hire retired politicians and generals so all can have a good life on the backs of the common man.
That's why.
3
Whether, 1, 10 or 100 years, the Taliban, ISIS, or al-Queda, have time on their side. They will simply wait us out.
2
Have you ever met a military man how thinks that LESS military is the answer to any problem? You don't go to your boss and tell him "Hey, boss, I think I could by fired, you don't really need me!".
For soldiers - ironically - death is a form of job security. And the guys sitting thousands of miles away from the frontline behind big desks somehow tend to gravitate towards more troops, more weapons, more attacks, more violence. I guess it's been so since Hannibal crossed the alps on elephant-back.
Well, actually, Hannibal was in the thick of it back then. So maybe relocating the Pentagon to Afghanistan might do the trick...
For soldiers - ironically - death is a form of job security. And the guys sitting thousands of miles away from the frontline behind big desks somehow tend to gravitate towards more troops, more weapons, more attacks, more violence. I guess it's been so since Hannibal crossed the alps on elephant-back.
Well, actually, Hannibal was in the thick of it back then. So maybe relocating the Pentagon to Afghanistan might do the trick...
5
Martin: Absolutely, also insisting that Jared, Ivanka, Marc and Chelsea suit up and be in the lead humvee as it enters Afghanistan, no more checking it out in your custom made clothes like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and now Kushner nor partying the war away ala The Duke And Duchess of Windsor in their Palm Beach Days. The wars would end tomorrow if these people of privilege had to put their pampered bodies on the line.
1
Hannibal? What does a Carthaginian General have to do with Afghanistan?
Marcus: I believe Martin was implying that Hannibal had "skin in the game", his own to be exact, unlike our draft dodging, arm chair General, Hampton dwelling war mongers today.
This is an example of an issue that is way over Trump's head. He is not a strategic thinker, instead, he is angry, emotional and lacks impulse control. Asking soldiers what they think of the situation in Afghanistan is his attempt to understand what, to him, is not understandable. He will come to some half-baked conclusion that lacks intelligence, subtlety and nuance, words he doesn't even know how to spell.
3
This is what kakistocracy looks like.
Benedict Arnold, idiot, so he "grills" them and goes ahead and does what they say, what a lying moron. then, how dare he not announce troop levels, can he even do that?
That stumbling teleprompter read-out was a disgrace. Like Jared Woody Woodpecker son-in-law, he can;t even read the words, and IT WAS ALL JUMBLED WORD GARBAGE.
Vietnam mistakes left and right with this idiot administration, putin sure messed us up. We need Benedict Arnold gone.
Benedict Arnold, idiot, so he "grills" them and goes ahead and does what they say, what a lying moron. then, how dare he not announce troop levels, can he even do that?
That stumbling teleprompter read-out was a disgrace. Like Jared Woody Woodpecker son-in-law, he can;t even read the words, and IT WAS ALL JUMBLED WORD GARBAGE.
Vietnam mistakes left and right with this idiot administration, putin sure messed us up. We need Benedict Arnold gone.
2
They aren't "his" generals.
3
Well, they sure aren't yours or mine.... Like it or not, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief.... They answer to him, not to you or me or the NYT....
1
Doesn't matter who is President - this is basically going to become another South Korea, but much less likelihood of an effective stalemate. Very, very sad.
1
We lost that war years ago. But change in policy is cause for optimism as it is clearly a withdrawal plan. We go in hard hitting with many positive results, but, oh my, Afghanistan is not doing its part and others failing as well and easy to blame. The group failed so we're outa here. Troops will be home in one year. Somehow Trump will portray this as a win. He is good at that.
1
So killing 'terrorists' is to be the goal? The ghosts of Viet Nam come to mind. Expect to see meaningless or macabre metrics like sorties flown, pounds of ordinance used, body counts, and the inevitable civilian casualties morphed into combatants by underlings pushed to make their quotas or sanitize the war.
Unfortunately, these measures will appeal to a disengaged commander-in-chief who spared his tender ankles in the 60's and instead focused on avoiding venereal disease in New York's club scene.
Unfortunately, these measures will appeal to a disengaged commander-in-chief who spared his tender ankles in the 60's and instead focused on avoiding venereal disease in New York's club scene.
I loathe Trump and loved Obama. If I remember correctly, both men campaigned on ending the wars and bringing the troops home. Yet once in office both men caved to the generals. The brass warned about "losing" and all courage and conviction disappeared.
The US military is involved in numerous operations from Africa to Afghanistan all under the aegis of the "War on Terror". That congressional authorization dates from 2003 (Iraq) and 2001 (after 9/11). Congress must revoke the past "use of force" license and re-visit this policy. If Congress and the President (it doesn't matter which person or party) can't say "no" the generals and admirals on the DOD budget and how and when the military get to play with their toys, then civilian control is not just threatened but it's a canard.
The US military is involved in numerous operations from Africa to Afghanistan all under the aegis of the "War on Terror". That congressional authorization dates from 2003 (Iraq) and 2001 (after 9/11). Congress must revoke the past "use of force" license and re-visit this policy. If Congress and the President (it doesn't matter which person or party) can't say "no" the generals and admirals on the DOD budget and how and when the military get to play with their toys, then civilian control is not just threatened but it's a canard.
11
After 16 years, uncounted wasted treasure and lives lost or physically /mentally destroyed on all sides, not to mention the corruption, Trump suddenly no longer knows better than the Generals? A true flip-flopper. He is never going to be believable and our wars will go on forever.
7
I thought you were a big time wheeler-dealer? What happened? Couldn't convince a bunch of war monger Generals? So you are not even a negotiator. You are just a conman, Mr. Trump.
10
As the song goes, "If you get in/be sure you can get back out."
2
Trump has three able bodies, two sons and son-in law and two daughters. He should ask them to enlist.
13
I was amazed by how much this sounded like a war on 1942 Nazi/Japanese aggression. As a retired military man, I liked the "fight to win" attitude.
The changes in policy announced were there:
(1) We will make common cause with whomever fights our enemies.
(2) We expect our SE Asia commercial allies to help turn Afghanistan towards economic self-sufficiency.
(3) Foreign aid to Pakistan needs movement to remove sanctuary for Taliban forces, or we do not send any more money.
(4) In the long run, the Taliban will be part of governments in the region.
(5) We fight WW II style, "Loose lips sink ships"
(6) If we do not get results, we are out of there.
Item (1) Pragmatism that eschews American idealism.
Item (2) A noble ideal that probably will get no traction in India. If it does, Pakistan will go ballistic (literally).
Item (3) Puts Pakistan in a very difficult position: A large part of Pakistan is ungovernable and that is largely where the Taliban hang out. India will not help Pakistan with this, nor will any one else.
Item (4) Making the Taliban a part of regional governments (I.e, Afghanistan) is where Osama Bin Laden started, and died (Pakistan)
Item (5) Fight international terrorists as international war: nation to nation vs police action. Keep our plans secret.
Item (6) Sounds like President Nixon to me.
The changes in policy announced were there:
(1) We will make common cause with whomever fights our enemies.
(2) We expect our SE Asia commercial allies to help turn Afghanistan towards economic self-sufficiency.
(3) Foreign aid to Pakistan needs movement to remove sanctuary for Taliban forces, or we do not send any more money.
(4) In the long run, the Taliban will be part of governments in the region.
(5) We fight WW II style, "Loose lips sink ships"
(6) If we do not get results, we are out of there.
Item (1) Pragmatism that eschews American idealism.
Item (2) A noble ideal that probably will get no traction in India. If it does, Pakistan will go ballistic (literally).
Item (3) Puts Pakistan in a very difficult position: A large part of Pakistan is ungovernable and that is largely where the Taliban hang out. India will not help Pakistan with this, nor will any one else.
Item (4) Making the Taliban a part of regional governments (I.e, Afghanistan) is where Osama Bin Laden started, and died (Pakistan)
Item (5) Fight international terrorists as international war: nation to nation vs police action. Keep our plans secret.
Item (6) Sounds like President Nixon to me.
4
How about getting the 'get out of jail free' Banksters to pay for this foolishness?
They are currently swimming in the free money the Fed gave them.
They are currently swimming in the free money the Fed gave them.
4
Bank Fraud Bernie just bought his third mansion, make him pay. Take the immoral $65 million the criminal millionaire Obama is getting for lying in a book, make him pay. Neither one of these criminals pay enough taxes
1
Surrounding himself with Generals, he is advised that the only solution must be with the military.
5
Landler and Haberman should read Rod Nordland's article, now directly above theirs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/asia/afghan-victory-trump-plan....
Then they should retract this piece of anonymously sourced, speculative nonsense. The Taliban, as Nordland found, are willing to fight as long as our invaders are in country.
The Idea that Trump took part in "intense discussions," and "asked hard questions," is laughable on its face.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/asia/afghan-victory-trump-plan....
Then they should retract this piece of anonymously sourced, speculative nonsense. The Taliban, as Nordland found, are willing to fight as long as our invaders are in country.
The Idea that Trump took part in "intense discussions," and "asked hard questions," is laughable on its face.
5
How did we become convinced that war is normal and is the only way to solve problems? Have we lost all sense and sensibility? Think of the children! No more war! Enough is enough!
2
how about hiring diplomats to work the diplomatic channels...Bannon was the one who wanted to kill the STATE DEPARTMENT- he's gone so lets get it back. It is essential to our survival
3
The "angry grilling" is just his reality show.
He has no knowledge or opinions of any substance.
And of course he then out-sources the decisions to the military.
More useless war from the US!
Is any war useful?
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Quiz question: what does this article show about the authors' and the NY Times editorial biases?
He has no knowledge or opinions of any substance.
And of course he then out-sources the decisions to the military.
More useless war from the US!
Is any war useful?
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Quiz question: what does this article show about the authors' and the NY Times editorial biases?
2
Afghanistan, where empires go to die and reputations are ruined...
5
Here's the problem: On his own, Trump is an empty blowhard. But when they write "serious stuff" for him to read off a teleprompter, he's an empty blowhard, too. In this case, it's because the high level officer corps of our military is filled with empty blowhards. (About time we stop the compulsive public licking of military boot that's been going on since September 11, 2001.) Out of the array of bad choices in Afghanistan, of course, they choose to play on with their toys and other people's lives and our money. What else can they do? It's not as if either diplomacy or judging an enterprise by its bottom line and cutting one's losses were their strong suit. Their business is killing people and destroying things, including their own munitions and weapons systems that must be replaced almost regardless the taxpayer cost. Of course, they recommend continuing to kill people and destroy things, even if it manifestly accomplishes nothing but the continuation of their opportunity to kill people and destroy things. It could be much worse, they warn with their most serious-man faces on. Really? Tell that to all the dead past and yet to come. This is why we have civilian rule. Only Trump is neither civil nor capable of ruling. So when push came to shove, he rolled over to have his belly scratched by the generals, and strutted out to promise Americans "victory" and "peace" we all know do not lie down this road.
4
Seven years ago, a headline in the NY Times said it all: "U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Wealth in Afghanistan."
The article describes mineral riches - troves of copper, uranium, iron, lithium (vital to U.S. industry & technology), cobalt, and gold worth 1 TRILLION DOLLARS. Add to that hundreds of millions in natural gas, oil and opium/heroin.
Is getting and keeping our hands on those riches our real "objective?"
As a letter-writer at the time said: "I think we're going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long time."
Follow the money.
The article describes mineral riches - troves of copper, uranium, iron, lithium (vital to U.S. industry & technology), cobalt, and gold worth 1 TRILLION DOLLARS. Add to that hundreds of millions in natural gas, oil and opium/heroin.
Is getting and keeping our hands on those riches our real "objective?"
As a letter-writer at the time said: "I think we're going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long time."
Follow the money.
7
Maybe Trump should consult his buddy Putin about what it's like to fight in Afghanistan.
1
And what happens when those measures of success are not met and when the Afghan governments fails to clean up the corruption? What do we do then? Is that something we might as well do now instead of waiting and killing more of them and us?
Any decent planning efforts must include plans in case of failure. Where and what are they?
Any decent planning efforts must include plans in case of failure. Where and what are they?
1
'Nobody knew Afghanistan could be so complicated'
1
So much for "America first."
1
So if I get this right, we continue to prop up a kleptocracy financed by billions in US dollars and what, some 90% of the world's opium production. Afghanistan is the quicksand of armies dating back hundreds of years.
Winning is about people being able to eat and feed their families. If they are eating and working they probably won't be shooting. Until such time as a real economy is developed enough to sustain the citizenry families will have to support themselves by either growing poppies or taking up arms. There was a Japanese dentist who figured this out years ago and has been a major influence in the area, maybe try his way for a while.
Winning is about people being able to eat and feed their families. If they are eating and working they probably won't be shooting. Until such time as a real economy is developed enough to sustain the citizenry families will have to support themselves by either growing poppies or taking up arms. There was a Japanese dentist who figured this out years ago and has been a major influence in the area, maybe try his way for a while.
Every effort to date, under both Republican and Democrat administrations has utterly failed in Afghanistan but the pussy-grabbing tapeworm in the Oval Office has the answer to everything.
Right.
And I'm Alex Honnold.
Right.
And I'm Alex Honnold.
9
I guess anything goes as long as you criticize Trump... Our media is in the gutter.
3
Well-said Carl! The Fake News NYT will print any garbage as long as it attacks our great President Trump
1
Keep in mind, America: if the President does not do what the Generals want and we bring the troops home, then the Generals will be out of a job. At least, some of them. That raises another question: Where next will our troops be sent? Back to Iraq? North Korea? To some other "hot spot"? The Generals need wars, America. They cannot stand to be without a battle. Stand by...............
7
Since when does a stopgap move, such as adding 4000 trainers, constitute a Strategy? This move to shore up the training function simply kicks the can down the road. Why, after 16 years, is there no government and military institutions capable of maintaining the stability to withstand the drawing down of US Forces?
Perhaps what is needed now is a blue ribbon committee composed of experienced statesmen to develop a real strategy, one that will allow us to gradually but definitely back off our involvement in Afghanistan.
Perhaps what is needed now is a blue ribbon committee composed of experienced statesmen to develop a real strategy, one that will allow us to gradually but definitely back off our involvement in Afghanistan.
2
Great idea! The surest way to never accomplish anything is to create a committee to resolve the matter....
Putin's laughing his tuchas off. How many troops did we have in Vietnam at one time? While the terrain is different, both are inherently tilted in favor of the natives. The Vietnamese were fine fighters, the folks we're fighting in Afghanistan are in a way more devoted. One knows in war that they might be killed, but the Afghans have folks who volunteer to kill themselves in suicide bombing missions. A misnomer as they're homicidal far more than they're suicidal.
All the warring factions in Afghanistan, the tribal hierarchies, the fighters that have swarmed there from every Islamic country to fight for "the cause," the farmers dependent on opium. The experience of the Russians and everyone else that's tried to change the way they do things over there? The adage of "never fight a land war in Asia" should be amended to never fight a land war in enemy territory unless there's no other realistic alternative.
Bannon's right on this one. Forty thousand troops wouldn't make a difference. I don't think half a million would either. The Vietnamese mainly wanted us out, but they didn't hate us for the most part. The Afghanis hate us in a manner exemplified by bin Laden.
I imagine the majority of Americans in every state are opposed to our involvement there and wish that the billions we've poured down the drain had been spent here instead. Some estimates say we've blown well over a trillion bucks over there. We have nothing to show for it, and won't when it's all over either.
All the warring factions in Afghanistan, the tribal hierarchies, the fighters that have swarmed there from every Islamic country to fight for "the cause," the farmers dependent on opium. The experience of the Russians and everyone else that's tried to change the way they do things over there? The adage of "never fight a land war in Asia" should be amended to never fight a land war in enemy territory unless there's no other realistic alternative.
Bannon's right on this one. Forty thousand troops wouldn't make a difference. I don't think half a million would either. The Vietnamese mainly wanted us out, but they didn't hate us for the most part. The Afghanis hate us in a manner exemplified by bin Laden.
I imagine the majority of Americans in every state are opposed to our involvement there and wish that the billions we've poured down the drain had been spent here instead. Some estimates say we've blown well over a trillion bucks over there. We have nothing to show for it, and won't when it's all over either.
6
I like the idea of freezing aid to Pakistan $2 billion dollars a year- and using India as leverage. Both those places never do anything for us anyway. In fact they don't like us- They LOVE America- because of our stuff- but they hate Americans.
We continue to welcome more and more of them every year through our generous immigration programs. You don't see a million Americans waiting in line to move to India- It's always THEM wanting to come here. We are doing the world a disservice when we cherry pick their "best and brightest" - The best and brightest are better off staying home so they can fix their countries.
Why can't they engineer a society so in time every American will want to live there? Why do we always have to do the heavy lifting all the time? No more immigration- no more free rides. I just heard on NPR today that Los Angeles homeless population is over 50,000 and there are no places for them to rent even if they had money!
We can't handle what we have now yet we keep bringing in more people because the Democrat in power hope the new immigrants will vote Democrat and keep Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in office another 40 years.
We continue to welcome more and more of them every year through our generous immigration programs. You don't see a million Americans waiting in line to move to India- It's always THEM wanting to come here. We are doing the world a disservice when we cherry pick their "best and brightest" - The best and brightest are better off staying home so they can fix their countries.
Why can't they engineer a society so in time every American will want to live there? Why do we always have to do the heavy lifting all the time? No more immigration- no more free rides. I just heard on NPR today that Los Angeles homeless population is over 50,000 and there are no places for them to rent even if they had money!
We can't handle what we have now yet we keep bringing in more people because the Democrat in power hope the new immigrants will vote Democrat and keep Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in office another 40 years.
3
I am truly becoming tired of all this winning.
Sad.
Sad.
9
Maybe you should join the other team.
2
And all of his other initiatives promised have also come to fruition.
Decision making is not Trump's forte. Peace making isn't either. Making bad decisions and leaving others to hold the bag is what this president is best at. How many times before we-the-people learn they way to clean up a mess isn't to make a bigger mess? Congress, not the president, has the Constitutional authority to declare war. He won't show us his tax returns but he's very willing to have a war? War is the last refuge of a failing president.
1
By definition, Generals provide military action.
By definition Trump is incompetent and always sets up someone else pay for his failures.
By definition Trump is incompetent and always sets up someone else pay for his failures.
2
Indeed. I hope the flag officers head for cover when "progress" is not to Trump's liking.
I respect the military officers surrounding Trump; however, everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer. Trump has totally undercut the role of the State Department... and is surprised that the Generals want more troops? For once, Trump's instincts were correct. We should get out. This is not our war and whether we send 10K or 50K, any gains will be short-lived. Meanwhile, we feed the narrative of the U.S. thinking it should have a say in every other country's governance. We got Bin Laden. Time to go home.
5
So do Ivanka, Eric, Don Jr., and Jared have bone spurs? When are they going to do their patriotic duty and don the uniform?
13
There is no draft, sir. And if I had a son I would pay him to draft dodge and head to Canada. These war engagements are immoral. Long before the US, the Soviets were in Afghanistan and ultimately pulled out, having accomplished nothing. We will habe more dead and maimed young Americans and accomplish nothing.
The Russians spent a decade in Afghanistan, had over 100,000 soldiers there, killed upward to 2,000,000 people and finally left in frustration with nothing to show for it. While they were there, Charlie Wilson was diverting up to $600 million a year of US tax money to finance the mujahideen. Ah, the good old days! Sixteen years into this, our "best" plan is to increase troop strength by some 4,000 soldiers to a total of 14,000 troops. The operational cost is about $1 trillion to date, with an expected back end cost of an additional $1 trillion, primarily of medical care for the troops who served there. We won't mention the soldiers who lost their lives. Or the opportunity cost of what we could have done domestically with that money. Most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map and aren't sure the difference between Sunni and Shia. This war is like building sand castles on the beach. As soon as you leave, the waves erase any proof that you were ever there. Let the "vacation" be over. Let's fold up our beach chair and go home.
5
It's not a matter of telegraphing a timeline to the enemy; it's about reinforcing to the Afghan government that the US sugar daddy has run out of patience. If we won't give a deadline by which the Afghan government will address its own security and duties, it simply won't.
The possibility of success there has always been about nation-building, because there has never really been a nation in Afghanistan outside that which invaders and imperial powers have sought to impose. The Taliban gains and keeps ground because it offers a feasible alternative to a corrupt and failing national government.
Doing the same thing once again and expecting a different result in Afghanistan is simply self-delusion. Or, more likely, this is simply a way to show that the current President can actually do something.
The possibility of success there has always been about nation-building, because there has never really been a nation in Afghanistan outside that which invaders and imperial powers have sought to impose. The Taliban gains and keeps ground because it offers a feasible alternative to a corrupt and failing national government.
Doing the same thing once again and expecting a different result in Afghanistan is simply self-delusion. Or, more likely, this is simply a way to show that the current President can actually do something.
"..current President can actually do something.". I'll not hold my breath.
Some folks here, although I agree with the overall tenor of their comment about the follies of empires trying to tame Afghanistan, something that has been tried since times of Alexander the Great, still remember incorrectly the length of the last-but-the-last attempt.
The Russians -actually Soviets- spent 10 years, not the 20 years some indicate. Corollary: American military-industrial-media complex: 1.6 times as dumb as the by then pretty much in decline Commies. Or a higher handicap, if you factor in the Treasure buried and the enormous superiority of American sophisticate military vis-à-vis that of the USSR of 30-40 years ago and the fact that the Soviets were overtly opposed by the other supermighty, something that has definitely happened in the 16-years war-as for a comparison of casualties vis-à-vis the Soviets, I do not know, and frankly I do not care. Afghan lives matter. Something that neither the Soviets nor the too militaristic for their own good -Trump's top dogs, understand and that includes that Mad Dog general - I hope there is not a censor at the Times around, like the one of yesterday who suppressed a comment I sent before the actual speech, maybe, maybe, maybe because of my name calling of Mattis': that is what reads in his "business card", that is how he was introduced by a glowing President-elect
Old Noam -Chomski- got it correctly, right after 9/11: 'Perpetual war"
The Russians -actually Soviets- spent 10 years, not the 20 years some indicate. Corollary: American military-industrial-media complex: 1.6 times as dumb as the by then pretty much in decline Commies. Or a higher handicap, if you factor in the Treasure buried and the enormous superiority of American sophisticate military vis-à-vis that of the USSR of 30-40 years ago and the fact that the Soviets were overtly opposed by the other supermighty, something that has definitely happened in the 16-years war-as for a comparison of casualties vis-à-vis the Soviets, I do not know, and frankly I do not care. Afghan lives matter. Something that neither the Soviets nor the too militaristic for their own good -Trump's top dogs, understand and that includes that Mad Dog general - I hope there is not a censor at the Times around, like the one of yesterday who suppressed a comment I sent before the actual speech, maybe, maybe, maybe because of my name calling of Mattis': that is what reads in his "business card", that is how he was introduced by a glowing President-elect
Old Noam -Chomski- got it correctly, right after 9/11: 'Perpetual war"
1
Suggest reading Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-1945, by Barbara Tuchman. The U.S. has a tendency to see only its own interests. I would think this is especially the case under "America first."
1
A day late and a dollar short. Even though this is a small victory for the military industrial complex, this " strategy ' of increasing the troop strength by 4 to 5 thousand is not going to make a difference to the advancing Taliban. They are the local people, determined and patiently fighting to get rid of the puppet, corruption ridden Bacha Baz leaders imposed upon them by the West, under the garb of " democratic election " Obviously US has not learnt the required lessons from the defeat in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Doubling down in Afghanistan is a recipe for another disaster. US has been " training " the Afghan " National " army and police for about 15 years, wasting Billions and Billions of dollars. Still they don't learn or don't want to learn to kill their own people. Who is " training " the Taliban which has a rag tag army, with pre world war 1 and 2 weapons, but are still winning ? as far as blaming Pakistan, Trump is barking up the wrong tree. Pakistan has been a victim of terrorism from India and Kabul and has paid a huge price by supporting US.
1
What if its generals can't change its mind about the nuclear button? #45/25
When I was first diagnosed with cancer, a friend of mine who is a nurse, told me that the surgeons will say cut, the radiologists will say burn, and the oncologists will say kill it with chemo.
So what are the top generals going to say about how to deal with our failure in Afghanistan after a 16 year war? Send in more troops. And even if by some miracle we finally claim military victory after thousands more soldiers and civilians are killed, then what? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam and Iraq.
There is no military "solution" because even if we win in Afghanistan, we ultimately will lose the cultural and political battles that occur after the war.
Before committing human lives to war, carnage, and death, what is the achievable political goal here?
Before sending in more troops to Afghanistan, let's hear an analysis from the professionals in the CIA and the State Department about what can be achieved politically after a war, and from the Veterans Administration about what the human cost for our soldiers after the war is over.
So what are the top generals going to say about how to deal with our failure in Afghanistan after a 16 year war? Send in more troops. And even if by some miracle we finally claim military victory after thousands more soldiers and civilians are killed, then what? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam and Iraq.
There is no military "solution" because even if we win in Afghanistan, we ultimately will lose the cultural and political battles that occur after the war.
Before committing human lives to war, carnage, and death, what is the achievable political goal here?
Before sending in more troops to Afghanistan, let's hear an analysis from the professionals in the CIA and the State Department about what can be achieved politically after a war, and from the Veterans Administration about what the human cost for our soldiers after the war is over.
4
Few politicians, nor their sons and daughters, have served in any military conflict since the Vietnam war. John McCain's history of service is legendary. Bush evaded military service (conflict) by joining the National Guard, although it is reported his attendance record is suspect. Trump avoided Vietnam with a questionable "bone spur". Obama stated he considered military service, but the Vietnam War had ended, so he chose not to join.
Eric Trump, a proven marksman trained to kill exotic animals, at the age of 33, could enlist in the military in support of his dad's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Will he enlist........?
Eric Trump, a proven marksman trained to kill exotic animals, at the age of 33, could enlist in the military in support of his dad's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Will he enlist........?
1
Jared Kushner already has a flack jacket but will he go?
4
Trump was dragged into a position he doesn't want to be in. He already prepares the ground for placing the blame on past, present and future generals, politicians and, naturally, Obama and crooked Hillary.
Instead of being "boxed" by his generals, as Obama was against his best judgment, his approach should have been the complete opposite: he should have told his generals that he decided to pull out the troops from Afghanistan whether they like it or not and now it is their job to come out with a policy based on this axiom. By doing so he could force them out of their useless, familiar comfort zone, forcing them to look at the situation from different angles and come out with alternatives to the present stalemate.
Instead of being "boxed" by his generals, as Obama was against his best judgment, his approach should have been the complete opposite: he should have told his generals that he decided to pull out the troops from Afghanistan whether they like it or not and now it is their job to come out with a policy based on this axiom. By doing so he could force them out of their useless, familiar comfort zone, forcing them to look at the situation from different angles and come out with alternatives to the present stalemate.
1
Trump will never blame himself for any failure.
So, the easy way out for him is to have others make his decisions for him, then blame them for any failure.
So, the easy way out for him is to have others make his decisions for him, then blame them for any failure.
3
As a combat veteran wo did three tours in Iraq between 2003 and 2008. A clear combat strategy in Afghanistan is needed. What was stated last night wasn't the case with a lot of platitudes without any specifics laid out. Yes, in my opinion we should train, equip, assist the Afghans on the ground. Help nurture a stable government that is corruption free. Push Russia out of the region. And seek to defang the Taliban as an effective military and political force in the region. Keep a robust security force in the area to protect the American embassy while have the Special Forces take the lead in the combat theater. And secure the border among Pakistan. Give the local government 5 years to comply and partner with us. Then after that rebalance our forces elsewhere in the region.
7
"Give the local government 5 years to comply and partner with us." Some reason that hasn't already happened in the first 16 years?
We certainly do not need a clear strategy in Afghanistan. What we have is what the Government wants.
damon -- as a military person you have very correctly laid out a well=planned military strategy which would be really swell if it were at all possible.
Sadly, it's not. Retrain and equip the Afghan forces? We've been doing that for 16 years. The first folks we trained have retired, and yet we're still having to train them on basic stuff -- saw a story elsewhere with Marines training afghan troops on how to set up a mortar. Can't the Afghan army train its own folks even to do that by now? Apparently not.
Nurture a stable government that is corruption free. Sure, no problem!
Push out the Russians. Again, sure. Actually, they left Afghanistan a while back. If theyre in other areas, well, whose country do we need to invade also?
And of course defang the Taliban. Again, no problem. Just finally do it, right? Quit farting around and just do it? But you've been there. I assume you weren't goofing off, reading Playboy and playing baseball. If you and 100,000 like you couldn't defang the Taliban, just how many will it take?
And so on. You draw up a lovely strategy that, given unlimited resources, infinite patience and an unending supply of soldiers, just might work.
But none of those are in the offing, nor will they be. So, got a plan B?
Sadly, it's not. Retrain and equip the Afghan forces? We've been doing that for 16 years. The first folks we trained have retired, and yet we're still having to train them on basic stuff -- saw a story elsewhere with Marines training afghan troops on how to set up a mortar. Can't the Afghan army train its own folks even to do that by now? Apparently not.
Nurture a stable government that is corruption free. Sure, no problem!
Push out the Russians. Again, sure. Actually, they left Afghanistan a while back. If theyre in other areas, well, whose country do we need to invade also?
And of course defang the Taliban. Again, no problem. Just finally do it, right? Quit farting around and just do it? But you've been there. I assume you weren't goofing off, reading Playboy and playing baseball. If you and 100,000 like you couldn't defang the Taliban, just how many will it take?
And so on. You draw up a lovely strategy that, given unlimited resources, infinite patience and an unending supply of soldiers, just might work.
But none of those are in the offing, nor will they be. So, got a plan B?
It seems the US has two choices:
1. Leave now and allow the Taliban and the terrorist haven to return.
2. Stay and fight for years more. Then declare victory, leave and allow the Taliban and the terrorist haven to return.
1. Leave now and allow the Taliban and the terrorist haven to return.
2. Stay and fight for years more. Then declare victory, leave and allow the Taliban and the terrorist haven to return.
4
That is limited thinking. There are always more than just two choices.
jaco
And that is Trump talk: sounds good, maybe even meaningful, but there's nothing there. It's wasteful and kind of silly, but it gets you off the hook.
Although in this case the only one who put you on the hook is you.
All the same, give us another choice jaco. Just one other. One you believe in and can support.
Come on, man. There's no wrong answer.
And that is Trump talk: sounds good, maybe even meaningful, but there's nothing there. It's wasteful and kind of silly, but it gets you off the hook.
Although in this case the only one who put you on the hook is you.
All the same, give us another choice jaco. Just one other. One you believe in and can support.
Come on, man. There's no wrong answer.
3
Jaco: such as?
1
If the plan does not work Trump will blame his advisors. If it does work (whatever that means) he will take the credit. Typical Trump move.
Wonder if he had any clue what the discussion was about.
Wonder if he had any clue what the discussion was about.
1
Wait Wait--we are going into Afghanistan because of 9/11? Sadam Hussein was hanged. Bin Laden shot in the head. Perpetual Vindication of 9/11 makes you wonder who was really behind it. Certainly Weapon Manufacturers rubbing hands together.
2
Betsy deVos brother, Erik Prince wants to deploy his mercenary army there on our dime.
1
Seems like 45 spends a lot of time being angry. Part of his pathology, I guess.
2
Trump ditched his ill-considered rally speak though managed to throw a few more bombs at the Obama Administration. Once again, when forced to choose between his campaign promises and a realistic view of how to govern the nation, he chooses sane government above wingnuttery. At least he grew up enough to face reality.
Otherwise, the speech seems read rather then felt. I guess that running in poetry and governing in prose looks like this from our current POTUS. ...gosh...
Otherwise, the speech seems read rather then felt. I guess that running in poetry and governing in prose looks like this from our current POTUS. ...gosh...
HR McMaster is supposed to be a genius military historian. Is he incapable of knowing why Afghanistan earned the sobriquet "Graveyard of Empires?"
9
He would not view the U.S. as an empire and would think that he can just walk on through whistling a merry tune.
If only President Lunkhead's mind could be changed on climate change, the environment and social justice.
1
Let's not lose sight of the critically important intention to keep wasting $3 billion per week.
6
This article is spectacularly nonsensical, anonymously sourced, and thoroughly incredible.
"But the general’s relationship with Mr. Trump had become difficult, with the president bridling at what some describe as his aide’s didactic style."
Anyone else care to wager whether or not Donald Trump knows what "didactic style" means?
And earlier, the ideas that Trump participated in "intense discussions," and showed up "determined to ask hard questions" are completely at odds with Times reporting about Trump's short attention span.
Why is the Times uncritically serving as an open conduit for administration sources looking to make the administration look good under cover of anonymity?
"But the general’s relationship with Mr. Trump had become difficult, with the president bridling at what some describe as his aide’s didactic style."
Anyone else care to wager whether or not Donald Trump knows what "didactic style" means?
And earlier, the ideas that Trump participated in "intense discussions," and showed up "determined to ask hard questions" are completely at odds with Times reporting about Trump's short attention span.
Why is the Times uncritically serving as an open conduit for administration sources looking to make the administration look good under cover of anonymity?
1
If I go to a surgeon, she is likely to recommend doing surgery. If I surround myself with generals, they are likely to recommend what they know: war.
One military had lost many troops there and doesn't want them to have died in vain. Another has worked closely with the Afghan gov't and knows only Afghanistan.
Seems they need outside advisers with "no dog in the fight" to also make suggestions. If Bannon also suggested more war but with unaccountable private contractors, that's not it.
We can fight, sure, but what does a win look like? What has changed today that is different than it was when we pulled out before, understanding there was no winning strategy?
Re-institute the draft and this war will be over in a month. Only empires have standing professional armies in which the population is insulated from its warmongering elites. This allows perpetual war.
One military had lost many troops there and doesn't want them to have died in vain. Another has worked closely with the Afghan gov't and knows only Afghanistan.
Seems they need outside advisers with "no dog in the fight" to also make suggestions. If Bannon also suggested more war but with unaccountable private contractors, that's not it.
We can fight, sure, but what does a win look like? What has changed today that is different than it was when we pulled out before, understanding there was no winning strategy?
Re-institute the draft and this war will be over in a month. Only empires have standing professional armies in which the population is insulated from its warmongering elites. This allows perpetual war.
2
So - it is going to be, more or less, a secret war. I wonder if we will even know how many casualties there are? Will we see the boxes coming back and if we do will they be "fake news".
When will we evolve?
When will we evolve?
The US foray in to Afghanistan was not nation building it was to stop nation building. When Bush Sr's CIA started arming the Taliban at the behest of the Saudis it was to stop the USSR's nation building.
Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi Jihadist and we supported his Taliban because the USSR was attempting to build a modern socialist centralized government in Kabul to oversee a collection of tribal fiefdoms. Things like female emancipation and centralized infrastructure planning were things the Saudis had no interest in seeing in the Islamic world in 1979. The terrorism of 9/11 started in Moscow not NY. It is time to either abandon Kabul or sit down at the table with all the interested parties and see what Afghanistan can look like in forty years lest we follow the USSR down the road to oblivion.
Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi Jihadist and we supported his Taliban because the USSR was attempting to build a modern socialist centralized government in Kabul to oversee a collection of tribal fiefdoms. Things like female emancipation and centralized infrastructure planning were things the Saudis had no interest in seeing in the Islamic world in 1979. The terrorism of 9/11 started in Moscow not NY. It is time to either abandon Kabul or sit down at the table with all the interested parties and see what Afghanistan can look like in forty years lest we follow the USSR down the road to oblivion.
3
The only way out of this mess is to sit down and talk.
Unfortunately, the State Department has been decimated by this president.
You can't win hearts and minds with guns and bombs.
Unfortunately, the State Department has been decimated by this president.
You can't win hearts and minds with guns and bombs.
2
So the generals have recommended an escalation of war? Gee- what a shock. We are so petrified by Trump being in charge that we take refuge in living in a country that has been taken over by the military. So what will Trump’s ‘new’ policy and 4,000 more troops do in Afghanistan? Well, the people who already like to wave flags will wave them a bit more. It won’t lead to greater stability or peace or government equilibrium. It will lead to (it already has) a further loosening of rules of engagement. We will see more killings at weddings, funeral services, outdoor birthday parties, hospitals, and schools. (Even under Obama, if a young male was 15 or older, he was considered a legitimate quarry, if in the wrong place at the wrong time.)
We will see more State of the Union standing ovations and celebrations of ‘successful targets’ being eliminated even if they turn out to be nine children under the age of 12 as was the case when the Navy Seals eviscerated 35 civilians earlier this year in southern Yemen. Meanwhile the Afghans, the Taliban, and the tribal lords will just wait out this fury as the US finally exhausts itself, declares victory, and pulls out, sometime in 2028.
We will see more State of the Union standing ovations and celebrations of ‘successful targets’ being eliminated even if they turn out to be nine children under the age of 12 as was the case when the Navy Seals eviscerated 35 civilians earlier this year in southern Yemen. Meanwhile the Afghans, the Taliban, and the tribal lords will just wait out this fury as the US finally exhausts itself, declares victory, and pulls out, sometime in 2028.
3
At 16 years and counting this is America's longest war; and there is no "end game" or "exit strategy." Without any political solution this is just a quagmire. If the Aghans cannot govern themselves and defend themselves against the Taliban after all this time, should we continue to do it for them?
2
Trump has forsaken each promise he made:
- he does not support LGBT, barring T from the military and bathrooms
- he is back in Afghanistan when he was out
- he failed on Obamacare
- he didn't lessen special interests but instead appointed them to his cabinet
- he has no infrastructure program
- he has no tax reform
- he lied to the Blacks, now re-instituting harsh drug penalties that disproportionately fall on them
All talk. No action. Standard Operating Procedure.
- he does not support LGBT, barring T from the military and bathrooms
- he is back in Afghanistan when he was out
- he failed on Obamacare
- he didn't lessen special interests but instead appointed them to his cabinet
- he has no infrastructure program
- he has no tax reform
- he lied to the Blacks, now re-instituting harsh drug penalties that disproportionately fall on them
All talk. No action. Standard Operating Procedure.
2
For heaven's sake, I find myself agreeing with something Steve Bannon said. There is little reason to believe any of the generals' tactics are likely to succeed, if success involves ever being able to end this mission. That mission appears to be now redefined as propping up any Afghan government that is not the Taliban (we'll call that A.B.T. for short). Since we are abandoning nation building, I guess it doesn't matter how corrupt and otherwise ineffective the A.B.T. government is, or whether it allows women to have any rights, or does anything to protect them from rape and honor killing, or anything else, as long as they are OK with letting our soldiers roam the countryside to "kill terrorists." This is a guaranteed loss, as there will never be a moment where the Taliban is "eradicated" like the smallpox virus (and like a virus, or like al-Qaeda, it can always mutate), and the A.B.T. government is certain to lack legitimacy outside of US support and hence is doomed to be weak and fail.
4
The United States should not repeat the error it made during the Vietnam War, when it left the South Vietnamese to the mercy of North Vietnam, which executed many of them and force hundreds of thousands into "reeducation camps." It should use the extra time brought by the troop infusions to evacuate and resettle Afghans certain to be executed by the Taliban. It should offer sanctuary to Afghan women and religious minorities who will be prosecuted and oppressed by the Taliban.
15
The US gave the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) in 1973 $4 billion (over $22 billion in today's dollars) worth of military equipment and the forth largest modern air force in the world. In two years ARVN collapsed. "Our" Vietnamese didn't want to fight as hard as "their' Vietnamese. No amount of American blood could ever change that.
Our mistake in Vietnam was supporting a corrupt-to-the-corps régime in Saigon that was only interested stealing and not fighting, The régime in Kabul is just the same as the one in Saigon. No amount of American blood will ever change that.
Our mistake in Vietnam was supporting a corrupt-to-the-corps régime in Saigon that was only interested stealing and not fighting, The régime in Kabul is just the same as the one in Saigon. No amount of American blood will ever change that.
2
All they had to do was talk shop for more than about 3 minutes. Trump loses interest and with a wave of his hand says "do whatever, this is boring" then they distract him with some photos of trucks and fire engines
9
Of course Trump gave in. What did you expect? In order to deflect from his clueless remarks about Charlottesville he had no problem deciding to sacrifice more blood and treasure to save him and his ego. Connect the dots. Pence goes on a long planned trip to South America, only to hastily cancel mid trip and return to Wash to sit in on hastily called Afghan meetings. The result is what you heard last night. No plan. No goals. No strategy. But in the President's eye, a success, because Charlottesville is out of the headlines.
1
Check out War Machine on Netflix - each year a new general arrives in country with a great idea... same as the last one.
The quagmire in Afghanistan is a boondoggle of epic proportions that trillions of tax dollars cannot fix.
Continuing these failed policies will ensure that the American 'empire' has a 100 year war of our own and will continue to generate many more victims of the 'war on terror' who will naturally want revenge on their 'colonial overlords'
The quagmire in Afghanistan is a boondoggle of epic proportions that trillions of tax dollars cannot fix.
Continuing these failed policies will ensure that the American 'empire' has a 100 year war of our own and will continue to generate many more victims of the 'war on terror' who will naturally want revenge on their 'colonial overlords'
The new strategy is not aimed at building a great democracy out of this god foresaken mess of a country. It is strictly a commando policy. Kill the enemy. The new troops will not be nation builders. No civil action teams. Close with and destroy. The basic mission of the infantry. New rules of engagement are being employed. Wonder what they are. Likely it will result in more civilian casualties as it will be more focused on finding and killing the enemy and less emphasis on caution. So although it may not be evident today, this is a new approach. WIll it work? No idea. Just wanted to delineate what I think the new approach means.
I'm encouraged that Mr. Trump was willing to take advice and change his mind. Growth in office? We can only hope...
1
Why was it to follow the advise to go even harder Right? Always harder Right.
Tell me again how he has grown.
Tell me again how he has grown.
1
With the new Trump approach, not only are the timelines a secret, so are the methods, costs, and goals.
We will certainly not tip off the enemy. We apparently will not tip off our selves.
We will certainly not tip off the enemy. We apparently will not tip off our selves.
1
If Trump had half a clue, he'd understand that there is no winning, just stalemate. The Generals know that you can't defeat an insurgency, but are addicted to wasting money and lives in this ill-advised adventure. We have no friends in central Asia. There is a reason other countries in the area avoid getting involved. They're smarter than we are.
1
Weak is the only word needed to describe trump.
1
The Great Game has been on for a long time. I personally remember when we paid the Taliban to fight the Russians. We laughed as Afghanistan eroded the Soviet Union. Now, 16 years after we should have gone in, killed terrorists, and got out, we are stuck in the longest of the many wars in our history. And the Russians are paying the Taliban to fight us. Of course, thankfully, God is on our side.
The best review of this was by Fareed Zakaria with Don Lemon on CNN. "Where was Steve Bannon when we needed him." We have 250,000 military age single male Afghans in Germany. We should be able to build an Army out of that. But we need no Army. The Afghans need to do it themselves and if we keep letting the men move to Germany and Europe then there is no incentive to solve the problem.
1
It's all very reminiscent of the Vietnam War. The generals telling the president that we can win with more troops and resources and a policy of Vietnamization of the war, in this case, training the Afghan government and troops to take over.
And like Vietnam, these policies will fail because of a lack of support from the general populace. Either out of support or fear, they will not oppose the Taliban insurgents.
Even if the Vietnam comparison is dismissed, history is still against our winning. The Soviets could not win, neither could the British, and even Alexander the Great had to keep pacifying the region. More recently, Obama's escalation, or surge as it was called, proved futile.
Now, the argument is made that if we pull out, it will leave the terrorists with a base of operations, but they already have them in other countries like Pakistan. Then, there is the internet, their big base, which they use to radicalize people in any country throughout the world.
To effectively fight terrorism, we need to develop our intelligence to a high degree and use surgical strike forces.
To do otherwise will only waste more good lives and money.
And like Vietnam, these policies will fail because of a lack of support from the general populace. Either out of support or fear, they will not oppose the Taliban insurgents.
Even if the Vietnam comparison is dismissed, history is still against our winning. The Soviets could not win, neither could the British, and even Alexander the Great had to keep pacifying the region. More recently, Obama's escalation, or surge as it was called, proved futile.
Now, the argument is made that if we pull out, it will leave the terrorists with a base of operations, but they already have them in other countries like Pakistan. Then, there is the internet, their big base, which they use to radicalize people in any country throughout the world.
To effectively fight terrorism, we need to develop our intelligence to a high degree and use surgical strike forces.
To do otherwise will only waste more good lives and money.
Look, I'm as anti-war leftie communist as you can get, and I'm totally against expanding any war -- especially the war in Afghanistan. However, I'm also a pragmatist and therefore somewhat heartened by Trump's approach for a change! Instead acting impulsively or without adequate forethought (his usual modus operandi), it sounds like Trump got to a plan by asking smart questions of his generals and gradually coaxed them to come up with a plan that even I could be satisfied with.
Gee golly gosh, that sounds exactly like something a 'real' President would do, doesn't it?
Gee golly gosh, that sounds exactly like something a 'real' President would do, doesn't it?
1
This is just the Afghan version of the Iraq-War "surge."
Remember that one? It propelled John McCain from way-back-in-the pack to Number One in the Republican-nomination race of 2008. McCain was the one and only Presidential candidate to back the "surge" before it happened. (All of them did, of course, after the "surge" appeared to be successful, but voters remembered that only McCain had said that beforehand.)
The Iraq-War "surge" didn't produce lasting benefits, of course: instead, it brought us ISIS. (At least as of late 2014, 100% of ISIS military commanders were former Iraqi Army officers, many of whom left when the US "surge" happened; maybe that's changed since then, but I doubt it's changed much.)
So if the "surge" didn't work, long-term, in Iraq, why not try it again in Afghanistan? Surely it will work this time!
Remember that one? It propelled John McCain from way-back-in-the pack to Number One in the Republican-nomination race of 2008. McCain was the one and only Presidential candidate to back the "surge" before it happened. (All of them did, of course, after the "surge" appeared to be successful, but voters remembered that only McCain had said that beforehand.)
The Iraq-War "surge" didn't produce lasting benefits, of course: instead, it brought us ISIS. (At least as of late 2014, 100% of ISIS military commanders were former Iraqi Army officers, many of whom left when the US "surge" happened; maybe that's changed since then, but I doubt it's changed much.)
So if the "surge" didn't work, long-term, in Iraq, why not try it again in Afghanistan? Surely it will work this time!
I don't love Trump, but I certainly don't envy his position right now. He needs to keep asking, what is the measure of success? Can we get to a success? "Winning" ain't it.
2
no general has ever said...
" we cant win this. we need to exit..."
they should have years ago.
now it will be
" we need some more troops. "
someone needs to read about the last 200 years of warfare in afghanistan.
" we cant win this. we need to exit..."
they should have years ago.
now it will be
" we need some more troops. "
someone needs to read about the last 200 years of warfare in afghanistan.
1
Agreed!
"Let's hope these [US] troops will be able wage war to the fullest extent required to defeat the Taliban once and for all."
Despite your disdain for "rules of engagement," we should require all Taliban soldiers to stand out in an open field, each wearing a bright yellow hat with a red "X" painted on top. They shouldn't hide in caves, for example -- come out and fight like a man!
Oh, and we shouldn't be giving tens of millions of dollars to those Taliban guys, as we did in 2001 when they came to the US and collected all those US dollars for curtailing poppy production in Afghanistan.
One last thing: When we DO beat those Taliban guys -- you know, after they all stand out in open fields wearing yellow caps with a bright red "X" painted on the top -- we can be sure they'll be beaten "once and for all." There's zero chance that any Afghan people will support the Taliban again, or any other anti-American group, after they see what happens to those anti-American types! (At least those anti-American types who stand out in open fields wearing yellow caps with a bright red "X" painted on the top.)
"Let's hope these [US] troops will be able wage war to the fullest extent required to defeat the Taliban once and for all."
Despite your disdain for "rules of engagement," we should require all Taliban soldiers to stand out in an open field, each wearing a bright yellow hat with a red "X" painted on top. They shouldn't hide in caves, for example -- come out and fight like a man!
Oh, and we shouldn't be giving tens of millions of dollars to those Taliban guys, as we did in 2001 when they came to the US and collected all those US dollars for curtailing poppy production in Afghanistan.
One last thing: When we DO beat those Taliban guys -- you know, after they all stand out in open fields wearing yellow caps with a bright red "X" painted on the top -- we can be sure they'll be beaten "once and for all." There's zero chance that any Afghan people will support the Taliban again, or any other anti-American group, after they see what happens to those anti-American types! (At least those anti-American types who stand out in open fields wearing yellow caps with a bright red "X" painted on the top.)
1
Jim Mattis is the intellectual's general, or at least an intellectual general. He served in the country.
Yet it seems Mattis and the other generals have not read much of the history of Afghanistan, nor have they learned the lessons of its history. Even a cursory survey of the historical literature clearly shows how impossible it has been for millennia to keep peace in the region, to impose outside control on it, to conquer it or to win a war there.
Just in relatively modern times, in the 18 century great Persia failed in its efforts in Afghanistan. In the 19th and early 20th century Great Britain fought three wars there and failed. In the mid- to late 20th century, the Soviet Union failed totally in its brutal effort to modernize and control Afghanistan.
Now the United States has spent 16 fruitless years there. We, too, are failing, losing troops and treasure.
Another 4,000 American troops and a few changes to tactics will achieve nothing but more bitter failure.
I expect nothing of Trump, who doesn't read history or much of anything else and knows little about Afghanistan.
But I would have expected more of Mattis. Even Trump's uniformed opinions about the uselessness and foolishness of our involvement there at least made a primitive kind of sense.
Mattis' approach, however, is at best pure folly.
Yet it seems Mattis and the other generals have not read much of the history of Afghanistan, nor have they learned the lessons of its history. Even a cursory survey of the historical literature clearly shows how impossible it has been for millennia to keep peace in the region, to impose outside control on it, to conquer it or to win a war there.
Just in relatively modern times, in the 18 century great Persia failed in its efforts in Afghanistan. In the 19th and early 20th century Great Britain fought three wars there and failed. In the mid- to late 20th century, the Soviet Union failed totally in its brutal effort to modernize and control Afghanistan.
Now the United States has spent 16 fruitless years there. We, too, are failing, losing troops and treasure.
Another 4,000 American troops and a few changes to tactics will achieve nothing but more bitter failure.
I expect nothing of Trump, who doesn't read history or much of anything else and knows little about Afghanistan.
But I would have expected more of Mattis. Even Trump's uniformed opinions about the uselessness and foolishness of our involvement there at least made a primitive kind of sense.
Mattis' approach, however, is at best pure folly.
Still in incipient stages of his his military strategies, Trump may have to go thru the painful processes of patient briefings from the military stalwarts to learn a thing or two. His sometimes puerile approaches to the containment of terrorism, can create contretemps with the generals, and can make him look like a spoiled toddler, who usually does not take no for an answer. As a fledgling in his political career, he has to capitulate at times at least when presented with slam dunk facts from the military top brass.
Things can still go awry, despite all the sagacious planning by the renowned commanders, but an impetuous response might be counter-productive. Aside from anger management classes (yeah right!), Trump can learn to also minimize his caprice and reinforce his strong suits if any. One can doubt that, since the evidence does not seem to exist hitherto.
Pulling ranks, throwing weight around, and browbeating are some of inane tactics a POTUS ought to avoid at all costs. And Trump? In the department of impulse control, his ''id'' seems, still, to be ruling the roost. May we expect more aplomb and poise? Time will tell.
Things can still go awry, despite all the sagacious planning by the renowned commanders, but an impetuous response might be counter-productive. Aside from anger management classes (yeah right!), Trump can learn to also minimize his caprice and reinforce his strong suits if any. One can doubt that, since the evidence does not seem to exist hitherto.
Pulling ranks, throwing weight around, and browbeating are some of inane tactics a POTUS ought to avoid at all costs. And Trump? In the department of impulse control, his ''id'' seems, still, to be ruling the roost. May we expect more aplomb and poise? Time will tell.
So, what are another 4,000 troops going to do that 100,000, with the same mission, could not do?
2
The man who ran against more perpetual war in Afghanistan brings us - more perpetual war in Afghanistan. A war that was never "winnable" and still isn't. I agreed with the original invasion, but only to take out al Qaeda and bloody their Taliban enablers as much as possible in the process. Sadly that didn't happen, and all the rest has just been plunder. Congrats to the military-industrial complex (and their investors) for the continuation of perpetual profits, financed by our tax dollars. That's all this really is.
2
We ought to do what we did in Vietnam and just leave that country, just as Russia threw up its hands and left Afghanistan before us. Any other efforts in that country are futile. If not, another U.S. president will be having this same argument from his generals 16 years for now. LEAVE.
As a Liberal Independent, I am no fan of Trump or unnecessary war.
I was against the Iraq War from Day 1 because I had no delusions of weapons of mass destruction and always saw it as part of the Bush-Hussein Family Feud.
Yet, there came a point in that war in which the resistance was substantial and so America argued about "The Surge". Conservatives generally were for it and Liberals generally were against it. I was for it and it worked; The Surge got Iraq under control and it least now it is something of a functioning state albeit ISIS is still a presence there.
So, I am not disagreeable to the idea of "The Afghan Surge" to hopefully stabilize that country's situation and finally see the homestretch of the War Against Fundamentalist Islam.
What really annoys me about all of this is the godawful amount of time, energy, money, emotion spent and lives ruined by these wars. If the unnecessary Iraq War had not happened, America could have focused all of its efforts on ending that war as it should have all along during the George W. Bush 2nd Administration or, at worst, the Obama Administration since he seemed to be the only capable one of taking-out Osama bin Laden.
I was against the Iraq War from Day 1 because I had no delusions of weapons of mass destruction and always saw it as part of the Bush-Hussein Family Feud.
Yet, there came a point in that war in which the resistance was substantial and so America argued about "The Surge". Conservatives generally were for it and Liberals generally were against it. I was for it and it worked; The Surge got Iraq under control and it least now it is something of a functioning state albeit ISIS is still a presence there.
So, I am not disagreeable to the idea of "The Afghan Surge" to hopefully stabilize that country's situation and finally see the homestretch of the War Against Fundamentalist Islam.
What really annoys me about all of this is the godawful amount of time, energy, money, emotion spent and lives ruined by these wars. If the unnecessary Iraq War had not happened, America could have focused all of its efforts on ending that war as it should have all along during the George W. Bush 2nd Administration or, at worst, the Obama Administration since he seemed to be the only capable one of taking-out Osama bin Laden.
This is a clear sign of Trump's lack of confidence in his own judgment. Generals like their troops in combat. The services get more money, shiny new equipment, accolades and, if they aren't already at 4 stars, promotions. The notion that another 4, 5, or even 20,000 troops could bring the Taliban to the table prepared to make a better deal than they'd make now is absolute fantasy. They are not stupid. They have a long view and (like North Vietnam and the Vietcong) they are fighting for self determination. On the bright side, at least we don't have 500,000 troops there and we're not likely to have lost 58,000 American lives when the end finally comes; presumably when there is a different president in the White House.
Trump's comments on South Asia and especially the sharp criticism of Pakistan along with the support for India is a major policy shift reversing policy that was set during the Nixon days. It can have severe destabilizing effects in the region if Pakistan is not handled with care. Pakistan have a lot to lose.
Has anyone asked former Sec. of State (General) Colin Powell what he thinks about this ? Secretary Powell always comes across as level headed and capable of considering varying points of view. In other words, a man with the character, knowledge, questioning attitude and judgment to be president.
1
America and the world already went dark on November 8, 2016!
The two worst days in US history 9/11 and 11/9!
The two worst days in US history 9/11 and 11/9!
Winning is preventing a space that is controlled by, which resources can be exploited by Jihadist elements that would use the space and it's resources to carry out attacks against civilians in the West. Simple as that.
Why does Trump not release details? Because that is just plain stupid. Why tell the enemy what your are going to do, how you are going to do it, when you intend to start, and when you intend to stop.
Thank god we have someone with a brain making the calls, for the prior 8 years we had someone who just thought he had a brain.
Why does Trump not release details? Because that is just plain stupid. Why tell the enemy what your are going to do, how you are going to do it, when you intend to start, and when you intend to stop.
Thank god we have someone with a brain making the calls, for the prior 8 years we had someone who just thought he had a brain.
Actually Jaco, since human thoughts are made of words, anyone who is articulate is by definition intelligent. Obama was extremely articulate -- as can be seen even in the transcripts of private and unscripted interviews and conversations that he had with a variety of different people. Therefore, he was, by definition, intelligent.
Trump clearly (measured by the same standard) is not. Of course, intelligence is invisible to the person who has none. And that may be the reason why some people charge Obama with not being intelligent.
As to your first point, whereas Al Qaeda and ISIS are jihadis, the Taliban aren't and never have been. They are only interested in control of Afghanistan. No expert in the history and politics of this region (which you are not) disagrees with this well-known fact. The Taliban should not be our concern.
Furthermore, no terrorist needs a base in a distant land-locked country or access to its "resources" in order to launch an attack. They can do from right here with the resources available to them in any gun shop.
But with regard to Afghanistan, what resources are you talking about? Afghanistan has none that are relevant to this discussion.
Trump clearly (measured by the same standard) is not. Of course, intelligence is invisible to the person who has none. And that may be the reason why some people charge Obama with not being intelligent.
As to your first point, whereas Al Qaeda and ISIS are jihadis, the Taliban aren't and never have been. They are only interested in control of Afghanistan. No expert in the history and politics of this region (which you are not) disagrees with this well-known fact. The Taliban should not be our concern.
Furthermore, no terrorist needs a base in a distant land-locked country or access to its "resources" in order to launch an attack. They can do from right here with the resources available to them in any gun shop.
But with regard to Afghanistan, what resources are you talking about? Afghanistan has none that are relevant to this discussion.
2
All a terrorist needs to cause terror is a rental truck. No need for guns or bombs.
According to a quote attributed to Alexander the Great, Afghanistan is "very easy to march into, hard to march out of". Things haven't changed much in the last 2400 years. One group after another has attempted to control the country. Some have succeeded for a while, others have failed. No one has lasted.
It's a country of tribes and leaders descended from many different faiths and cultures, more a patchwork of warring factions than anything else.
The British got handed their heads. Later, the Russians experienced the same. We've been in it for 16 years. What would lead anyone to think that they could prevail in any meaningful way?
Trump speaks of victory, but shies away from refining it. He speaks of a new strategy, but can't clearly define it. He expects Pakistan and India to cooperate with the US and with each other, no less, in one of the most historically treacherous areas in the world in pursuit of an American victory against terrorism.
Terrorism is very hard to fight. It hides until the moment it attacks. How is a victory over terrorism going to be obtained there? Even if every trace of life was exterminated in Afghanistan, every molecule of it, terrorism would continue. There is no victory over it. There is only the constant battle against it.
It's a country of tribes and leaders descended from many different faiths and cultures, more a patchwork of warring factions than anything else.
The British got handed their heads. Later, the Russians experienced the same. We've been in it for 16 years. What would lead anyone to think that they could prevail in any meaningful way?
Trump speaks of victory, but shies away from refining it. He speaks of a new strategy, but can't clearly define it. He expects Pakistan and India to cooperate with the US and with each other, no less, in one of the most historically treacherous areas in the world in pursuit of an American victory against terrorism.
Terrorism is very hard to fight. It hides until the moment it attacks. How is a victory over terrorism going to be obtained there? Even if every trace of life was exterminated in Afghanistan, every molecule of it, terrorism would continue. There is no victory over it. There is only the constant battle against it.
1
I don't know about anyone else but I have lost track of how many lies Trump has told. All politicians lie but he holds the record. Listening to Generals that only know how to fight is not the place he should be getting his information. After all he did say he knew more than all our Generals why is he consulting them?
Because he cant find Afghanistan on a map?
Can you imagine Generals telling President Eisenhower what to do. Yea and the very next day he's campaigning 2224 miles away to make it work.
Different times/Dangerous times.
Different times/Dangerous times.
I thought for once that the President was going to do something that he said he would, which was to withdraw from Afghanistan. Instead he wants to "win" the war whatever that means.
It looks as though the generals (who are running the country), none of whom have won a war, changed his mind.
President Trump didn't tell us how we will know when we have won the Afghanistan war. It is my belief that we will continue an indefinite military presence in Afghanistan to prevent the Russians and or the Chinese from taking over and stealing all of Afghanistan's natural resources.
It looks as though the generals (who are running the country), none of whom have won a war, changed his mind.
President Trump didn't tell us how we will know when we have won the Afghanistan war. It is my belief that we will continue an indefinite military presence in Afghanistan to prevent the Russians and or the Chinese from taking over and stealing all of Afghanistan's natural resources.
1
Sorry, the Chinese already have the natural resources. They signed a contract with the Afghan Govt to get them.
Afghanistan ... an unwinnable situation. When western forces clear out, the "bad guys" will take over. Then, external forces will return to clear out the bad guys. Repeat.
Pretty big investment for a place of rocks and villagers (except for the "bad guys").
Pretty big investment for a place of rocks and villagers (except for the "bad guys").
This may well be the only time Trump can be credited for having good instincts. After 16 years of proven, absolute, total, military failure the stage was set for getting out of Afghanistan. Too bad.
No guts, no glory.
No guts, no glory.
Where's Ike when we need him?
Having spent some time in Afghanistan (long ago), I have a different view on this:
"Afganistan has good people with a few very evil people..."
It was very difficult to tell "good" Afghanis from "evil" Afghanis. Most of them, like most other people, seemed to have a measure of both.
Based on my limited in-person observations and what I've read since, it appears that pretty much all Afghanis with any power feel this way about Americans:
1. Americans are the best thing since sliced bread if their soldiers will shoot bullets at my enemies -- or give me gobs of money so I can hire my own soldiers to shoot bullets at my enemies. And keep giving me gobs of money, of course, even if there are no more enemies to shoot bullets at.
2. American who don't fall into Category 1 should leave Afghanistan -- not today, maybe, but by tomorrow morning at the latest.
"Afganistan has good people with a few very evil people..."
It was very difficult to tell "good" Afghanis from "evil" Afghanis. Most of them, like most other people, seemed to have a measure of both.
Based on my limited in-person observations and what I've read since, it appears that pretty much all Afghanis with any power feel this way about Americans:
1. Americans are the best thing since sliced bread if their soldiers will shoot bullets at my enemies -- or give me gobs of money so I can hire my own soldiers to shoot bullets at my enemies. And keep giving me gobs of money, of course, even if there are no more enemies to shoot bullets at.
2. American who don't fall into Category 1 should leave Afghanistan -- not today, maybe, but by tomorrow morning at the latest.
2
"Nobody knew Afghanistan could be so complicated"... LOL.
1
We, the People must rise up and insist on ENDING this war! ENOUGH!
Its pretty hard to do when the last two presidents campaigned on ending that war yet turned around and sent in more troops. If we keep sending Dems and Repubs to Washington we will keep getting the same ole, same ole.
There was a shortage of detail in his 'new strategy' last night and there is a good reason for that. There aren't any. We're talking about Trump here.
1
Face it. Donald Trump doesn't have the intelligence and / or the discipline to be able to think strategically-- something that's required of any military operation.
His is all bluster and ignorance.
Apparently he hasn't yet realized that you can't have a troop increase without writing a "blank check".
Just like he doesn't realize what a quagmire Afghanistan is about to become,
Whether it's over there, or with North Korea, or even right here in the States -- he's going to pull this country into a war in one way or the other.
Then blame Obama...
His is all bluster and ignorance.
Apparently he hasn't yet realized that you can't have a troop increase without writing a "blank check".
Just like he doesn't realize what a quagmire Afghanistan is about to become,
Whether it's over there, or with North Korea, or even right here in the States -- he's going to pull this country into a war in one way or the other.
Then blame Obama...
2
We have gone mad. We have no diplomatic presence there. This is just madness.
2
Powerful, moving speech. Best Afghanistan speech I've ever heard. You would think the NYT could say one nice thing. You really show your colors.
How much MONEY is Trump going to make on this war? And how will his cronies fare? That's the real decision behind this "war". I support freeing the Women of Afghanistan, but this isn't the way to do it. It's never worked. But a few people will become more wealthy from this. Follow the money.
“Believe me. I’m good at war. I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war.”
Our commander-in-chief does not understand the word "war."
Our commander-in-chief does not understand the word "war."
1
Our current Commander-in-Chief cannot do as many pushups as our last First Lady. Would you want to follow him into battle?
Of all the presidents we have had in my lifetime, this one unusual occupant of the office could have gotten us out of a winless, pointless, wasteful war/occupation/nation-building exercise without a scratch on his "patriotism," without being called "weak" and worse. This is the president who could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and retain his loyal supporters. But what does he do with his political power? Wimp out.
1
And you should read the comments on Breitbart today. Boy, are they upset. His base has begun calling him a globalist sellout and they feel lied to. Interesting reading.
If you surround yourself with Generals, the only solutions you will come up with are military ones. Duh.
2
We have millions starving and no universal health care or decent public education in this country but yet most of our tax money goes to military defense. It's ridiculous.
2
Remember what the generals used to say about Vietnam?
"As the troops are fond of saying 'Afghanistan is Vietnam without the trees.'"
During the Vietnam War, the US generals liked to say that their strategy would have worked just fine if Vietnam didn't have all those pesky palm trees and jungles, forcing the US military to spend time and money on defoliants rather than just dropping bombs on enemy troops running across open fields.
Afghanistan, of course, provided those "open fields" -- just the sort of territory our vaunted military would excel in! Right? How's that worked out?
"As the troops are fond of saying 'Afghanistan is Vietnam without the trees.'"
During the Vietnam War, the US generals liked to say that their strategy would have worked just fine if Vietnam didn't have all those pesky palm trees and jungles, forcing the US military to spend time and money on defoliants rather than just dropping bombs on enemy troops running across open fields.
Afghanistan, of course, provided those "open fields" -- just the sort of territory our vaunted military would excel in! Right? How's that worked out?
1
I feel great pity for the deaths of all of the Afghanis we have slaughtered, but I will not shed a single tear for any American, either soldier or mercenary, killed over there. Each and every one of them has volunteered. Until our soldiers desert en masse, this unwinnable nonsense will continue. Perhaps "unwinnable" is not the correct term. The Military-Industrial Complex is winning bigly, and quite simply I am sick and tired of winning.
Unless direct colonization is considered there is no way to win in Afghanistan. You are talking about changing a culture that is pretty much been static since the dark ages.
1
True, but...
"...he is such an intellectual light-weight..."
But he's apparently adopted the very same strategy in Afghanistan as his "intellectual heavy-weight" predecessors, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Remember what Obama told us? He said Iraq was the wrong place for a war. We should pull out and focus instead on Afghanistan. And so he did. How's that working out?
"...he is such an intellectual light-weight..."
But he's apparently adopted the very same strategy in Afghanistan as his "intellectual heavy-weight" predecessors, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Remember what Obama told us? He said Iraq was the wrong place for a war. We should pull out and focus instead on Afghanistan. And so he did. How's that working out?
The president's staff is not the reason for an Afghanistan build up.
Obama's strategic failures have forced the United States to re-tool its operations. Afghanistan is not a country, it's a geographical expression purposely destabilized by Pakistan.
Unless Pakistan shores up its borders in the tribal areas nothing will be accomplished in Afghanistan.
Obama's strategic failures have forced the United States to re-tool its operations. Afghanistan is not a country, it's a geographical expression purposely destabilized by Pakistan.
Unless Pakistan shores up its borders in the tribal areas nothing will be accomplished in Afghanistan.
Ad man
Obama's strategic failures, eh?
That must be why Trump is following the Obama plan almost to the letter. Of course this time it's genius.
Obama's strategic failures, eh?
That must be why Trump is following the Obama plan almost to the letter. Of course this time it's genius.
The draft dodger nows wants more US blood shed in Afghanistan after the Generals persuaded him to send more troops. We should all be concerned with all the Generals running the country.
2
If only Donnie could still fit into his uniform from military school! He could have been another prop just like the soldiers who were ordered to listen to his drivel.
If you thought DJT would actually do anything new - wake up America. This guy is who he is. Keeping any promise to voters is just not his thing. First he did not know more than the generals, second he is not interested in learning the details or becoming educated on a subject (any subject), third he can be convinced of anything at any time by anyone - just tell him he will looks weak and like a loser and you will get him moving in the right direction.
A private army in the hands of Steve Bannon acolytes; what possibly could have gone wrong. Score one for common sense.
Tell me again, in Afghanistan,
who are we fighting, why, what will we have
and how and when will we know
we've "won" what? madness.
who are we fighting, why, what will we have
and how and when will we know
we've "won" what? madness.
1
Trump's speech last night was worthless.
In being ambiguous so that the enemy does not know his plans, he sidestepped fundamental questions that the Americans who are actually going to fight, be maimed and killed need to know, such as who's going to be ordered to put their lives on the line, for how long, and for what exactly ??
The emptiness of Trump's words are disturbing for another reason: because he is a habitual LIAR what he says should never be believed on its face. Add to that his egomania and it's easy to conclude that he is making a specter of Afghanistan and now Pakistan purely as a pretext for making himself look like a conquering hero.
Trump has erased the thin patina of leadership ability he had coming into office. He has become useless, an empty suit - and worse, a dangerous liability. It's worth noting (again) that last November voters foresaw this and decided against it. Now, for the good of our democracy, and for our literal well being, Trump must go. Resignation, impeachment, criminal prosecution, whatever.
In being ambiguous so that the enemy does not know his plans, he sidestepped fundamental questions that the Americans who are actually going to fight, be maimed and killed need to know, such as who's going to be ordered to put their lives on the line, for how long, and for what exactly ??
The emptiness of Trump's words are disturbing for another reason: because he is a habitual LIAR what he says should never be believed on its face. Add to that his egomania and it's easy to conclude that he is making a specter of Afghanistan and now Pakistan purely as a pretext for making himself look like a conquering hero.
Trump has erased the thin patina of leadership ability he had coming into office. He has become useless, an empty suit - and worse, a dangerous liability. It's worth noting (again) that last November voters foresaw this and decided against it. Now, for the good of our democracy, and for our literal well being, Trump must go. Resignation, impeachment, criminal prosecution, whatever.
It's great that while campaigning Trump said “Well, they don’t know much, because they’re not winning”, but when the truth is told look who really don't know much.
Cool. This oughta tank the economy. I've been waiting for the stock market to plummet so that I can pick up some cheap stocks.
"Deeper into the quagmire" was the unspoken theme of Trump's Afghanistan speech. Just like a gambler trying to recoup his losses through more fevered placing of bad bets, Trump and his generals (McMaster--I thought you learned the lesson of Vietnam), are placing more young American men and women in harm's way and squandering money that could be better spent rebuilding our country. After 16 years in Afghanistan, all the U.S. has to show for its efforts is an entrenched corrupt Afghani regime, a resurgent Taliban, and growing ISIS infiltration. Will another 16 years bring a better outcome for our country or theirs? I doubt it.
3
So, when hes a candidate he said he will bring the troops home and critisized President Obama for leaving the troops there. So, that was just another lie as a candidate and more hypocrisy as a President. What a surprise! Are we tired of winning yet?
2
NYT: Why fall for this charade? Trump is clueless. He is so out of his depth as to be gasping for air as he sinks. Sadly, he seems to want to take everyone else with him.
The generals convinced him? He loves the generals. They are strong! If the past 16 years in this war has proven anything, there is no "victory with honor". There is only continued draining of the national treasury, which is already being drained by his friends and associates. Will he end all domestic programs to continue to pay for what will be know as "another Trump folly"?
No one wins in Afghanistan. Not the USA, not the Russians, not the British, not anyone. Study your history NYT. The real losers are the Afghan people who must continue to suffer the bludgeoning by weapons of mass corruption and destruction.
The Taliban will not go away. They don't have to, they just wait it out. As long as there are hurt boys to die, they will continue. They will not run out of hurt boys to help die for their particular madness.
Trump doesn't want to be "a loser". But, he already is and this madness will not change that. Privatize with mercenaries? That's funny. Isn't this DeVos's brother making that pitch? They were so effective in Iraq?
Considering that this war started by another group of incompetent fools, what makes you think that this group of incompetent fools will do any better? Even Rex wants a diplomacy. Ha! Wonder what that would look like?
The generals convinced him? He loves the generals. They are strong! If the past 16 years in this war has proven anything, there is no "victory with honor". There is only continued draining of the national treasury, which is already being drained by his friends and associates. Will he end all domestic programs to continue to pay for what will be know as "another Trump folly"?
No one wins in Afghanistan. Not the USA, not the Russians, not the British, not anyone. Study your history NYT. The real losers are the Afghan people who must continue to suffer the bludgeoning by weapons of mass corruption and destruction.
The Taliban will not go away. They don't have to, they just wait it out. As long as there are hurt boys to die, they will continue. They will not run out of hurt boys to help die for their particular madness.
Trump doesn't want to be "a loser". But, he already is and this madness will not change that. Privatize with mercenaries? That's funny. Isn't this DeVos's brother making that pitch? They were so effective in Iraq?
Considering that this war started by another group of incompetent fools, what makes you think that this group of incompetent fools will do any better? Even Rex wants a diplomacy. Ha! Wonder what that would look like?
1
A man with a crippling inferiority complex and narcissistic tendencies got talked into looking more fierce than his predecessors? How did they ever pull off such a herculean feat?
2
Russia!!! Trump is their puppet. Afghanistan is a "look over there" distraction and you are falling for it!!
1
Great, no diplomacy, no discussion, just hardening of the arteries. Generals are now in charge, like we couldn't see this coming for a President whose faculties punted long ago. As MLK said, three triple evils: POVERTY, RACISM and MILITARISM, the plague of western civilization, heightened now--thank you "President"Trump
1
My favorite line from the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War":
"We'll see, said the Zen Master."
"We'll see, said the Zen Master."
To all the Trump voters: sorry if you're disappointed, but all of his talk about taking a different course were apparently meaningless. He has no new ideas, but maybe he'll get flustered and tweet something sensational and contradictory in the next days.
To all the Hillary voters: how much different would her "plan" really be than this?
Somehow the war in Afghanistan was barely discussed during the 2016 campaign. I suspect that unless you have family involved in this war, America chooses to forget.
To all the Hillary voters: how much different would her "plan" really be than this?
Somehow the war in Afghanistan was barely discussed during the 2016 campaign. I suspect that unless you have family involved in this war, America chooses to forget.
Blood and treasure. No infrastructure, no health care, a despoiled earth. Just crazy unwinnable wars into eternity. Another great decision by the imbecilic, egregious decider.
2
Just want to remind everyone: Erik Prince is Betsy DeVos's brother.
Looks like the family is just trying to get their money back from investing in Trump's campaign.
Looks like the family is just trying to get their money back from investing in Trump's campaign.
1
Tweeter Twit Trump's strategy is simple. Escalating troop numbers in Afghanistan and other US war zones is just another money making enterprise promoted by Trump's "friends". The company Blackwater(now called Academi) will further enrich itself on the backs of our young men & women soldiers. The private defense contracts will be bloated to provide a few of Trump's close associates more riches. The lobbyists will ensure that Congress will fall in line.
1
I wonder how many troops have heel spurs.
I don't think much of trump but he is a hundred percent right about being sceptical on Afghanistan. Here is the recipe for success bring back the draft for everyone 18 to 25 years old stick two million soldiers in the Mideast for the next 25 years.
The Russians had no success in Afghanistan and neither has the US under two Presidents. Let me be clear that I am not a fan of Trump, but I do agree with his early opinions that we should not be spending money in a country who hates America. We've wasted billions of dollars on training, rebuilding the country, etc. and what do we have to show for it? Broken young men and women returning to America, money thrown down the drain, and no reduction in terrorism. I am sorry Trump gave in to "his" generals.
1
The whole premise of the invasion of Afghanistan is a puzzle. There were 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia and 1 from Egypt, but the explanation was that the plan was plotted in Afghanistan. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. It could have been plotted by a person sitting in a basement in New Jersey. The reason for attacking Afghanistan seems to be that we could not bomb our "allies". Now we have to stay there so it is not obvious that the mission is useless. Not a good way to spend resources.
Now Trump is surrounded by generals and doing their bidding. The only silver lining is that maybe this it is better that he is not making his own decisions.
Now Trump is surrounded by generals and doing their bidding. The only silver lining is that maybe this it is better that he is not making his own decisions.
1
Really Trump is saying he was just a Monday morning quarterback when he had no skin in the game. Now that he is driving the car he changed his tune? So what are we to believe about anything he said during his campaign? It sure is easy to be outside of the ring to tell the guy in the ring he is doing a lousy job. The right ate John Kerry alive for his flip flops where is the left on Trump's 180 degree turn? It is no wonder why the right has congress and the White House the left is always a day late and a dollar short.
1
I wonder--in what way is the plan developed by Mattis, McMaster, etal, and the path we've taken in Afghanistan fundamentally different than the methods andvpractices of the Johnson administration that McMaster wrote about in his book Dereliction of Duty.
The only thing that was learned in Vietnam was the general's insistence on an all-volunteer army. That way the vast majority of the American public sits quietly on the sidelines while the same "volunteers" keep churning through our meatgrinder wars.
The only thing that was learned in Vietnam was the general's insistence on an all-volunteer army. That way the vast majority of the American public sits quietly on the sidelines while the same "volunteers" keep churning through our meatgrinder wars.
At some point people will realize the pottery barn metaphor. If you break it you own it. That's why, despite calls in the right to intervene in Libya and Syria, Obama committed few forces. We didn't need another conflict. Wonder what Teumps going to do about Iraq, which apparently is aligning with Iran. The Middle East is a quagmire, extracting ourselves will have dire consequences as will staying. There are no good alternatives, and the opposition party will exploit the inevitable failures of the offices current occupant. This will go on till exhausted, America finally withdraws. You'd think, from both the revolutionary war and Vietnam , that historically Americans would see that fighting guerilla wars is a loosing proposition.
So some questions:
Why are we in Afghanistan? What is our national interest here?
If we must be there, why are we fighting a limited war?
If it is not worth going all out, all the way to nuclear, why are we there?
What is going to be different this time?
Let me supply a couple of answers: There is nothing here worth fighting over. They are 6th century tribesmen, we shouldn't care what they do, think, or associate with.
They have been fighting over goats & camels for over a thousand years, we are stupid to be involved.
Get out of the entire Middle East, we no longer need their oil, or them. Let them find their own peace or kill each other down to the last cockroach.
Personally, I am betting they will choose the latter.
Why are we in Afghanistan? What is our national interest here?
If we must be there, why are we fighting a limited war?
If it is not worth going all out, all the way to nuclear, why are we there?
What is going to be different this time?
Let me supply a couple of answers: There is nothing here worth fighting over. They are 6th century tribesmen, we shouldn't care what they do, think, or associate with.
They have been fighting over goats & camels for over a thousand years, we are stupid to be involved.
Get out of the entire Middle East, we no longer need their oil, or them. Let them find their own peace or kill each other down to the last cockroach.
Personally, I am betting they will choose the latter.
1
"To the victors go the spoils," quoth Trump, which is apparently what got him to change his mind about Afghanistan. Greedy Trump envisions plundering the impoverished nation of its natural resources. Sounds like Trump may soon be hauled before the International Court of Justice because, unlike war criminals Bush and Cheney, Trump will stupidly continue to leave the country if only to visit his golf courses.
1
This was the one policy position that I agreed with Trump on: we need to stop participating in open-ended foreign wars. Of course, like everything else he said on the campaign trail I assumed it was a lie.
If we can stop contributing to the violence, we could open our arms to welcome refugees and provide a safe-haven for those who want to escape from hell on earth. In addition, we can work with and support regional allies that want to promote peace and stability in a humanitarian NOT a military capacity. I am ashamed of my contribution via my country's war machine to the horrible violence in this region and I feel politically unable to reign in my own military. I am terrified of these generals and this president, and I don't think they have the ability to recognize the evil they are committing in the name of good.
If we can stop contributing to the violence, we could open our arms to welcome refugees and provide a safe-haven for those who want to escape from hell on earth. In addition, we can work with and support regional allies that want to promote peace and stability in a humanitarian NOT a military capacity. I am ashamed of my contribution via my country's war machine to the horrible violence in this region and I feel politically unable to reign in my own military. I am terrified of these generals and this president, and I don't think they have the ability to recognize the evil they are committing in the name of good.
21
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Time to try finding other tools. I recommend the one that allows us to recognize that some problems, especially the small ones like Afghanistan, are best observed and not acted upon.
Time to try finding other tools. I recommend the one that allows us to recognize that some problems, especially the small ones like Afghanistan, are best observed and not acted upon.
As long as the MIC gets rich, who cares, right? will our nation never stop squandering its resources on pointless wars? More than anything this guy has done, this makes me Sad(tm).
Trump has every right to be angry, I know he's loathsome but some of his campaign "promises" made sense and this topped the list. We have zero business in Afghanistan, zero. We have zero businness in the M.E., had we not been there for sixty years assassinating leaders, overthrowing governments, supporting murderous dictators, throwing billions at various regimes in the name of Democracy when it was really always about Oil and Israel the problem wouldn't exist. Trump called it right when he said we had gotten the worst deal ever when we insisted on fighting and paying for a war that we had no business in in the first place. The world is awash in oil, we no longer need M.E. oil and Israel is no longer the fledgling nation of the forties. They are wealthy beyond belief, they have a vibrant, expanding economy(unlike us), they are armed to the teeth with nukes and their donor base world wide can easily pay for private armies to secure their safety if necessary. The only good idea I've heard come out of a meeting in the White House was one involving Eric Prince, of Blackwater, Feinberg of Cerberus Capital(how appropriate to have the dogs of Hell in a W.H.meeting) when the idea of mercenaries fighting the M.E. Wars came up. I say great, Big Oil and Israel can pick up the bill along with any other countries that are determined to keep the wars raging in that hellhole, it bankrupted Russia after fifteen years and without our printing press we would be too. Get out!
3
So Afghanistan won't become a launching pad again for terrorists, but Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Somalia have become launching pads. Stupid generals think they can stop a civil war, it won't happen. The generals aren't diplomats and so State probably had minimal input. Expect us in 3 years reviewing this again, but with more another couple of hundred soldiers dead along with 1,000 plus injured... Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
1
The incredible incompetence of the generals, the administration and the State Department, boggles the mind. First let's debunk this stupid notion that if we don't send more troops into Afghanistan and let it fall it will be a training grounds for terrorist attacks on the US. It only took a few dozen people to plan and execute 911. It could have been planned in any on of a dozen countries. They didn't need to plan it on Afghanistan. If afghanistan fell tomorrow into the hands of the Taliban, terrorist would still be planning attacks in dozens of other countries. but hersca question no one seems to ask and it should be easy to answer. I think most everyone would agree that if the US and NATO pulled out of Afghanistan, it wouldn't be long before the present government failed and the Taliban took complete control. WHY? Why would a poorly outfitted bunch of warriors running around in torn cloths in their bare feet, defeat an army outfitted in the best of everything? Tanks, helicopters airplanes, how the hell could the Taliban win? why? Very simply, they want it more. PERIOD!
4
Our generals continue to lead our nation on its March of Folly in Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires. Paraphrasing JFK - "It's obvious the generals don't know a damn thing about anything". Words of wisdom which need to be shared with the current commander-in-chief.
Onward Christian Soldiers. Join the military. Learn how to go against your basic humanity and kill others over some ridiculous "religious" concept.
WE THE PEOPLE must not let The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren start WW3 or any war.
It's OUR money and OUR lives they are wasting. NO. A trillion times NO.
WE THE PEOPLE must not let The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren start WW3 or any war.
It's OUR money and OUR lives they are wasting. NO. A trillion times NO.
3
Trump did not propose anything new on the Afganistán war. No information on the number of troops that will be committed. This has been done by all his predecessors. His die hard supporters think his speech was praiseworthy. I was not impressed, much ado about nothing.
2
Our "friends" in this matter are Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran, just as we should be with each of them in their endeavors. Should we play the spoiler role with them as well? And is this becoming our Vietnam II?
2
Unfortunately, the generals won another round! The idea that "they are losing" is what has prompted their advise to Trump to send more troops to "stabilize the situation". Sixteen years and counting; we continue to train the Afghan army and try to stabilize i.e. support the government regardless of corruption and the tribal warlords. If I am not wrong, the definition of insanity is doing the same things and hope or expect a different outcome!
5
If USA has to succeed in Afghanistan, the generals
should read about the campaign of Mongols in
who subdued that country completely in short time.
Akbar the great, emperor of India in 16th century, also
subdued Afghanistan in 15 years. If the generals
are not willing to use the same tactics, they can't with
so few troops, it will be quagmire.The generals are
fighting not to lose. Winning requires a different
strategy and troop level.
should read about the campaign of Mongols in
who subdued that country completely in short time.
Akbar the great, emperor of India in 16th century, also
subdued Afghanistan in 15 years. If the generals
are not willing to use the same tactics, they can't with
so few troops, it will be quagmire.The generals are
fighting not to lose. Winning requires a different
strategy and troop level.
2
War without a clear and realistic objective is a war lost. Generals want war to maintain the never ending built up of the military machine. Trump, once he has his small hand in Afghanistan, will continue to send more troops and increase the military budget just to satisfy his ego.
1
I wonder what Hillary Clinton would have done. Sure, she (and John Kerry) voted "for" the Iraq war, but maybe she'd have changed her mind this time.
Just kidding, of course. Trump is making a colossal mistake here, but HRC would have made the very same mistake. True, HRC would have flip-flopped a year later (as I fervently hope Trump will do), as she did on Iraq after that war started going badly. But I have no doubt we'd have increased troop levels in Afghanistan under HRC.
We'd have called them "trainers," of course, as we did under Obama. Labels matter, and "trainers" is a lot better label than "soldiers." One might even imagine that they don't carry guns!
Just kidding, of course. Trump is making a colossal mistake here, but HRC would have made the very same mistake. True, HRC would have flip-flopped a year later (as I fervently hope Trump will do), as she did on Iraq after that war started going badly. But I have no doubt we'd have increased troop levels in Afghanistan under HRC.
We'd have called them "trainers," of course, as we did under Obama. Labels matter, and "trainers" is a lot better label than "soldiers." One might even imagine that they don't carry guns!
2
Want a win in Afghanistan? Free Balochistan, that already has a freedom movement in play, benefits can be creation of a sea access to Afghanistan and bypass pakistan, dislodge China from sea access in Gwadar Port in Balochistan . Win Win
2
Trump said in his speech that he had talked to the "prime minister" of Afghanistan? They don't have a prime minister, they have a president. The fact that his speech writer and policy advisor Stephen Miller did not know this is stunning. It also tells me that the "generals" never previewed his speech, scary.
8
Dear future presidents:
Please rebuild, refinance, and re-staff the State Department and USIA. It is quite possible that diplomacy and good will can someday play a role in helping the United States bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan. The military-industrial complex can afford any rescissions.
Thank you in advance.
Please rebuild, refinance, and re-staff the State Department and USIA. It is quite possible that diplomacy and good will can someday play a role in helping the United States bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan. The military-industrial complex can afford any rescissions.
Thank you in advance.
3
At this point, what makes you so certain there will even be a future???
2
We're only going to kill terrorists in Afghanistan? I'll venture that now that Trump has removed some battle protocols from our military that there will be increased civilian casualties. Our boots on the ground are well aware of this.
Then comes the backlash from the Afghani people and the inevitable and renewed lack of trust of American invaders.
We need to withdraw from this endless war, not double down on it.
Then comes the backlash from the Afghani people and the inevitable and renewed lack of trust of American invaders.
We need to withdraw from this endless war, not double down on it.
2
Vietnam, circa 1965?
1
The military/industrial complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned against, is alive and well in America. Trump is its latest pawn.
3
On the subject of history, does anyone else hear the echos of General Westmoreland's briefings for President Johnson?
2
When you are a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
5
Trump speech brilliant. Knocks Charlottesville off Front Page while allowing Presidential demeanor for Trump. North Korea sidelined. Barcelona gets vindicated. And hey, if profit can be made from war it's all around winning, except--some will have to die--collateral damage......August historically slow--Campaigner in Chief, Premier Marketer has spoken......
2
Oh yes, let's send "soldiers of fortune" into the mix, because it has worked out so well in the past.....NOT.
3
He's letting the generals have at it for another year and then he's going to declare victory and time to wind down to special forces.
I thought he gave a mystifyingly coherent delivery. It was as if the generals have learned to program a good performance from the president but then the batteries run down, he goes tilt and it takes weeks to figure out how to re-boot.
I thought he gave a mystifyingly coherent delivery. It was as if the generals have learned to program a good performance from the president but then the batteries run down, he goes tilt and it takes weeks to figure out how to re-boot.
1
There will be no win, there is no central government in this country. Ask Russia about their 20 years war and their final retreat. It financially broke their country. What make us think we are any different? We aren't.
3
"We are not nation building. We are killing terrorists". It seems to be undeniable that this is a war that can't be militarily won. With that, and the evidence that this is a money making (for self) administration, the door has been opened for private companies to clean out the military budget. This wasn't stated in the speech because that would taint the perception that was trying to be displayed. BUT, if the goal is strictly "killing terrorists" then the ground work is being laid for the inception of private companies getting contracts from the government. My guess is if we can't win the war, then killing as many terrorists as possible is the next best thing, and Americans will support that, and having private companies do the work takes pressure off of the military. Only thing with that is they are accountable to no one and they make their own rules. Listen, if I remember correctly the Russians spent 20 years in Afghanistan fighting a war that they had to pull out of because they couldn't win it, and now we've spent 16 years there and have accomplished nothing positive. We dropped the "mother of all bombs" and the war still persists. Who's next to give it a try?
2
'We are not nation building', Trump soothes his base. We're going to create a non-nation perpetual war zone, but it must be secret.
1
Trump just committed to be the world's cop after spouting nationalism and isolationism for years. How frightening is that!
1
"General McMaster continued tweaking the plan, which now had benchmarks for reducing corruption in the Afghan government ... "
Why is the goal to REDUCE corruption in the Afghan government? Why should there be any corruption at all Why isn't the goal to ELIMINATE corruption in the Afghan government?
Why is the goal to REDUCE corruption in the Afghan government? Why should there be any corruption at all Why isn't the goal to ELIMINATE corruption in the Afghan government?
1
Perhaps he should concentrate on eliminating corruption in his own country....he is surrounded by corrupted appointees every working day.
For the sake of analysis, let's assume our national security really does depend on a friendly Afghan government, and that a powerful occupation force would be counter-productive. If that's true, then maybe a permanent presence in Afghanistan to support the Afghan government and military is the only solution. It is interesting to note, however, the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center were mostly Saudi's, led by a rich Saudi business man, who was hiding out in Pakistan. I therefore believe the assumptions above are wrong. Afghanistan is not the key to our national security vis-à-vis international terrorism, and we should have pulled out long ago. Let the most powerful tribal leader lead the country, Taliban or not, but let him know that if he harbors anti-American terrorists, we'll assassinate him, his family, and the rest of his tribe.
2
what, exactly, is the "disaster" that pulling our troops out of afghanistan will cause? is this any different from viet nam? the danger of having a person like trump in the oval office is that he doesn't really understand what questions to ask. of course, obama and bush were no better.
but, if there were a draft, the pressure would have built by now to end this unending war. we should never allow the military to make policy on war.
but, if there were a draft, the pressure would have built by now to end this unending war. we should never allow the military to make policy on war.
3
My goodness, Times reporters. The idea that this President thoughtfully weighed his options and, in the end, let himself be convinced by "his" generals to decide, against what he tells us was his original determination to quit the field, what exactly, is nonsense. This war, as we're calling it, was never winnable, is not now winnable, and has always been a fool's errand. It will grind on until someone, in the unknowable future, brings our poor suffering troops home. An action to punish the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden has now cost almost a trillion (yes, trillion) dollars, and nothing, not one thing, show for it.
Trump's speech was a non-event. He is simply setting "his" generals up to take the fall when the latest insane military strategy, whatever that might finally be, inevitably fails.
Trump's speech was a non-event. He is simply setting "his" generals up to take the fall when the latest insane military strategy, whatever that might finally be, inevitably fails.
1
Eisenhower's warning about the military, industrial complex is still manifesting itself. This countries obsession with unwinnable wars is sick. All those lives eliminated and all that money going down the drain when it can be used for the needy in the US is tragic.
3
None of this makes sense to Trump nor does he cares how many additional lives will be lost. He's as clueless as the generals on winning this war with Afghans. You cannot defeat an ideology. Withdraw the troops from Afghanistan.
1
I have an (most brilliant) idea on troop numbers! Let us simply go back to pre 'Mission Accomplished' troop strength and re-accomplish the mission!
1
Since the Taliban and ISIS are enemies, let's join forces with the Taliban.
Unfortunately, Afghanistan is destined to become a "permanent" military base of the United States, just like Korea and many other bases around the globe. Should the US forces leave, it would be be taken over (again) by the Taliban, the same group which ruled the country after the Russians (then Soviet Union) left in the late 1980's. Remember the public be-headings in the National Stadium? The treatment of women? With all the chaos wreaked by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, can you imagine the horror stories that would emanate from Afghanistan if the US simply walked away? This is what any President would fear...even Donald Trump.
So, against his own better judgement, (very unusual for him) he gave into the generals plea for their job security.
The one area where Trump's cynicism and negativity could have been put to use was his level-headed assessment of Afghanistan; a complete waste of lives and money. But it's the old story, say or do absolutely anything to get elected. After that, you can do whatever you like.
1
An answer to the most basic question would help all of us. Under what conditions do we declare victory?
2
Reduce the deficit? Right. Nonsense. This war is a credit card war on the deficit, just like Iraq.
2
The generals, the supposed adults, whom everyone was counting on to keep Trump out of war, have talked him into it. It's not surprising because, for all their admirable personal attributes, they are the wrong generals for making decisions on Afghanistan. They failed there before and suffered tragedy. It's understandable that they want to reverse that record, but its not the right criterion for the country. It was also a mistake to put a general in as Defense Secretary. Gen. Mattis is no George Marshall. Add in the president's veneration of military power. On issues of war and peace, instead of civilian control of the military, we have military control of the White House.
2
It shows me that, as usual, Trump has absolutely no idea what he's doing, has no knowledge, wisdom or insight of his own (despite his knowing more about ISIS than the generals, same with health care) and is just trying to get through the day.
1
Here's a prospective scenario, to take place over the next four years...
Trump sends troops into Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, tensions in North Korea escalate.
Trump not only hangs around, after all, but runs for re-election, at the suggestion of his advisors, on the basis that the country won't vote him
out of office during military-related issues, whether it's Kabul, or Pyongyang.
While it's not likely to happen, it's a provocative, if not scary, thought...
Trump sends troops into Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, tensions in North Korea escalate.
Trump not only hangs around, after all, but runs for re-election, at the suggestion of his advisors, on the basis that the country won't vote him
out of office during military-related issues, whether it's Kabul, or Pyongyang.
While it's not likely to happen, it's a provocative, if not scary, thought...
I think the British had the same idea in 1919, and the Soviets in 1979. What could possibly go wrong?
3
Looks like this one won't be making Trump's "Promises made; promises kept" list:
"One of the few sensible campaign promises Trump made was to remove us from the insane involvement in the war in Afghanistan..."
"One of the few sensible campaign promises Trump made was to remove us from the insane involvement in the war in Afghanistan..."
More of the same is is just more of the same. More death, more international ill will, more draining our national treasury, more maimed US veterans begging for work or lunch-money from their wheelchairs parked by on-ramps of literally all of our urban expressways...
Do his supporters have memories long enough to realize that he just did a 180 degree u-turn on his own rhetoric all through the last two presidencies?
Or perhaps running after him like lemmings, no matter what his course and until our nation falls off the proverbial cliff, consists of making America "great again?"
Do his supporters have memories long enough to realize that he just did a 180 degree u-turn on his own rhetoric all through the last two presidencies?
Or perhaps running after him like lemmings, no matter what his course and until our nation falls off the proverbial cliff, consists of making America "great again?"
2
If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If you are the military, everything looks like a military conflict.
Hopefully our next president will have critical thinking skills.
If you are the military, everything looks like a military conflict.
Hopefully our next president will have critical thinking skills.
3
One other point: the argument that the US leaving Afghanistan will then leave it open to becoming a hotbed of terrorism is simply wrong and very lazy reasoning. If anything, the US departure will speed the Taliban's takeover of the country. The Taliban has no interest in being a terrorist organization or in exporting terrorism. Its alliance with Al Qaeda back in the 1990s/2000s was one of convenience and mutual benefit. However, the Taliban never authorized AQ's attack on the US. AQ hoped to draw the US into a war in Afghanistan that, Bin Laden reasoned, would end up destroying the US Empire, just as it had the USSR. But the Taliban had no desire to attack the US and was caught off-gaurd by BL's action. The Taliban are repugnant, but they have an interest in governing Afghanistan, not making it a continuing target of US military action.
What is often forgotten about the beloved surge is that it was joined at the hip with a gladhanding program that put many residents in “our” side.
Also Eric Prince thinks we can flip North Korea by smuggling in cell phones. Remind me why he’s not a 4 star general?
Also Eric Prince thinks we can flip North Korea by smuggling in cell phones. Remind me why he’s not a 4 star general?
What the generals do not seem to want to admit is that this war cannot be won by attrition. This is the same lesson we learned in Vietnam. The children that were 5 years old when the US entered this war are now 21 year old fighters. We cannot kill all the enemy unless we resort to genocide and then what does this country become? If you cannot end this war politically then it will become the next generations 100 year war. For every enemy we kill there a young brother, cousin or relative of some kind that will grow up to take their place. It's time to end this war whether the generals want to admit it or not, this is not a war we can win by combat.
I applaud Mr. Trump for seeking the perspective of those veteran enlisted men and taking their experience seriously. Every good business manager should listen and learn from the ranks that do the work on the ground. All wisdom does not reside at the top, and the top generals do not put their lives on the line.
1
You've answered your own question:
"If you populate your administration with military men you'll inevitable get a military solution. Why would someone to whom winning is everything back something that's been proved to be unwinnable by both the US and the Soviet Union?"
To answer the question you posed in your second sentence, just reread your first sentence.
"If you populate your administration with military men you'll inevitable get a military solution. Why would someone to whom winning is everything back something that's been proved to be unwinnable by both the US and the Soviet Union?"
To answer the question you posed in your second sentence, just reread your first sentence.
2
Another profit war for capitalist America. Military contracts, some cannon fodder, Halliburton, Lockheed, Martin Marietta feeding off of tax money which could be funding Medicare for all. Good job, Republican voters.
2
Our military wants to be able to take out terrorist cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To do this they need a launchpad in country -- Baghram Air Base. To protect the base they need boots on the ground. After the last 16 years these must be Afghan boots. To guide the Afghans, they need a U.S. presence. Hence the "policy". Questions remain: How to reach Baghram without overflying countries not friendly to the U.S.? How to amass enough logistical support to sustain operations when the necessity arises? How to insure the constancy of Afghan support by stabilizing the government there? How to insure the constance of U.S. support by stabilizing the government here? Maybe the simple answer is that we are waist deep in the big muddy, and ..... ..... .....
"There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am." — June 2015 Fox News interview
"So a general gets on, sent obviously by Obama, and he said, 'Mr. Trump doesn't understand. He knows nothing about defense.' I know more about offense and defense than they will ever understand, believe me. Believe me. Than they will ever understand. Than they will ever understand." — July 2016
"I know more about ISIS [the Islamic State militant group] than the generals do. Believe me." — November 2015
For all his knowledge he seems to be quite ignorant after all.
I pity his followers that cheered those phrases and now have to swallow the fact that he is clueless.
"So a general gets on, sent obviously by Obama, and he said, 'Mr. Trump doesn't understand. He knows nothing about defense.' I know more about offense and defense than they will ever understand, believe me. Believe me. Than they will ever understand. Than they will ever understand." — July 2016
"I know more about ISIS [the Islamic State militant group] than the generals do. Believe me." — November 2015
For all his knowledge he seems to be quite ignorant after all.
I pity his followers that cheered those phrases and now have to swallow the fact that he is clueless.
2
Who's in charge here?
2
Finally. Trump gets to play with his soldiers and tanks. Quick, show him a map without the countries on it and see if he identifies where he's sending them. Oops, sorry however you are.
2
Is 16 years a long time? The British were there 75 years or more and never got it under control.
Didn't Alexander the Great try?
Donald Trump is no Alexander the Great.
Didn't Alexander the Great try?
Donald Trump is no Alexander the Great.
1
The unending Afghan war, now with more Trump bluster but still no clear objectives or milestones is a waste of lives and money. Ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistan which is fighting its own insurgencies, encouraging India to get more involved without admitting the utter US and Afghan policy and governance failures will further destabilize the nuclear armed region. It is clear that the generals have an inability to cut losses and have suckered the clueless Trump deeper into the quagmire.
1
I don't know why so many centrist Democrats applauded all the generals hired by Trump "to reign him in". He was a hobbled and weakened president attempting to prop himself up with militant credentials, the last refuge of the scoundrel. The Bannon-Paul wing of the GOP was correct and more aligned with Democrats prior to Trump's election.
The racket continues. Wall Street will applaud the racket and so will jokers like Lindsey Graham, as they claim the "thenext911" (registered trademark) will come from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, ISIS practically controls a handful of failed states in the middle east, and ISIS can find more "safehavens" today than at anytime prior to 911. What does this teach us?
One thing for sure, the general's response to terrorism at the turn of the century has made the world much, much less safe. That's a fact that even the generals have to conceded. Yet, we continue to do it their way. The editorial boards should be screaming, but they're mostly silent or calling for war as they have in almost each instance since the Spanish-American war and the emergence of Yellowjournalism.
Good luck to all.
The racket continues. Wall Street will applaud the racket and so will jokers like Lindsey Graham, as they claim the "thenext911" (registered trademark) will come from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, ISIS practically controls a handful of failed states in the middle east, and ISIS can find more "safehavens" today than at anytime prior to 911. What does this teach us?
One thing for sure, the general's response to terrorism at the turn of the century has made the world much, much less safe. That's a fact that even the generals have to conceded. Yet, we continue to do it their way. The editorial boards should be screaming, but they're mostly silent or calling for war as they have in almost each instance since the Spanish-American war and the emergence of Yellowjournalism.
Good luck to all.
2
Nobody knew Afghanistan could be so complicated.
1
The national security military industrial complex wins again. It is a dirty little war, but it is our war and so we fight on?
Instead of more of the same, why don't we convene a peace conference? Yes, invite the Taliban. Also invite the government of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, and the various 'Stans' that border Afghanistan. These countries have more at stake from continuing disorder in Afghanistan than we do.
Tell them we are pulling out of Afghanistan by June 30, 2018. Seventeen years of futility is enough. Tell them they are responsible for negotiating the peace. In return, we will set up a Marshall Fund for South Asia that will rebuild what we have destroyed.
Let the people of Afghanistan live in peace. How about a Mobilization for Peace and Respect for Life in the US that will march for peace in that suffering country and tie that peace to the need for respect for life there and here in the US.
Instead of more of the same, why don't we convene a peace conference? Yes, invite the Taliban. Also invite the government of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, and the various 'Stans' that border Afghanistan. These countries have more at stake from continuing disorder in Afghanistan than we do.
Tell them we are pulling out of Afghanistan by June 30, 2018. Seventeen years of futility is enough. Tell them they are responsible for negotiating the peace. In return, we will set up a Marshall Fund for South Asia that will rebuild what we have destroyed.
Let the people of Afghanistan live in peace. How about a Mobilization for Peace and Respect for Life in the US that will march for peace in that suffering country and tie that peace to the need for respect for life there and here in the US.
1
I am just sick of this war I am tired of seeing young men and women getting to sent to wars for nothing while the rich defense contractors rake in tons of money. When are we going to stop this insanity I am starting to believe it is when the last drop blood of America is shed and there is nothing left that is when we will stop it. These are the times we need to be united on this front and tell the US govt we want out or else we stop working and conduct national strikes until our demands are met because that is how they get rich is by the workers.
1
The author mentions Obama's failure to withdraw the U.S. from Afganistan. A couple qualifications are in order.
First, Obama had focused on Iraq during his campaign. In 2008, five years after the U.S. invasion, a majority of the country already realized Iraq was a mistake of historic proportions. Obama made good on his promise in spite of very loud, very public resistance from the military. Our presence there is fraction of what it once was.
Second, the country hadn't yet given up on Afghanistan when he took office. Our reason for being there was legitimate. Obama allowed the generals to make one last, big push, probably in part to assuage their anger about the withdrawal from Iraq. They dramatically ramped up our forces and went all out. They failed. Ultimately, Obama decreased our presence in Afghanistan from the 30,000 troops left by Bush to under 10,000 when Trump assumed office.
Much more than in 2008, there is now a sense that Afghanistan is unwinnable. We've been there for sixteen years. We gave the military carte blanche. Americans want out. We're even in the late stage of a drawdown. Trump will never have a better opportunity to make good on his promise.
But unlike Obama, Trump is spineless. He can't even tand up to his own generals. How ironic that a paper tiger president should lead us to war.
First, Obama had focused on Iraq during his campaign. In 2008, five years after the U.S. invasion, a majority of the country already realized Iraq was a mistake of historic proportions. Obama made good on his promise in spite of very loud, very public resistance from the military. Our presence there is fraction of what it once was.
Second, the country hadn't yet given up on Afghanistan when he took office. Our reason for being there was legitimate. Obama allowed the generals to make one last, big push, probably in part to assuage their anger about the withdrawal from Iraq. They dramatically ramped up our forces and went all out. They failed. Ultimately, Obama decreased our presence in Afghanistan from the 30,000 troops left by Bush to under 10,000 when Trump assumed office.
Much more than in 2008, there is now a sense that Afghanistan is unwinnable. We've been there for sixteen years. We gave the military carte blanche. Americans want out. We're even in the late stage of a drawdown. Trump will never have a better opportunity to make good on his promise.
But unlike Obama, Trump is spineless. He can't even tand up to his own generals. How ironic that a paper tiger president should lead us to war.
54
Thirdly, the president does not call the shots. The Deep State does and is always in control. Don't you dare touch that dial!! Actually, go ahead. All the channels are the same.
It galls me to hear a draft dodger refer to "my" generals.
It galls me to hear Nikki Haley speak of "his" generals.
They are not the possession of the president. They are the generals of the armed services of the United States of America and if they belong to anyone, they belong to all of us and are not the personal crutch or plaything of any executive who happens to be elected president.
It galls me to hear Nikki Haley speak of "his" generals.
They are not the possession of the president. They are the generals of the armed services of the United States of America and if they belong to anyone, they belong to all of us and are not the personal crutch or plaything of any executive who happens to be elected president.
161
Don't be fooled, Thoughtful Woman. It's the generals (yes, our generals) who are dictating policy here. The President (who as you note, lacks the experience to be skeptical of what the generals are telling them), is just drinking the generals' Kool Aid.
1
We need to hang another banner from a crane that Trump can read easily that says "you work for us, and we want to fire you immediately." Signed, the majority of the American People.
He seems to forget that he is not king but an elected public servant who gets paid by us, the Little People who send our kids to the military out of a reverence for democracy. Trump has a thing for power and chest awards and ribbons, and being told what to do by 'his' generals is what he learned in military school. Much easier than developing a brain inside his orange gourd.
He seems to forget that he is not king but an elected public servant who gets paid by us, the Little People who send our kids to the military out of a reverence for democracy. Trump has a thing for power and chest awards and ribbons, and being told what to do by 'his' generals is what he learned in military school. Much easier than developing a brain inside his orange gourd.
1
Whoever they belong to, they don't belong to you. But don't stop. They need people like you.
1
Afghanistan wore out the Russians. They, in spite of Trump's bold new 4000 troop plan, have outlasted America. It's China's turn, lured in by the mineral wealth sitting there, to get bogged down in this medieval society's tribal feuds.
1
The military generals have obviously taken over the US government because Trump is weak and mentally unfit for the job. They are just using Trump as their puppet now, much like Putin was hoping to use him as their puppet.
Anyway, the trouble with what the military generals are doing is this: There is zero evidence that sending in thousands more troops will prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for the Islamic State, as Iraq has become since the US removed Saddam Hussein.
The warfare in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been a complete and utter disaster that has nothing so far except strengthen and coalesce the support for the Islamic State. More soldiers will just get the US further mired in the muck. The strategy makes no sense.
And sending in mercenaries, as the guy interviewed by Breitbart suggests, is even crazier.
The better approach is to target the finances for the Islamic State. Start hitting back at the wealthy oil donors and and at countries in the Middle East that are supporting the Islamic State. The money is coming from somewhere. Starve it of money and arms.
Anyway, the trouble with what the military generals are doing is this: There is zero evidence that sending in thousands more troops will prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for the Islamic State, as Iraq has become since the US removed Saddam Hussein.
The warfare in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been a complete and utter disaster that has nothing so far except strengthen and coalesce the support for the Islamic State. More soldiers will just get the US further mired in the muck. The strategy makes no sense.
And sending in mercenaries, as the guy interviewed by Breitbart suggests, is even crazier.
The better approach is to target the finances for the Islamic State. Start hitting back at the wealthy oil donors and and at countries in the Middle East that are supporting the Islamic State. The money is coming from somewhere. Starve it of money and arms.
1
Many of us remember Vietnam, and in the 60's General Westmoreland stating that victory was possible with more troops. Over 500,000 were stationed in that country. We know how well that worked out (my brother found out the hard way). Now it's the same story, different war, but the result will be the same. Billions more spent, many more American lives ruined, and for what? Afghanistan, the graveyard of nations.
3
How can this president, who is clueless on pretty much anything geopolitically, socially, and interpersonally (the list is longer) be credited with putting "forward a broader strategy for Afghanistan, one that would require thousands more American troops but place more conditions on the Afghan government. His decision..." His decision? The authors give him too much credit. But, he is golden and his cheering section will clasp their hands on their collective breasts and exclaim, "Wow! What a leader! What a strategist! We are so fortunate to have him in the White House!" I wonder if there are any habitable Hoover camps still in existence.
21
The only explanation is that McMaster was the last one to speak to him before he made his speech.
But you are right about two supposedly veteran reporters buying a fish story, hook, line and sinker.
But you are right about two supposedly veteran reporters buying a fish story, hook, line and sinker.
1
We should all be worried that there are now a significant number of Generals in lead positions of our (civilian?) government. One of the few sensible campaign promises Trump made was to remove us from the insane involvement in the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq).
Our Generals have a disastrous track record with their recommendation in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Americans, very unfortunately and very dangerously, have the notion that "patriotism" requires supporting military leaders suggestions. ALL the predictions by "the Generals" in these wars have been wrong. The notion that another 4500 soldiers (or whatever the "secret number turns out to be) can accomplish what 100,000 soldiers could not is pure stupidity. The notion that Afghanistan is a terrorist training ground which directly endangers America's homeland is absolute nonsense - none of the terrorist attacks in recent years have had anything to do with Afghanistan - even 9/11, although planned by Bin Laden, who was holed up in Afghanistan, was almost exclusively carried out by Saudis, radicalized by the Saudi brand of Islam - yet Saudi Arabia is still one of our "trusted allies".
The whole effort in Afghanistan was originally justified by our then "Clown in Chief" with the notion that we had to "get bin Laden", which would somehow solve all the terrorism problems. Well, "we got bin Laden", and absolutely nothing has changed.
Get out of Afghanistan NOW!
Our Generals have a disastrous track record with their recommendation in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Americans, very unfortunately and very dangerously, have the notion that "patriotism" requires supporting military leaders suggestions. ALL the predictions by "the Generals" in these wars have been wrong. The notion that another 4500 soldiers (or whatever the "secret number turns out to be) can accomplish what 100,000 soldiers could not is pure stupidity. The notion that Afghanistan is a terrorist training ground which directly endangers America's homeland is absolute nonsense - none of the terrorist attacks in recent years have had anything to do with Afghanistan - even 9/11, although planned by Bin Laden, who was holed up in Afghanistan, was almost exclusively carried out by Saudis, radicalized by the Saudi brand of Islam - yet Saudi Arabia is still one of our "trusted allies".
The whole effort in Afghanistan was originally justified by our then "Clown in Chief" with the notion that we had to "get bin Laden", which would somehow solve all the terrorism problems. Well, "we got bin Laden", and absolutely nothing has changed.
Get out of Afghanistan NOW!
27
I thought same thing about Saudis. Are there significant pipelines in Afghanistan I wonder.
And will Trump start up the draft again? Or will he and the generals rely upon an all volunteer force that they can send, over and over again to Afghanistan until those soldiers have a break down? It's nice to hear our president wants to win a war but which war is he winning and how will he do it and what will he do when it's over? It's easy to win a war: it's much harder to keep the peace.
17
Just another diversion to take away from the real issues with this man and his administration.
27
SMF: you know, I just can't agree with your statement that Afghanistan is a diversion right now. Extracting ourselves from a quagmire is hardly a diversion, and regardless of which choice is made about Afghan policy, Afghanis are going to die, and so will some Americans. This is not a decision to take lightly. I am really sad for the world, and especially for Afghanis. And for us of course as well.
We really truly need new paradigms and ways of thinking about the issues of terrorist sanctuaries. And terrorism, period.
We really truly need new paradigms and ways of thinking about the issues of terrorist sanctuaries. And terrorism, period.
What makes you think I take the Afghanistan situation lightly?
I did not refer to Afghanistan as a diversion, but HIS timely speech to distract from all his bumbling. For years Trump has spoken out against the war. What he gave us in his speech was nothing and all prompter written for him. A diversion from all his ignorant behavior.
I did not refer to Afghanistan as a diversion, but HIS timely speech to distract from all his bumbling. For years Trump has spoken out against the war. What he gave us in his speech was nothing and all prompter written for him. A diversion from all his ignorant behavior.
Still not quite sure i understand but I do thank you for the comment back. I think he has to make a decision because of the situation now in Afghanistan...you are probably correct that the speech was written for him.
I do not like Trump in fact, I think he should be removed from office via 25th amendment--he is not fit, really. And this situation in Afghanistan certainly needs a wise person to help move to a new paradigm.
On another note, I was pretty surprised to hear that "westernizing" Afghanistan as in a picture shown to Trump from Kabul in the 1970s...is a goal.
Afghanistan has the right to be itself, not westernized, if it does not wish to be. That is not an appropriate goal for staying there, not in any way shape or form.
In any case, SMF, thanks for the clarification back. I think we probably agree in re: Trump and his fitness.
I do not like Trump in fact, I think he should be removed from office via 25th amendment--he is not fit, really. And this situation in Afghanistan certainly needs a wise person to help move to a new paradigm.
On another note, I was pretty surprised to hear that "westernizing" Afghanistan as in a picture shown to Trump from Kabul in the 1970s...is a goal.
Afghanistan has the right to be itself, not westernized, if it does not wish to be. That is not an appropriate goal for staying there, not in any way shape or form.
In any case, SMF, thanks for the clarification back. I think we probably agree in re: Trump and his fitness.
1
Down the rabbit hole.
17
Oh goody. More war. More waste of lives and dollars. Forget infrastructure, education, medicine, anything that actually helps people. Sadly, we're the nation that never seems to learn or grow. It shows in our leaders.
37
As the troops are fond of saying "Afghanistan is Vietnam without the trees."
29
"We will win, and we will win decisively."
This is one time time I believe the president. He said in his campaign that once he got into office we'd win so much, we'd get tired of winning. He's right about that...I am already tired of winning America's longest war in Afghanistan and I suspect the country will continue to tire at the prospect of this endless and costly war. Lord help and protect the troops who continue this futile fight. All facetiousness aside, if this is winning, I'd shudder to think what "losing" would be.
This is one time time I believe the president. He said in his campaign that once he got into office we'd win so much, we'd get tired of winning. He's right about that...I am already tired of winning America's longest war in Afghanistan and I suspect the country will continue to tire at the prospect of this endless and costly war. Lord help and protect the troops who continue this futile fight. All facetiousness aside, if this is winning, I'd shudder to think what "losing" would be.
15
Despite his apparent unwillingness to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, President Trump agreed to do so. Let's hope these troops will be able wage war to the fullest extent required to defeat the Taliban once and for all. American warriors do not need to be restraineed by so called rules of engagement. Their enemy is not bound by such rules so why should they? I say mow the Taliban down, down to the ground. For those who disagree, who needs ya!
3
What you are apparently unaware of is that the Taliban -- unlike Al Qaeda or ISIS -- is a Pashto group who have only ever been interested in control of Afghanistan, not launching terrorist attacks in the west. No one having an expert's knowledge of this part of the world would disagree with this assessment; I invite you to do the small amount of research that it would take to confirm this.
We have no national interest in who does or does not control a small landlocked country on the other side of the world. Moreover, "mowing them down" sounds easy, the way you describe it; it's not. In fact it's not even possible. If it had been, we would have done it long ago.
The Taliban is not, say, the Wehrmacht or the IJA, an organized regular army capable of being defeated and if signing articles of surrender.
Furthermore a terrorist plot can be hatched and launched anywhere at all -- even a basement in, say, New Jersey. Your post is naïve.
We have no national interest in who does or does not control a small landlocked country on the other side of the world. Moreover, "mowing them down" sounds easy, the way you describe it; it's not. In fact it's not even possible. If it had been, we would have done it long ago.
The Taliban is not, say, the Wehrmacht or the IJA, an organized regular army capable of being defeated and if signing articles of surrender.
Furthermore a terrorist plot can be hatched and launched anywhere at all -- even a basement in, say, New Jersey. Your post is naïve.
This will all result in more wasted time, money and most importantly, lives.
So, when are you going over???
Easy to talk about "mowing the Taliban down" from an armchair in The Volunteer State, isn't it?
Easy to talk about "mowing the Taliban down" from an armchair in The Volunteer State, isn't it?
1
This is just another bottomless pit like Vietnam. With a weak president the military have taken over. As to Eric Prince why isn't he in jail.
18
That this move will trigger even more terrorism the whole world over is apparently no problem in Washington, D.C.
Stultitia vincit, already the Romans said.
Stultitia vincit, already the Romans said.
9
Trump wants it both ways- to sound like a commander but deflect responsibility as Relegator-in-Chief. In truth, he is such an intellectual light-weight that it is absolutely necessary that he relegate big decisions to generals; he is clueless.
The transfer of major military decisions to field generals diminishes presidential authority;asserting major diplomatic pressure on Pakistan & India after his dissolution of state dept capacity to do this is simply incoherent.
This speech was mostly smoke & mirrors.
The transfer of major military decisions to field generals diminishes presidential authority;asserting major diplomatic pressure on Pakistan & India after his dissolution of state dept capacity to do this is simply incoherent.
This speech was mostly smoke & mirrors.
13
Why are we fighting ISIS – aren’t there ‘good people’ on both sides just like the KKK and Neo-Nazis? I am sure that Trump shares much of ISIS ideology and they could probably carry out the GOP agenda faster than he can.
26
politics does not operate on logic, but exploiting resources.
Two books explain exactly why wars in this region will always be unwinnable.
"Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and "Prince of the Marshes." Just the two. Though the latter is suffice for most, being a quick and easy read. It will leave you shaking your head and walking away. Likely the best response, too, for thinking anything else will bring forth endless insanity in repeatedly trying the same thing while miraculously expecting a different result.
"Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and "Prince of the Marshes." Just the two. Though the latter is suffice for most, being a quick and easy read. It will leave you shaking your head and walking away. Likely the best response, too, for thinking anything else will bring forth endless insanity in repeatedly trying the same thing while miraculously expecting a different result.
14
This is what a defanged president sounds like. It was a speech that any of the last two presidents would have made. It is Trump signaling to everyone within earshot that he has caved to the globalists and neo-liberals that now form his inner circle. The overall plan has as much chance of bringing about the stability in Afghanistan as a snowball in the desert. How can a measly number of troops succeed where i40,000 could not? The fact is the U.S. has no intentions of exiting Afghanistan. We own that country. It's vast, untapped mineral resources and its strategic location make it a great prize. Perhaps Trump will allow the generals to drop a MOAB a day. He has a childlike reverence for American firepower. Sadly, Afghanistan will prove the quagmire it already is. But that's fine with the weapons manufacturers and clueless generals. Trump, after 9 months of beatdown from the media, has been reduced to the empty suit that the deep state demands of all presidents. Hail to the chief!
45
riclys, Afghanistan is a remote, landlocked and mountainous country far from any place where we have a real strategic interest. Its geopolitical importance is often asserted but never proved.
Its "vast" mineral resources that we often hear about would be difficult to extract and transport. The country is best left to sort out its own problems together with the neighboring countries (Iran and Pakistan) who really DO have an interest there.
Its "vast" mineral resources that we often hear about would be difficult to extract and transport. The country is best left to sort out its own problems together with the neighboring countries (Iran and Pakistan) who really DO have an interest there.
1
He was ALWAYS an empty suit. Unless, of course, you can show me anything resembling knowledgeable discourse in which he explains his policy positions about ANYTHING. That is why so many of us opposed him.
The Chinese are already mining unmolested in Afghanistan. We own NOTHING there.
Is NYT trying to get the generals exiled to...not really sure where, but some place outta sight for a while?
Look not at the title to the article, but the title as it appears on the website's front page, viz.,
"How Generals Talked Trump Into a Buildup in Afghanistan"
Look not at the title to the article, but the title as it appears on the website's front page, viz.,
"How Generals Talked Trump Into a Buildup in Afghanistan"
3
Here's the diversion.
5
Do generals love war? Do dogs love raw meat? I'd love to hear the generals' explanation of how a few troops can win a war when 100,000 could not. How the devil did these guys rise so high in our system?
18
Landler and Haberman,
Are you seriously giving Blackwater Eric Prince credibility? Mercenaries? Give me a break!
Are you seriously giving Blackwater Eric Prince credibility? Mercenaries? Give me a break!
14
Agreed. Why would we pay for mercenaries when we're already paying for our military? I don't begrudge money for the military, but I DO take issue with hiring mercenaries.
No, they are not giving Erik Prince any credibility. Reread the article, they are simply reporting a story. This is not an editorial and there is no particular slant to it.
I heard on NPR something rarely heard that I don't know why it isn't stated more often - Only 6 American combat deaths in Afghanistan in 2017 so far but something like 6,000 Afghans. They also emphasized they were not diminishing the loss of those 6 service people.....
The toll of life and destruction of societies in these countries is horrific.
How many gun deaths so far in US? -almost 10,000
Not to muddle war with other issues we face but to those righteous that wear their values & religion on their sleeves and claim all lives matter (not just black ones), all abortion is wrong (so let's ban it, criminalize it and not provide alternative - education, birth control and support for poor parents and families)
Where is the outrage of the toll of this and other conflicts? I thought all lives mattered?
Who's getting rich off these wars selling arms everywhere and then getting huge contracts to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed?
Why aren't these resources being used to educate Kentuckians & other locals where poverty rate is high and there are no jobs instead of promoting coal and keeping Kentucky, W VA, OH poor and lagging behind?
Where is the outrage?
The toll of life and destruction of societies in these countries is horrific.
How many gun deaths so far in US? -almost 10,000
Not to muddle war with other issues we face but to those righteous that wear their values & religion on their sleeves and claim all lives matter (not just black ones), all abortion is wrong (so let's ban it, criminalize it and not provide alternative - education, birth control and support for poor parents and families)
Where is the outrage of the toll of this and other conflicts? I thought all lives mattered?
Who's getting rich off these wars selling arms everywhere and then getting huge contracts to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed?
Why aren't these resources being used to educate Kentuckians & other locals where poverty rate is high and there are no jobs instead of promoting coal and keeping Kentucky, W VA, OH poor and lagging behind?
Where is the outrage?
31
And where are the true Christians?
WillG....you got that comment exactly spot on! We, the people , need to show our outrage.We have to stop the lobbyists influencing Congress to approve US escalation in Afghanistan & the other countries we are involved in. Tweeter Twit Trump did push his fake "Making America Great Again".... so we need to insist that he start at home and concentrate on all the important issues you articulated in your comment. But we know that Trump et al are totally incapable of fulfilling the real needs of this country. We must rid ourselves of this failed Administration now.
Haven't you been paying attention for the last 15 years? Foreigners don't count.
For once Trump was right, but he should have stuck to his guns (pardon the pun). If you populate your administration with military men you'll inevitable get a military solution. Why would someone to whom winning is everything back something that's been proved to be unwinnable by both the US and the Soviet Union?
There's also some risk of extending the quagmire into Pakistan which has nuclear weapons (though so far no ability to use them to attack the US).
Besides, Afghanistan has become irrelevant since 2001, as far as terrorism against the US goes. Social media took care of that; all you need now is an internet connection to recruit people right here to do your dirty work. You'd think Trump, the king of Twitter, would understand that.
There's also some risk of extending the quagmire into Pakistan which has nuclear weapons (though so far no ability to use them to attack the US).
Besides, Afghanistan has become irrelevant since 2001, as far as terrorism against the US goes. Social media took care of that; all you need now is an internet connection to recruit people right here to do your dirty work. You'd think Trump, the king of Twitter, would understand that.
3
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail
I'm sorry, but I've completely forgotten....Who are we fighting again, and what is the threat? Is there something we're going to win? Are we going to be safer or something? Again, apologies, it's been so many years and I guess my mind wandered elsewhere.
But either way, I support our troops in Viet Na....sorry, Afghanistan. (My age is showing).
But either way, I support our troops in Viet Na....sorry, Afghanistan. (My age is showing).
35
Our presence there is required if we are to maintain a foothold in their government, which is weak and susceptible to being overtaken by Taliban sympathies too spread out and remote for us to distinguish. If we don't stay and put up a resistance, the Afghan government will collapse and we'll be (re) addressing a nation-state harboring organized terrorism. We either pay the price now for this vague "maintenance" effort in Afghanistan, or pay the price later in response to the next terrorist attack on our soil.
7
Jack,
I agree completely.
But you deserve answers to your questions -- at least this one:
Who are we fighting again, and what is the threat?
Answer:
We're fighting Osama bin Laden and his rag-tag band of al Qaeda adherents. Even though it was some Pakistani guy, and a couple of Arabs living in Germany, who came up with the idea for 9/11, bin Laden helped them, and Afghanistan let bin Laden stay there. Most people know bin Laden left Afghanistan nearly 16 years ago, and many people even claim he's dead, but those in-the-know know he's still alive, living in Afghanistan, and that his rag-tag band of al Qaeda adherents have all stayed in Afghanistan too. (Don't believe those doomsayers who claim that bin Laden has been dead for years and that al Qaeda guys now live in dozens of other countries, including the US.)
Make sense now why we're fighting in Afghanistan?
I agree completely.
But you deserve answers to your questions -- at least this one:
Who are we fighting again, and what is the threat?
Answer:
We're fighting Osama bin Laden and his rag-tag band of al Qaeda adherents. Even though it was some Pakistani guy, and a couple of Arabs living in Germany, who came up with the idea for 9/11, bin Laden helped them, and Afghanistan let bin Laden stay there. Most people know bin Laden left Afghanistan nearly 16 years ago, and many people even claim he's dead, but those in-the-know know he's still alive, living in Afghanistan, and that his rag-tag band of al Qaeda adherents have all stayed in Afghanistan too. (Don't believe those doomsayers who claim that bin Laden has been dead for years and that al Qaeda guys now live in dozens of other countries, including the US.)
Make sense now why we're fighting in Afghanistan?
1
We have been taken over by the Taliban. They blow up statues, we will blow up statues. It is nice to know that now we are are the same side.
Trump made a big mistake by isolating and condemning Pakistan for harboring terrorists. This will only inflame our tenuous relations with that nation. Trump sees everything through an overly simplistic Zoroastrian-type filter where there are only good guys and bad guys. That won't work in combatting global terrorism, and it won't work in getting himself re-elected.
12
When you say Trump criticized Pakistan for harboring terrorists, I assume you mean Osama bin Laden who was living next door to Pakistan's equivalent of West Point where he felt very safe and protected. Yeah, our good friend and ally Pakistan, we shouldn't criticize them because they are such a key player in the fight against terrorists.
His thoughts, decisions, words, and actions change with the wind. No wonder world leaders are shaking their heads in disbelief at this man we elected. And Trump thought they were laughing at us before.
13
Who knew the job of " decider" could be so difficult??? Well, anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature. Sorry, Donald.
19
A TV war time president is one of Trump's favorite rolls to play, but tonight he gets to play his favorite role, a tough guy president. I'm glad he knows how to act because I can't imagine the horrors if Trump showed us his true self like he did at his "fine people on both sides" show at Trump Tower.
5
The US just can't stand the idea of losing. It's not in the genes. So we send more troops to both kill and die so we can pretend we are winning. As Trump would say, "Sad."
6
Proponents of the troop buildup are hung up on the idea that we must "win", with no clue of what that means. Trump, his generals, Mr. McCain. ...
The only justifiable troop levels are ones that can sustain their own safety and maintain a presence that can help avoid a repeat of the terrorist training camps that proliferated prior to 9/11. This is not winning, just minimal defense.
Considering the utterly corrupt tribal attitudes of the government and people of Afghanistan, "winning" would only mean sending in 300,000 troops for a virtually permanent stay to establish and direct a government. It is doubtful that Trump realizes that (or anything other than where he keeps the remote for his TV in the White House.)
The only justifiable troop levels are ones that can sustain their own safety and maintain a presence that can help avoid a repeat of the terrorist training camps that proliferated prior to 9/11. This is not winning, just minimal defense.
Considering the utterly corrupt tribal attitudes of the government and people of Afghanistan, "winning" would only mean sending in 300,000 troops for a virtually permanent stay to establish and direct a government. It is doubtful that Trump realizes that (or anything other than where he keeps the remote for his TV in the White House.)
5
Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? What, you mean driving schools? Do they also teach how to fill out van and truck rental agreements? How about shopping for machine guns, sorry "modern sporting rifles", at Walmart? The 9/11 attackers learned to fly in the United States, so maybe Trump wants to stop Afghanistan from teaching people how to fly.
Trump and his cronies will put the U.S. deeper in deficit let alone more dead American soldiers. Afghanistan is a country of tribes that have a long history of both getting along and not getting along. Nothing is going to stop this terrorism . This is just another bad move on the trump agenda
6
Obama got us to the trillion dollar mark in the deficit. Trump is stuck with pairing it back. With a deficit that large, any major infrastructure plan is difficult to implement. Thank Obama for the lack of funds and the ACA with will add billions to it each year unless a solution is found.
In my opinion, Donald Trump's credibility, like his integrity and understanding of history or how the world works including Afghanistan, is non existent. Thus, grilling his generals, like everything else this man does, isn't about using the best strategy for addressing this interminable confusing complicated war (which began to avenge the lives of 3000 American lives lost on 9/11 and has led to the loss of gillions) it's about making sure he satisfies his base so he can win the electoral vote next time like he won the first time.
11
What an insightful comment regrettably, you fail to make note of the lack of progress in extricating the US over the past 8 years, and Obama's failure to acknowledge Radical Islam for what it is. Thankfully, even the liberal left cannot rewrite history to cast a hallo on the ineptness on Obama. Again, Trump is stuck cleaning up Obama's mess.
God help me, but I actually agree with Bannon's view, minus the employment of mercenaries as exemplified by Erik Prince. That guys a menace.
The only Afghanistan policy I've ever heard that made any sense at all was espoused by Joe Biden. Keep enough military and CIA presence to disrupt any developing terror campaigns, feed enough money into a corrupt government to keep tabs on it and declare victory. Under that scenario, there is no "winning," but rather a permanent garrison for the foreseeable future.
Not for nothing does the Taliban say Americans have the watches, but we have the time.
The only Afghanistan policy I've ever heard that made any sense at all was espoused by Joe Biden. Keep enough military and CIA presence to disrupt any developing terror campaigns, feed enough money into a corrupt government to keep tabs on it and declare victory. Under that scenario, there is no "winning," but rather a permanent garrison for the foreseeable future.
Not for nothing does the Taliban say Americans have the watches, but we have the time.
4
Another President captured by the military. He gets to stay in the White House. More poor Americans and Afghans will die on the killing fields of Afghanistan in Bush's ill-fated, ill-chosen, Great Game, Afghan-American war. What's next, increased military spending? Trump said he would drain the swamp. Taken at his word, he's proven to be just another sell-out. At least Obama made an effort to resist becoming the military's puppet.
9
It seems that Trump so desperately needs to create a distraction from his crumbling Administration that he rolled this one out to see if it would help. He knew that starting a war was always good press for a President, but that after he went ballistic over North Korea his generals told him that they would fry our allies in South Korea if he tried any funny business there, so he digs up and ramps up our perpetual war in Afghanistan and throws in the part about including going after Pakistan for good measure.
My question for the mastermind is this, in choosing this war, if you refuse to set a time table as part of your strategy in Afghanistan, when will you know when we have won (or we have lost )? It took almost 60,000 American dead and probably 1,000,000 Vietnamese for Richard Nixon to decide that we had lost in Vietnam.
My question for the mastermind is this, in choosing this war, if you refuse to set a time table as part of your strategy in Afghanistan, when will you know when we have won (or we have lost )? It took almost 60,000 American dead and probably 1,000,000 Vietnamese for Richard Nixon to decide that we had lost in Vietnam.
16
Trump, who refuses to study anything more detailed than what will fit on the screen of a smartphone and demands he be spoon fed what he "needs" to know on single sheets of paper to make his decisions, is doomed to failure when he makes up his mind based on what he "knows."
4,000 more soldiers tossed in to bolster the current 8,400 (the official but hardly the actual number) personnel in a place the size of Texas is a joke, and not a funny one. This will win the Afghanistan war the same way cutting taxes on the rich puts truck drivers on the fast track to 7-figure checking accounts.
From this day on, the blood shed in Afghanistan will be on Trump's hands.
Does he "know" that?
4,000 more soldiers tossed in to bolster the current 8,400 (the official but hardly the actual number) personnel in a place the size of Texas is a joke, and not a funny one. This will win the Afghanistan war the same way cutting taxes on the rich puts truck drivers on the fast track to 7-figure checking accounts.
From this day on, the blood shed in Afghanistan will be on Trump's hands.
Does he "know" that?
10
Ironic that as soon as the Nationalist Bannon is dropped from the roles and “General” Kelly is the new man on the block, “bingo” we get a go ahead from Commander-in-Chief Incurious to proceed with a troop build-up. I guess there is a lot to be said about the last person with Trump gets his ear!
9
One by one, Trump is adopting all of the policies for which he tried to nail "Crooked Hillary."
- Goldman-Sachs in charge at Treasury? Check
- Prolonging NAFTA? Check (And can TPP/TiSA be far behind?)
And now....
- A new "surge" in Afghanistan (because it worked so well the last time)!
#MAGA
- Goldman-Sachs in charge at Treasury? Check
- Prolonging NAFTA? Check (And can TPP/TiSA be far behind?)
And now....
- A new "surge" in Afghanistan (because it worked so well the last time)!
#MAGA
15
If I were a trump supporter my head would be spinning faster than a yo-yo.
I guess that the risk from the taliban is that they will have a slingshot to throw rocks at the US.
Change the word "terrorism" for "communist threat" and you have the same discourse by the generals as in Vietnam. And trumpy dumpy swallowed it whole. He wants a win. What a sorry excuse for a president.
I guess that the risk from the taliban is that they will have a slingshot to throw rocks at the US.
Change the word "terrorism" for "communist threat" and you have the same discourse by the generals as in Vietnam. And trumpy dumpy swallowed it whole. He wants a win. What a sorry excuse for a president.
11
Withdraw, leave the rich mineral deposits, and do not waste another drop of our troops' blood in Afghanistan, nor one more dollar of our own treasure there. We have caused enough horror and damage in that area and we have destroyed millions of lives in the process. If the war has not been won in 16 years it is not going to be. Each general is certain his strategy is going to be the winning one, and thinks if we just pour enough men, women, and money into the area we will win. That has not worked in that area of the world. As for launching terrorist attacks on this country, the terror attacks here in the last few years have been coming from within. Spend the money and effort on routing out the terrorist cells that surely must exist here.
In the end we declared victory in Vietnam and left. This has gone on longer than Vietnam, as was warned would happen all those years ago when it was decided that we would go into Iraq and "spread democracy" and use the oil there to pay for the war. It was thought with our military might the war would be over quickly and we would have access to all that oil. Now here we are years down the road.
For once I agree with Donald Trump, who was against sending more troops to Afghanistan, and who to my surprise actually listened to the young people who were asked to give their lives for a lost cause. I wish he had turned a deaf ear to the generals.
In the end we declared victory in Vietnam and left. This has gone on longer than Vietnam, as was warned would happen all those years ago when it was decided that we would go into Iraq and "spread democracy" and use the oil there to pay for the war. It was thought with our military might the war would be over quickly and we would have access to all that oil. Now here we are years down the road.
For once I agree with Donald Trump, who was against sending more troops to Afghanistan, and who to my surprise actually listened to the young people who were asked to give their lives for a lost cause. I wish he had turned a deaf ear to the generals.
6
When the war is over
We will be proud of course the air will be
Good for breathing at last
The water will have been improved the salmon
And the silence of the heaven will migrate more perfectly
The dead will think the living are worth it we will know
Who we are
And we will all enlist again
W. S. Merwin
May it be different this time.
We will be proud of course the air will be
Good for breathing at last
The water will have been improved the salmon
And the silence of the heaven will migrate more perfectly
The dead will think the living are worth it we will know
Who we are
And we will all enlist again
W. S. Merwin
May it be different this time.
4
Pretty easy to understand this. When you listen to nothing but generals, you'll get the military solution, which is all they know. They think it's normal to be fighting wars.
6
They did not talk him into - Pentagon gave orders.
1
The Military Industrial Banking Petroleum Syndicate.
They run the world.
They run the world.
4
Any bets on how many times the President will visit Dover as the flag-draped caskets of the extra soldiers he's sending to Afghanistan return to the US?
3
He once knew more than the generals did. But that was before the deterioration set in. He's fading fast. Send him home.
2
It was not hard to talk The Generals into agreeing to more troops: Donald Trump likes Uniforms with lots of colorful Ribbons and Shiny Medals.
1
We could have won Afghanistan in December 2001, when we had the forces of Osama bin Laden bottled up in Tora Bora after a brilliant 6-week campaign. Instead, either through incompetence or deliberately, the George W. Bush administration let bin Laden go, and almost immediately began the unnecessary Iraq war which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Afghanistan became an unwinnable, endless, and basically pointless conflict.
3
A "great military victory" is NOT required to keep Afghanistan from again becoming a "launching pad for terrorism against the United States". What's required is the option offered years ago by Joe Biden, that Barack Obama rejected, of drawing a cordon sanitaire around the region, pulling our people completely out but focusing satellite imagery on the area -- any indication that within it they were cahooting to export terrorism, and we send in special forces or well-targeted drones or other missiles.
You deal with threats surgically and as they're needed. The notion that we can prevent terrorist training bases from appearing in the mountains or the wastelands is absurd unless we control every inch of territory -- we never have and we never will. But once those bases appear, if we have an external force focused on detecting and destroying them, we can do THAT.
I'm VERY disappointed that nobody among the militarily-interested were there explaining to the president how such a response could be mounted, maintained and implemented. The notion that we can "win" in Afghanistan through standing armies and classical approaches is utter rubbish.
You deal with threats surgically and as they're needed. The notion that we can prevent terrorist training bases from appearing in the mountains or the wastelands is absurd unless we control every inch of territory -- we never have and we never will. But once those bases appear, if we have an external force focused on detecting and destroying them, we can do THAT.
I'm VERY disappointed that nobody among the militarily-interested were there explaining to the president how such a response could be mounted, maintained and implemented. The notion that we can "win" in Afghanistan through standing armies and classical approaches is utter rubbish.
5
Agreed. That is exactly what the strategy should be now and inevitably will be in the future after more loss of life and treasure. What a waste.
2
I guess many of you have not spent time on the ground there. If you had you would quickly get it! Different culture, different mentality, and one thing is for sure the Minute we leave the country will collapse the way Iraq did. I argued against the sudden withdrawal from the perspective of someone on the ground with Iraq Training and Advising mission; same way I understand Afghanistan having served on the staff of the dual hatted commander NATO and 451 AEW. Women will be veiled again, not allowed to do anything but keep House and procreate. A female coming into the world in Afghanistan under Taliban is condemned to a life of servitude!
3
W, I respect and thank you for your service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, correct, I have not spent any time on the ground in those countries. In fact, I've never served in the military. Still, one doesn't have to fight in a war to know when a war is "winnable" and when it's not.
From my view in the U.S., I'm saddened and angered by the oppression I witness in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the many socially regressive contries around the world. But from my life's experience, I believe that it's impossible to overlay or impose our Western belief systems onto countries whose leaders, and whose citizens, refuse to stand up and right those wrongs from within.
With Secretary Colin Powell's prescient words in mind, we broke Iraq and Afghanistan by sending our troops, but because we never really owned them, they are in the state they are today.
And unfortunately, Trump's non-specific speech last night, seems to basically indicate more of the same Bush/Obama policy going forward.
If we can't take complete ownership, and we can't, then I fear we will lose more good soldiers without winning anything.
And, correct, I have not spent any time on the ground in those countries. In fact, I've never served in the military. Still, one doesn't have to fight in a war to know when a war is "winnable" and when it's not.
From my view in the U.S., I'm saddened and angered by the oppression I witness in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the many socially regressive contries around the world. But from my life's experience, I believe that it's impossible to overlay or impose our Western belief systems onto countries whose leaders, and whose citizens, refuse to stand up and right those wrongs from within.
With Secretary Colin Powell's prescient words in mind, we broke Iraq and Afghanistan by sending our troops, but because we never really owned them, they are in the state they are today.
And unfortunately, Trump's non-specific speech last night, seems to basically indicate more of the same Bush/Obama policy going forward.
If we can't take complete ownership, and we can't, then I fear we will lose more good soldiers without winning anything.
The Russians are smarter than us - they got out.
3
To be fair, they got out only because they went broke. Economically speaking, the USSR was Venezuela with nukes.
He said during the campaign that had a great plan, better than the Generals.
But in the end he listened to them, and if all you have is a hammer...
But in the end he listened to them, and if all you have is a hammer...
3
With Trump, these generals will continue to increase the US presence in Afghanistan just as they did in Vietnam. ISIS prospers with more American targets. When will the Afghans and the Iraq's have to fend for themselves both militarily and economically?
2
Afghanistan is tricky...just take a look back at the Soviet Union's attempt to own it in the late 1980's. That didn't end well for them. It was referred to as the Soviet Union's "Vietnam War". And it's believed that the war contributed to the end of the Soviet Union. This is not a conventional war. We're trying to fight an unconventional enemy that moves from place to place and mows people down with cars. How does a tank work against that kind of enemy. ISIS seems to be a step ahead.
2
Did he use a gas or char coal grill?
It's become a ritual in Israel. Why should Afghanistan be different?
Whenever a new US President first visits Israel, he's loaded onto a helicopter so he can see for himself that the numerous Jewish West Bank "settlements" are actually long-standing communities. They can't just be picked up and moved into Israel proper. The US President will conclude -- as his Israeli handlers wanted him to and pretty much knew he would -- that the "settlements" problem is a lot more complicated than he'd thought, and he will do nothing about it -- just as his Israeli handlers wanted and pretty much knew would happen. With any luck, that US President will even be muttering "rag heads" under his breath as he flies back to Washington on Air Force One.
Those Israeli West Bank settlements are known as "facts on the ground." We Americans have our own version of "facts on the ground" in Afghanistan. Anyone who doubts that should fire up Google Earth and type "Bagram, Afghanistan" into the search bar. Spend some time looking over the two-mile long airfield, and the hundreds of buildings that surround it, and then ask yourself: "Is the US military going to be pulling out of Afghanistan any time soon?"
Whenever a new US President first visits Israel, he's loaded onto a helicopter so he can see for himself that the numerous Jewish West Bank "settlements" are actually long-standing communities. They can't just be picked up and moved into Israel proper. The US President will conclude -- as his Israeli handlers wanted him to and pretty much knew he would -- that the "settlements" problem is a lot more complicated than he'd thought, and he will do nothing about it -- just as his Israeli handlers wanted and pretty much knew would happen. With any luck, that US President will even be muttering "rag heads" under his breath as he flies back to Washington on Air Force One.
Those Israeli West Bank settlements are known as "facts on the ground." We Americans have our own version of "facts on the ground" in Afghanistan. Anyone who doubts that should fire up Google Earth and type "Bagram, Afghanistan" into the search bar. Spend some time looking over the two-mile long airfield, and the hundreds of buildings that surround it, and then ask yourself: "Is the US military going to be pulling out of Afghanistan any time soon?"
1
I thought he read that speech well enough. I don't think he understood what he was talking about. I don't think that matters to his endangered species list of supporters. I do think I am not writing or reading about Russiagate this morning, so he must be happy. Now off to Arizona to assure his base and the nation that he is insensitive to the rule of law and the need for racial equality.
24
Maybe if President Trump was the kind of person who wrote letters home to the families of soldiers killed in action, as Abraham Lincoln was, he'd have another point of view when listening to "the generals" describe why they should be allowed to run the country. "How" to fight a war is partly a military question. "Whether" to fight a war is a political question; no generals required. But answering it does require a scintilla of knowledge, about something.
Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no background in public service, public policy, or public anything else. Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no curiosity about the world and our place in it. Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no knowledge of American or world history. Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no moral compass.
Now we know why it's absurd to expect Trump to act the way Lincoln would have acted.
Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no background in public service, public policy, or public anything else. Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no curiosity about the world and our place in it. Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no knowledge of American or world history. Too bad our grifter-in-chief has no moral compass.
Now we know why it's absurd to expect Trump to act the way Lincoln would have acted.
17
Too few are thinking this through. Accept Afghanistan for what it is, a disparate, pre-industrial state governed by the lawless and tribes. That's fine! Afghanistan can be whatever it wants, just so long as it's being does not affect the rest of the world. The trouble is (left to its own devices), it does...
Afghanistan's remoteness, (natural) lawlessness, and tribal 'society' has already shown that, without policing, it provides as a sanctuary for terrorists, provides for terrorist training, and acts as a natural breeding ground for our global enemy- terrorism. This is not compatible with the rest of the world.
So, (no matter how distasteful) we must reconcile to police the region. It's a matter of national and international security.
If you think about it, the above is ALL that Trump has said, little more. It makes sense, it's necessary, and the burden should be shared, again something Trump said.
If you noticed, Trump was actually very clever in his speech, he linked our international security in terms of Afghanistan to other regional players, eg; India, and trade. He has cleverly introduced trade negotiations as leverage into the question of Afghanistan, something that no previous President had done, or thought about.
Trump is weaponizing trade. Something China has done for years. This is a good thing. China cannot have it all their own way any longer. Trump has made this clear.
He's doing a good job in a bad situation- for all of us!
Think for yourself!
Afghanistan's remoteness, (natural) lawlessness, and tribal 'society' has already shown that, without policing, it provides as a sanctuary for terrorists, provides for terrorist training, and acts as a natural breeding ground for our global enemy- terrorism. This is not compatible with the rest of the world.
So, (no matter how distasteful) we must reconcile to police the region. It's a matter of national and international security.
If you think about it, the above is ALL that Trump has said, little more. It makes sense, it's necessary, and the burden should be shared, again something Trump said.
If you noticed, Trump was actually very clever in his speech, he linked our international security in terms of Afghanistan to other regional players, eg; India, and trade. He has cleverly introduced trade negotiations as leverage into the question of Afghanistan, something that no previous President had done, or thought about.
Trump is weaponizing trade. Something China has done for years. This is a good thing. China cannot have it all their own way any longer. Trump has made this clear.
He's doing a good job in a bad situation- for all of us!
Think for yourself!
3
This "action" proposed by trump seems so similar to the actions taken by the U.S. during the viet nam era. Same methodology, same tactics that will clearly result in another failed U.S. military initiative. Trump and his military leaders will announce repeatedly how proud they are of this initiative while the troops performing the actual duties of conflict will end up in coffins. Sad--very sad.
4
Well just check it off as another unfulfilled campaign promise. But who's counting!
5
This sounds like a one-dimensional decision-making process, military thinking only. Albeit, in this administration, the military is the most stable and reliable element. However in this complex and longstanding problem, diplomatic thinking seems absent and the intelligence community seems marginalized. Trump has proven himself to be easily distracted by shiny objects and appears to have fallen for another. On the other hand, trusting that the generals would not unnecessarily put their troops in harms way, I hope for the best.
2
The United States, like Germany during the last century, is fighting wars on three fronts: The Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia. Like Germany, will it be doomed because it is spreading itself too thin? There is no doubt that President Bush made a major error shifting our resources from Afghanistan to topple Saddam, instead of wiping out al Qaeda. There is also no doubt this enabled our enemy, Iran, to gain a secure hold of Iraq further complicating our position there. The addition of more military and US treasure in this historical quagmire that has defeated the Russians, British and was avoided by the greatest conqueror of all time, Genghis Khan, is not the answer.
We cannot abandon Afghanistan. No doubt it would completely fall into the hands of the fundamentalists. But committing more treasure will not work either, be a waste of our resources and further contribute to our spiraling national debt. The approximate cost of over two million a year per soldier, not to mention the most valuable, our the soldiers lives, there has to be a better way.
And there is. Reducing the corruption of the Afghan government, restoring the people's faith, continued use of CIA and added pressure on our "friends" in Pakistan to root out the safe haven of the fundamentalists who slip unencumbered across the border to rearm, regroup and recruit more members from the madrassas. Ultimately, it is in the latter where the biggest influence and change can be effected. Educate.
We cannot abandon Afghanistan. No doubt it would completely fall into the hands of the fundamentalists. But committing more treasure will not work either, be a waste of our resources and further contribute to our spiraling national debt. The approximate cost of over two million a year per soldier, not to mention the most valuable, our the soldiers lives, there has to be a better way.
And there is. Reducing the corruption of the Afghan government, restoring the people's faith, continued use of CIA and added pressure on our "friends" in Pakistan to root out the safe haven of the fundamentalists who slip unencumbered across the border to rearm, regroup and recruit more members from the madrassas. Ultimately, it is in the latter where the biggest influence and change can be effected. Educate.
3
We've been blundering around the Middle East cluelessly since Lyndon Johnson, ground down by an incomprehensible Vietnam, threw us headlong into Israel's never-ending conflicts. We've become as paranoid and are as surprised as they when "terrorists" respond. We apparently learned little from Korea, from Vietnam, from Iraq, from Libya, from Syria, and blundering anew, recruit "volunteer" soldiers from impoverished towns in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma and Michigan to pay the price for all of us. And we are baffled anew as the entire region hunkers down into an ungenerous Islam that was scarcely in evidence a half-century ago. Who benefits? Read Eisenhower, and note, too, vermin such as Prince and Feinberg.
16
They pay no price for me. I don't want my tax dollars going to paid mercenaries, so don't say they are fighting or dying for me.
“We are not nation-building again,” Mr. Trump said. “We are killing terrorists.”
In a span of a few words Trump exposes the bankruptcy of his approach. The other side is building a nation. Trump is just killing people. The NYT had an excellent article a few days ago describing Afghanistan is being divided into three parts: 1) Taliban controlled, 2) Kabul controlled but with two warring executives in charge, and 3) warlord controlled. Trump is just another warlord with no knowledge nor interest in the Afghan people. What Trump wants to see are body counts and peace with honor, the same demons that Nixon chased futilely in Vietnam. Trump forgets that the majority of the 55,000 US soldiers killed in Vietnam were killed on Nixon's watch, after he promised Americans a "secret" plan to end the war. Nixon's plan turned out to be a massive increase in bloodshed which only postponed the US withdrawal.
In a span of a few words Trump exposes the bankruptcy of his approach. The other side is building a nation. Trump is just killing people. The NYT had an excellent article a few days ago describing Afghanistan is being divided into three parts: 1) Taliban controlled, 2) Kabul controlled but with two warring executives in charge, and 3) warlord controlled. Trump is just another warlord with no knowledge nor interest in the Afghan people. What Trump wants to see are body counts and peace with honor, the same demons that Nixon chased futilely in Vietnam. Trump forgets that the majority of the 55,000 US soldiers killed in Vietnam were killed on Nixon's watch, after he promised Americans a "secret" plan to end the war. Nixon's plan turned out to be a massive increase in bloodshed which only postponed the US withdrawal.
12
1st - War is the #1 job creation scheme of Republicans in recent history. Want to put people to work? Make up reasons to pick a fight and then set the Military Welfare Complex in motion.
2nd - This is also a way to boost Trump's plunging poll numbers. Nothing like stirring up the uber-nationalists and paranoids by talking tough and promising "victory" in a far off land. Never mind the mission is without much merit.
3rd - This is a textbook lesson in what leadership isn't. Hopefully, in the not-so-distant-future, scholars (of all political leanings) will look back on this president as a totally dysfunctional, unfocused wanna-be leader.
4th - Remember, with the exception of Grenada (Reagan's idea of victory), the U.S. hasn't actually finished a war since WWII. This says a lot about the competence and vision of the military leadership going back a long time.
Conclusion: If Trump was truly concerned with making the U.S. great again, he would channel significant resources to domestic infrastructural, educational and retraining programs. I'm not holding my breath.
2nd - This is also a way to boost Trump's plunging poll numbers. Nothing like stirring up the uber-nationalists and paranoids by talking tough and promising "victory" in a far off land. Never mind the mission is without much merit.
3rd - This is a textbook lesson in what leadership isn't. Hopefully, in the not-so-distant-future, scholars (of all political leanings) will look back on this president as a totally dysfunctional, unfocused wanna-be leader.
4th - Remember, with the exception of Grenada (Reagan's idea of victory), the U.S. hasn't actually finished a war since WWII. This says a lot about the competence and vision of the military leadership going back a long time.
Conclusion: If Trump was truly concerned with making the U.S. great again, he would channel significant resources to domestic infrastructural, educational and retraining programs. I'm not holding my breath.
10
Trump, it appears, is listening to the military brass surrounding him. The plan in Afghanistan appears to be a holding pattern so that things get no worse and no better.
It could be worse. We will see how he spins last night's speech when Trump goes before his base crowd Phoenix at a rally that will likely be reminiscent of his campaign, full of scary rhetoric and self-inflating bombast.
It could be worse. We will see how he spins last night's speech when Trump goes before his base crowd Phoenix at a rally that will likely be reminiscent of his campaign, full of scary rhetoric and self-inflating bombast.
5
Why is it difficult to articulate what winning would look like in Afghanistan? Maybe it's because no one ever has.
10
Actually the USSR did win. The Kabul government began educating the masses, even girls, and set about building a secular country. They also cut opium production. Obviously this was intolerable, so Carter and the CIA set about arming and training 'freedom fighters'. The Russians left and the government fell.
What to do now? At an international conference the British suggested that the King be restored. He had little actual power, but he could call national councils and help the various tribal leaders hammer out an agreement. They didn't fear him, but seemed to respect him as a neutral party.
The US insisted on its own man, who had been an effective 'freedom fighter'. The other warlords didn't care for him, and the previously armed and trained 'freedom fighters' took up arms under both religious students (Taliban) and tribal warlords. They still are, all these years later.
It's useful for Pakistan to get rid of its own ultras and to try to keep some semblance of order in Pakistan. They really don't want them taking up arms in Pakistan, after all.
What to do now? At an international conference the British suggested that the King be restored. He had little actual power, but he could call national councils and help the various tribal leaders hammer out an agreement. They didn't fear him, but seemed to respect him as a neutral party.
The US insisted on its own man, who had been an effective 'freedom fighter'. The other warlords didn't care for him, and the previously armed and trained 'freedom fighters' took up arms under both religious students (Taliban) and tribal warlords. They still are, all these years later.
It's useful for Pakistan to get rid of its own ultras and to try to keep some semblance of order in Pakistan. They really don't want them taking up arms in Pakistan, after all.
My comment when I heard how many military and former military leaders it was taking to bring some order to the White House was that I feared that they would see everything as a nail, because they have experiences with hammers. My fears have been realized.
8
Success in Afghanistan can only be measured by profits to the defense industry. All other metrics prove failure.
13
Are we treating Afghanistan as a nation state?
It isn't.
It is a territory consisting of many tribal territories.
It was in 2001 when the Northern Alliance was defeating the Taliban.
And it is today.
Our strategy should be to forget about trying to forge a central govt in the country.
It should be to help the tribes who want to fight our enemies to fight our enemies.
It isn't.
It is a territory consisting of many tribal territories.
It was in 2001 when the Northern Alliance was defeating the Taliban.
And it is today.
Our strategy should be to forget about trying to forge a central govt in the country.
It should be to help the tribes who want to fight our enemies to fight our enemies.
2
Just like the last two administrations they claim to not be nation building, but are in fact trying to pretend that Afghanistan is a nation and not just a collection of tribal faction that happen to be in the same geographical area.
The Generals are trying to assure full employment in their profession.
6
So the US attacked itself on 9/11 -- which basic chemistry and physics prove with no possible doubt -- and we are still spending money we do not have to kill people we allegedly are protecting?
No wonder people laugh at our leaders.
No wonder people laugh at our leaders.
2
Oh, yeah. Let's listen to Eric Prince (of Darkness) whose 'men' shot wildly at innocent civilians in Nisour Square, killing 17 and injuring 20 more. His mercenaries are so good at winning hearts and minds. It is thanks to them that the Iraqis would not renew American troops' immunity from prosecution at the end of the Bush Jr. administration, necessitating the withdrawal which the right likes to "blame" Obama for.
Such a wise and talented man! Let's outsource to him again.
Such a wise and talented man! Let's outsource to him again.
9
How about a strategy that puts human rights first and is designed to stop weapons from entering the country and prosecutes individuals/countries who finance those weapons?
2
Afganistan has good people with a few very evil people that are making the whole country a breeding ground for terrorist activities that can have far reaching impact/ are military has learned priceless information in the time it has been there/ soldiers training in real time world environments of conflict gain a knowledge you can not buy in a classroom...and THAT is what they Signed up for!
didn't Trump stated that he is smarter than all the generals? why the back pedaling now?
9
- "I have already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the Secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy." (rule of engagement are being loosen)
- "But we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image.... Instead, we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interests." (money will not be spent for nation building)
- "We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists." (open warning to Pakistan)
- "... India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development." (seeking to get India more involved and serve notice on Pakistan that with India's involvement Pakistan could become isolated if they don't play ball)
- "As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us." (Afghanistan is wealthy with untapped natural resources, including large lithium deposits)
- "But we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image.... Instead, we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interests." (money will not be spent for nation building)
- "We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists." (open warning to Pakistan)
- "... India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development." (seeking to get India more involved and serve notice on Pakistan that with India's involvement Pakistan could become isolated if they don't play ball)
- "As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us." (Afghanistan is wealthy with untapped natural resources, including large lithium deposits)
2
"No one knew how complicated foreign policy could be."
4
Does anyone believe the headline, "Angry Trump Grilled His Generals About Troop Increase"? When Has Trump every talked to anyone about a decision beforehand? And when has he ever changed his mind because of what the experts have said? I can't believe the New York Times is so gullible...
5
With the generals around we are ok with 45th. We are going in right direction.
1
Mercenaries already play a part in the US operations. They are called, politely, contractors. Remember when a 'contractor' shot 2 Pakistanis in Pakistan?
It's a great way to win friends and influence people.
It's a great way to win friends and influence people.
1
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960
2
Well said, and best said by Ike!
I find the rationale for this "new/old" approach to Afghanistan confusing. The rationale for our original military adventure in Afghanistan almost 17 years ago was two fold: to punish the then ruling Taliban for having sheltered the terrorists and to prevent this terrorist group from repeating its 9-11 strike on the US mainland. We then got distracted by another front in Iraq. But the original rationale of Al Queda was to punish the USA for its original trespassing on Islamic territory in Iraq war 1. Our new policy in Afghanistan is to maintain and slightly augment trespassing. The government in Afghanistan will probably never be safe enough for us to be sure the country wont breed more terrorist groups who will attack us here at home. So this involvement in Afghanistan appears to be one of indefinite duration. But we don';t want to commit enough troops and assets to really take over the country as there is no support for that in the USA at this time. We are hoping to contain trouble on the cheap. I keep feeling there has to be more to the story. Is there something valuable in Afghanistan that we want or need? Otherwise I can see us sending troops all over the world like Roman garrisons to prevent people from attacking us at home. This strategy only provokes people and creates more enemies
77
Lithium et al.
2
Boy that makes good sense. Yes, is there something valuable in
Afghanistan for us that we are not being told about ?
Great comment! I would also love to get to the bottom of what is
most probably really going on. That would explain Trump caving
in to the generals. If we are lucky he will tweet about the secret
or give it away some how.
Of course it could have been just laziness on Trump's part, too much
to comprehend and "who knew it could be so complicated" Because the Generals were unable to explain it all to him on half a page with a
picture of himself inserted.
Afghanistan for us that we are not being told about ?
Great comment! I would also love to get to the bottom of what is
most probably really going on. That would explain Trump caving
in to the generals. If we are lucky he will tweet about the secret
or give it away some how.
Of course it could have been just laziness on Trump's part, too much
to comprehend and "who knew it could be so complicated" Because the Generals were unable to explain it all to him on half a page with a
picture of himself inserted.
Right on the money.
The decision was more or less inevitable, but wrong. Trump was quite right, unusual but true, when he declared the war lost. It was lost when the 100,000 man strong surge utterly failed. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria -- all over except for the recriminations, along with Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Pakistan, recipient of billions in US aid, has been and will continue to support the Taliban and has been moving closer and closer to China. Trump suggesting India get involved in Afghanistan won't help -- that will drive Pakistan into China's embrace. Meanwhile, Turkey, also recipient of US billions, is destabilizing and moving into a dictatorship unlikely to be friendly to the US or Israel; Egypt is held together only by further US billions. And America's only real allies, apart from Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other sheik dictatorships of the Gulf, also rely on US military support to maintain their repression -- they enjoy no legitimacy and likely not much longevity either. Jordan and Israel cannot be trusted because they are interested only in their own strategic games. The US and UK over a hundred years of meddling and military intervention have created the most ungodly mess, caused the deaths of tens of thousands, and made millions refugees. This latest US initiative is more of the same -- defending the indefensible, pouring good money in after bad, while ensuring the ongoing terrorist threat to Europe and America.
3
"No nation-building this time." How about some nation re-building at home? Oops - too complicated.
3
For those who don't know this:
"...However, I don't know where Congress is on all this."
The Constitution says only Congress, not the President, can declare war. The last time Congress declared war was right after Pearl Harbor. Even the infamous 2002 vote to support Bush on Iraq was "advisory."
Every now and then, someone presses Congress to challenge whatever the President has already decided. This happened most recently in the summer of 2013, when many were asking "Where's Congress?" on Syria. Obama had decided he wasn't going to jump into the Syria war (a very smart decision, in my view). Many people clamored for Congress to step in and declare war against Assad -- it would force Obama's hand, the serious saber-rattlers argued -- but that effort soon died when it became clear that Congress would say "no" if forced to a vote.
Congress prefers to let the President make military decisions and take the heat when things don't go well. When the President acts and things go well -- or at least appear to -- many once-timid Congress reps will claim they supported that action from the very start and will complain that the President didn't do even more of it, and sooner. They will send aides to the archives to find old speeches in which the Congress rep called for increased military in some Middle East country or other.
But this happens only after the fact, however, never before. When Congress is called on to exercise its war-declaring authority, it always says "no."
"...However, I don't know where Congress is on all this."
The Constitution says only Congress, not the President, can declare war. The last time Congress declared war was right after Pearl Harbor. Even the infamous 2002 vote to support Bush on Iraq was "advisory."
Every now and then, someone presses Congress to challenge whatever the President has already decided. This happened most recently in the summer of 2013, when many were asking "Where's Congress?" on Syria. Obama had decided he wasn't going to jump into the Syria war (a very smart decision, in my view). Many people clamored for Congress to step in and declare war against Assad -- it would force Obama's hand, the serious saber-rattlers argued -- but that effort soon died when it became clear that Congress would say "no" if forced to a vote.
Congress prefers to let the President make military decisions and take the heat when things don't go well. When the President acts and things go well -- or at least appear to -- many once-timid Congress reps will claim they supported that action from the very start and will complain that the President didn't do even more of it, and sooner. They will send aides to the archives to find old speeches in which the Congress rep called for increased military in some Middle East country or other.
But this happens only after the fact, however, never before. When Congress is called on to exercise its war-declaring authority, it always says "no."
3
Surprise, surprise, another campaign promise - broken.
5
Trump should be up front on point leading his troops.
1
Leading, kemosaby? Trump is not a leader. A troublemaker, outside agitator, rabble-rouser of tiny vocabulary and unfinished paragraphs, follower of generals because he knows more than they know. Congress and the base believe that, but did Trump graduate from his military school? Has anyone ever heard from Trump, not a conclusion or promise, a reason?
Unlike his predecessor Trump appears to listen and adjust his positions based on facts.
1
Listen ? This piece mentions that he had a meeting with several soldiers , all who had been on the ground in Afghanistan; they opposed any further military intervention.
As for adjusting "his" positions, they change with the wind; or should we say, they are eclipsed by the views of the generals in the room.
I would imagine if there's a one-in-a-million chance of coming out of this debacle, he will jump. It's all about the 'success' in the end. He's gotta have some eye-catching item on his resume.
As for adjusting "his" positions, they change with the wind; or should we say, they are eclipsed by the views of the generals in the room.
I would imagine if there's a one-in-a-million chance of coming out of this debacle, he will jump. It's all about the 'success' in the end. He's gotta have some eye-catching item on his resume.
The critical issues are political corruption in the Afghanistan government and Pakistan's harboring of terrorists on the Afghanistan border. Military escalation will not solve these issues. Why do we believe military escalation is the answer to every conflict? As a nation we know better...and yet we continue to spend trillions of dollars and send our children to fight a war that will not make the world a better place. Why?
3
What weight should we give to the political and military opinions of someone with no experience in either? Would we consider a medical opinion of one who is not credentialed?
What Donald thought during the campaign was utter fantasy. What people believed was proof of civic ignorance. The election didn't alter the facts.
What Donald thought during the campaign was utter fantasy. What people believed was proof of civic ignorance. The election didn't alter the facts.
1
Why don't just make Afghanistan the 51st state? We are going to be there forever anyway.
6
They always listen to the generals in the end. Sad.
4
Terrorists today have plenty of places from which to work, places better suited to them than Afghanistan. The fear that Afghanistan will be a place for them to go is greatly overblown. After the Global War on Terror blew us so much of the Muslim world, we created near endless places for them to go, all better for them than the isolated mountain wilds of Afghanistan as far from anywhere else as one could get.
There really is no good reason to stay in Afghanistan. Trump was right.
I'm glad he fought them. I'm glad he demanded answers. I'm sorry if he accepted as adequate just the answers reported here.
My greatest fear is that we stay in Afghanistan more as a base from which to expand wars into Iran, Pakistan, and the many -stans around it. That would mean vastly expanding the mistake that is Afghanistan, a disaster lurking on the horizon of the possible.
There really is no good reason to stay in Afghanistan. Trump was right.
I'm glad he fought them. I'm glad he demanded answers. I'm sorry if he accepted as adequate just the answers reported here.
My greatest fear is that we stay in Afghanistan more as a base from which to expand wars into Iran, Pakistan, and the many -stans around it. That would mean vastly expanding the mistake that is Afghanistan, a disaster lurking on the horizon of the possible.
14
Mark,
You wrote, "My greatest fear is that we stay in Afghanistan more as a base from which to expand wars into Iran, Pakistan, and the many -stans around it. That would mean vastly expanding the mistake that is Afghanistan, a disaster lurking on the horizon of the possible."
We need not worry about Afghanistan being used as a base!
Afghanistan is a landlocked country and our forces (NATO) have to use Pakistan and Russia for resupply. Our troops, including NATO forces, are very vulnerable to the region's political climate!
Afghanistan is a lost cause. The invasion during the Bush Admin was poorly planned, executed and managed. The Obama Admin, took a horrible situation and made it far worse.
The Trump Admin will fail as well - naturally, Liberals will ignore the facts and slam Trump with vicious commentary on the NYT site, (much to the delight of NYT!)
You wrote, "My greatest fear is that we stay in Afghanistan more as a base from which to expand wars into Iran, Pakistan, and the many -stans around it. That would mean vastly expanding the mistake that is Afghanistan, a disaster lurking on the horizon of the possible."
We need not worry about Afghanistan being used as a base!
Afghanistan is a landlocked country and our forces (NATO) have to use Pakistan and Russia for resupply. Our troops, including NATO forces, are very vulnerable to the region's political climate!
Afghanistan is a lost cause. The invasion during the Bush Admin was poorly planned, executed and managed. The Obama Admin, took a horrible situation and made it far worse.
The Trump Admin will fail as well - naturally, Liberals will ignore the facts and slam Trump with vicious commentary on the NYT site, (much to the delight of NYT!)
I guess Americans still have not learned that you cant bomb countries into liking you. You do not fight terrorism which is an ideology with weapons. All you end up doing is breeding more of them.
34
Consider the defeat of Japan and Germany in WWII. Did we create more Nazi's. Did we create more Japanese believing their emperor was of divine descent. Both governing ideologies were destroyed because the conflicts were fought with maximim intensity until a victory was achieved.
The Korean war/conflict and the Iraeli / Palestinian conflicts were never taken to a full victory from either side and both continue to be issued today. Perhaps Trump believes in fighting to a victory rather than implementing. a wack a mole strategy where the enemy is repeatedly knocked down but never knocked out.
The Korean war/conflict and the Iraeli / Palestinian conflicts were never taken to a full victory from either side and both continue to be issued today. Perhaps Trump believes in fighting to a victory rather than implementing. a wack a mole strategy where the enemy is repeatedly knocked down but never knocked out.
In WW2, we were fighting nation-states that had declared war on us. In such circumstances, it was a safe expectation that the conquered nations would then surrender.
The situation with the War on Terror today is very different. We are fighting insurgencies, not nation-states, even if some of the insurgents (the Taliban before 9/11, ISIS today) have taken on many of the attributes of nation-states. This is an unconventional conflict in which our enemies seldom wear uniforms or mass in the open.
The two situations are completely different. Bombing a country will not stop someone from wanting to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up.
The situation with the War on Terror today is very different. We are fighting insurgencies, not nation-states, even if some of the insurgents (the Taliban before 9/11, ISIS today) have taken on many of the attributes of nation-states. This is an unconventional conflict in which our enemies seldom wear uniforms or mass in the open.
The two situations are completely different. Bombing a country will not stop someone from wanting to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up.
Who could have predicted that prosecuting the war in Afghanistan was going to be so difficult?
12
Well, maybe the Brits, Ottomans, Russians, and anybody else who has tried occupying the place over the last 200 years?
1
Errr...it's gone right over your head. maybe Rational in Texas needs to pay a visit to Irony in Texas.
The US killed Osama Bin Laden six years ago. Making him pay for 9/11 was the reason for the Afghan war. The mission was accomplished. Get out now.
Make your US congressman and senators go on the record with their opinion about continuing the war. If any of them support staying in Afghanistan, kick those clowns out of office at your first opportunity on election day. Period. It's the only way to stop the madness.
Make your US congressman and senators go on the record with their opinion about continuing the war. If any of them support staying in Afghanistan, kick those clowns out of office at your first opportunity on election day. Period. It's the only way to stop the madness.
31
It seems to me that the key to Afghanistan is Pakistan, and in some respects, the key to Pakistan is India. In the past, when America has operated militarily inside Pakistan or offended its military, it has responded by closing the Khyber Pass to military convoys carrying fuel and supplies to Afghanistan. That could happen again, and if it doesn't, the Pakistani military is apt to stage a coup. And if we induce India to jack up its support in Afghanistan, Pakistan is apt to up its operations in Jammu and Kashmir --- to what effect? In sum, I think it's going to take robust and highly skilled diplomacy to implement the plans the president announced last night.
3
India does not have a border with Afghanistan. Afghanistan borders Pakistan, Iran, China and old Soviet Union (Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan). So unless US gives up on it's hatred of Russia, it has to approach through Pakistan which will milk US dry and allow China to attack US troops.
David: Yes we will need lots of diplomacy. India has already been helping the Afghan government and this has already led to tensions with Pakistani under Obama.
Trump doesn't like or trust diplomats. And he's not smart enough himself to have any idea how complicated the issues are here for everyone.
He's gutted the State Department so thoroughly, how will they be able to provide the services we need here?
If a sane responsible reliable President were doing this, it might work. But Trump is not that man and the risks here just make me sick from uncertainty.
Trump doesn't like or trust diplomats. And he's not smart enough himself to have any idea how complicated the issues are here for everyone.
He's gutted the State Department so thoroughly, how will they be able to provide the services we need here?
If a sane responsible reliable President were doing this, it might work. But Trump is not that man and the risks here just make me sick from uncertainty.
Vasantha: The Indian government has already been helping the Afghan government. This type of involvement has been going on already for years. In fact it was even happening before the Soviet invasion. That's been part of the problem. Pakistan doesn't like that at all, they are extremely paranoid about Afghan clients of India, and this has been one of their excuses for being soft on the Taliban.
They just told Trump that people would think he was tough and stop talking about how impotent and ineffective he has been as president. They closed it by saying, "People might stop talking about your tiny hands if you send in others to die for a failed war."
12
An illiterate president can't grill his staff because he has no facts. He can argue and bully based on his need for popularity. His lack of historical knowledge and his fear of personal service guarantee he is doomed to repeat old historical mistakes. 4000 soldiers represent a trivial increase in deployments but also an excuse to increase deployments when they fail. And the generals still think they can destroy terrorism with war. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
13
trump wants Afghanistan oil. As a president who stated he cannot have a conflict of interest, I'm cynical. trump sees this as a business opportunity that will make him wealthy. trump clearly stated the US should take Afghani oil. This is more masked trump corruption on a grand scale.
5
So, according to Trump, "I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle."
This is a man with the attention span of an infant.
He knew virtually nothing per the details of any of the health care plans rolled out by House and Senate Republicans. He just wanted a "win" and, for him, a "win" is undoing anything Barack Obama accomplished---no matter who or how many are hurt by it.
His "tax reform" plan was scribbled out on one page and, predictably, was nothing more than a rehash of what the 1% have been telling him they wanted and what he himself has wanted for his personal finances.
His "infrastructure plan," as an administration official said last week, doesn't even exist. Not even on one piece of paper.
So, we're going to trust that this child who occupies the Oval Office has actually "studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle?"
Uh, no.
This is a man with the attention span of an infant.
He knew virtually nothing per the details of any of the health care plans rolled out by House and Senate Republicans. He just wanted a "win" and, for him, a "win" is undoing anything Barack Obama accomplished---no matter who or how many are hurt by it.
His "tax reform" plan was scribbled out on one page and, predictably, was nothing more than a rehash of what the 1% have been telling him they wanted and what he himself has wanted for his personal finances.
His "infrastructure plan," as an administration official said last week, doesn't even exist. Not even on one piece of paper.
So, we're going to trust that this child who occupies the Oval Office has actually "studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle?"
Uh, no.
35
Years ago I bought a well made goretex raincoat made in Vietnam. I didn't notice it until I read the label. I still use it.
If you had told me in the years after the withdrawal and fall of Saigon that we would be buying products and vacationing in Vietnam I would have said that was absurd. After the slaughter and horror of the SE Asia wars I could not imagine peace and trade for many generations. While no one could ever say the US "won" or prevailed in any way, somehow though some impossible process we are at peace with each other. A lesson is there somewhere.
If you had told me in the years after the withdrawal and fall of Saigon that we would be buying products and vacationing in Vietnam I would have said that was absurd. After the slaughter and horror of the SE Asia wars I could not imagine peace and trade for many generations. While no one could ever say the US "won" or prevailed in any way, somehow though some impossible process we are at peace with each other. A lesson is there somewhere.
89
It doesn't matter what anyone calls them. We've had a bloodless military coup and that is the important topic. No one says it up front, but that is what has happened. Look out. We're just like Chile or Germany in the early days. We're in deep trouble.
1
mac, I think the lesson is we got out. So very late, however.
Maybe. Maybe not. Buddhists are not Muslims.
I thought he knew more than the generals??
110
"Believe me."
A Major General, who at the time of his death was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, suggested the powers that be would very quickly find innovative, diplomatic, lasting solutions that don't include sacrificing other people's lives if they are not going to be making a huge profit.
War is a Racket. 1935
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
War is a Racket. 1935
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
25
Yay!! Smedley Butler!
3
In other words, we plan to keep a permanent military presence in Afghanistan—which will produce no tangible benefits and give the Taliban and Islamic militants across the globe motivation for continued acts of terrorism here and abroad.
This throws good money after bad in a war we will never win by putting boots on the ground.
This throws good money after bad in a war we will never win by putting boots on the ground.
46
So, if we reign in all U.S. military from outside our borders, the Taliban and Islamic terrorists will not be motivated to slaughter innocents here and abroad?
So apparently the winning argument was that if we don't increase troops, then ISIS will seize Afghanistan the same way it seized Iraq.
So we have to police these countries in perpetuity because of ISIS? Here at home our infrastructures are crumbling, but can we put Americans to work rebuilding our bridges? No. We're ramping up year 17 of the war in Afghanistan.
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. So, sure, the Generals want more troops. It's better than the mercenaries, but throwing good money after bad is still a bad option. We need a real plan to leave.
So we have to police these countries in perpetuity because of ISIS? Here at home our infrastructures are crumbling, but can we put Americans to work rebuilding our bridges? No. We're ramping up year 17 of the war in Afghanistan.
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. So, sure, the Generals want more troops. It's better than the mercenaries, but throwing good money after bad is still a bad option. We need a real plan to leave.
28
Generals who think victory in Afghanistan is possible are dreaming. It's not very likely because one warlord or another will decide that he has something to gain by destabilizing or destroying what ever government there is.
And internal terrorism is their best weapon. They will fight us or the Russians (who broke their swords on rebels that we supported).
Trump lacked the moral courage to resist the generals. McMaster is one of the brightest generals we have, but I'm disappointed if he led the call for more troops again.
And internal terrorism is their best weapon. They will fight us or the Russians (who broke their swords on rebels that we supported).
Trump lacked the moral courage to resist the generals. McMaster is one of the brightest generals we have, but I'm disappointed if he led the call for more troops again.
14
Reminds me of John McCain in the late spring of 2008:
"By [early August 2017],, the options for dealing with Afghanistan had narrowed to three: pull out, pour in more troops or shift to a covert counterterrorism strategy led by the C.I.A."
Many people remember McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008. Few remember how he got there. McCain was very far back in the Republican pack until he (alone) supported Bush's "surge" in Iraq, which APPEARED to turn the tide in Iraq. McCain jumped to the front of the line and got the nomination.
How'd that "surge" in Iraq work out in the long run? Short term, it seemed to help; longer-term, we've ended up with ISIS. As former NYT writer Dexter Filkins wrote in a late-2014 study of ISIS for the New Yorker, all (100%) of the top ISIS military commanders were formerly officers in the Iraqi army. Many of them left when the US "surge" happened. They joined ISIS.
Heck, since the "surge" worked out so well in Iraq, why not try it again in Afghanistan?
"By [early August 2017],, the options for dealing with Afghanistan had narrowed to three: pull out, pour in more troops or shift to a covert counterterrorism strategy led by the C.I.A."
Many people remember McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008. Few remember how he got there. McCain was very far back in the Republican pack until he (alone) supported Bush's "surge" in Iraq, which APPEARED to turn the tide in Iraq. McCain jumped to the front of the line and got the nomination.
How'd that "surge" in Iraq work out in the long run? Short term, it seemed to help; longer-term, we've ended up with ISIS. As former NYT writer Dexter Filkins wrote in a late-2014 study of ISIS for the New Yorker, all (100%) of the top ISIS military commanders were formerly officers in the Iraqi army. Many of them left when the US "surge" happened. They joined ISIS.
Heck, since the "surge" worked out so well in Iraq, why not try it again in Afghanistan?
13
The Obama "surge" was time-limited, with an announced timeline to boot, which allowed the insurgents to sit it out. Trump claims (others do too) that the big (although not sole) problem was the premature withdrawal of troops, and not the surge strategy.
If you recall, the withdrawal was in 2011, to allow Obama to campaign for re-election on the premise that he "brought our troops home." It was shameless opportunism on the part of the Obama administration (Hillary Clinton, Sec of State) and the Democrats to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq in order for Obama to have a talking point for an otherwise unremarkable first term. Ultimately, we ended up with ISIS. Sure, withdrawal was "negotiated under Bush," but one would hope that Obama might have considered the situation on ground before following up on that non-binding negotiated withdrawal?
If you recall, the withdrawal was in 2011, to allow Obama to campaign for re-election on the premise that he "brought our troops home." It was shameless opportunism on the part of the Obama administration (Hillary Clinton, Sec of State) and the Democrats to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq in order for Obama to have a talking point for an otherwise unremarkable first term. Ultimately, we ended up with ISIS. Sure, withdrawal was "negotiated under Bush," but one would hope that Obama might have considered the situation on ground before following up on that non-binding negotiated withdrawal?
1
Again, fine reporting by all. What a mess. This is what happens when you elect a simple-minded president. Twitter is not the platform to conduct policy debates. Trump's minimal Twitter mind has confronted the complex reality of the Afghanistan war.
From this revealing reporting:
"In the end, these officials said, Mr. Trump accepted the logic that a 'big military' approach was needed to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a launching pad for terrorism against the United States."
Well, we tried this in Vietnam and Iraq. We could try it again.
From this revealing reporting:
"In the end, these officials said, Mr. Trump accepted the logic that a 'big military' approach was needed to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a launching pad for terrorism against the United States."
Well, we tried this in Vietnam and Iraq. We could try it again.
31
You're right. We should continue the policy of the last eight years.
1
I love how literally every American other than "simple minded" Trump is now immediately the world's greatest military strategist.
1
Problems in plain sight. Even in Houston upper middle class residential areas, one see disabled body asking for help. Of course, some are due to traffic accidents but many relatively young men definitely are not due to that. I always wonder how come the government cannot help them but willing to send them to harms way. We already have a huge budget problem not to mention national debt. Why can't we cut down spending on unnecessary expenses? Whether we put more troops in Afghanistan or not, we won't be able to solve other people's problem. Afghanistan to me is an endless black hole with no end in sight.
16
Sending more troops to Afghanistan is like throwing good money after bad. The men and women in our military are not there merely to be used as replacement pawns to bolster Trump's ego, divert we the people from seeing who he really is, and pander to the hawks in Congress and the White House. If he actually feels strong about this action, then I would agree if Don, Jr., Eric, and Jared, take their place in line for basic training.
18
Mr. Trump and his generals should ask Mr. Putin why Russia (Soviet Union) pulled out of Afghanistan after 20 plus years, defeated. Her soldiers had to pay for this never ending war and American soldiers will do the same. Never learn from history, don't they.
19
But, under his new "strategy" we have neither a draw down or any sort of effective buildup.
2
I am always unpleasantly surprised by how breathtakingly stupid the US military and the foreign policy establishment actually are. What is going to happen in Afghanistan is absolutely predictable: the US will lose its war, just as it has lost virtually every "war" it has fought since Vietnam. The Taliban will simply outwait the US. Along the way, it will probably get more powerful as it digs in, comes up with new ways to resist, and capitalizes on the inevitable mistakes that cost the lives of huge numbers of civilians, or the animosity created by corruption in the authorities. The US made IS possible through the incredible stupidity of its Iraq invasion and the incompetence of its occupation. It is empowering and reinforcing radical Islam every day by its continuing "war on terror." It simply cannot win. Yet this reality runs against military pride, foreign policy establishment obtuseness, and an inability to accept the real limits of US power. So, the US will bleed itself in Afghanistan and elsewhere, wasting lives, time, money and energy, and exhausting itself.
49
Meanwhile, China is buying up Africa.
Erik D. Prince lives in a corporate, mercenary bubble. He wants to take his bubble’s stream of advice to the White House and multiply previous billions which would make him happier than he is today. His problem is Trump. Trump trusts the military which he does not understand and does not trust Erik D. Prince. Prince is so much like mercenary Trump that Trump effortlessly sees Prince’s fallaciousness. Trump’s generals are smarter than Trump. Trump cannot see through the generals, who yank his chain by preparing for meetings. The generals are not focused on earning money but rather spending unlimited tax dollars and burying supplies of boys. That is their comfort level. Prince earned success his way. The generals earned success the military way. Everyone is impressed by the success they understand.
7
What an irony that the anarchist in chief Bannon advised getting out of Afghanistan. That is until you read his answer was to use mercenaries - for millennia the weapon of choice for corrupt regimes. Or send in the CIA.
Benchmarks for the Afghan government to stamp out corruption and for Pakistan to help us? In what alternate universe will that work?
We're stuck. Admitting defeat if we pull out. Or throwing more precious lives and resources into a quagmire. How will 4000 more troops accomplish what 100,000 didn't?
Who of us has a real answer that doesn't entail a major change in our view of our country's role in the world? Trump claimed he would do that, but he isn't.
Russia pulled out of Afghanistan because they couldn't afford to be there. Some day, with whatever definition of "affording," we'll have to do the same. The world is always changing. In this new millennia, as in all others, it will be faster than ever before.
Benchmarks for the Afghan government to stamp out corruption and for Pakistan to help us? In what alternate universe will that work?
We're stuck. Admitting defeat if we pull out. Or throwing more precious lives and resources into a quagmire. How will 4000 more troops accomplish what 100,000 didn't?
Who of us has a real answer that doesn't entail a major change in our view of our country's role in the world? Trump claimed he would do that, but he isn't.
Russia pulled out of Afghanistan because they couldn't afford to be there. Some day, with whatever definition of "affording," we'll have to do the same. The world is always changing. In this new millennia, as in all others, it will be faster than ever before.
9
US have to pull out of Afghanistan, this war is going nowhere. Now the tricky part is that US have to make sure someone else will fill the void. Unity of Afghanistan will be nearly impossible to maintain, so why not split the country between Pakistan and Iran? No its not politically correct, but its that or let Taliban regain power. Not to mention the crazy cost of this war: over 3 trillions. Now this is madness.
59
It's more than likely that China will want the parts with the minerals, and who will stop them? They have a way with awkward minority peoples too.
Excellent suggestion. Although I suspect India might object and ensuing tensions would provoke a nuclear war between India and pakistan.
The only problem with Mr. Roy's proposal is that actual people live in Afghanistan, the Afghanistanis. The Pashtun people (whose army the Taliban, in a real sense, is) are not going to be ruled by Iran (a Shiite power; the Pashtun are largely their own variety of Sunni) or Pakistan. Indeed, Pakistan can't govern the Pashtun within its own borders (and largely doesn't try to). The bottom line is that we (and by "we" I mean the industrialized west, US, Canada, Europe, whoever) don't get to decide what the rest of the globe does with respect to the governance of their territory. The President wants to punish the Taliban for 9/11. Al Quaeda did 9/11, and they did it with more support from Saudi Arabia than from the Taliban. Presidents Bush and Obama have punished Al Quaeda plenty (bigly!). It is a non-player. ISIS is not on the field in Afghanistan, but if we focus the world's attention on it as the President intends to do, they'll be there soon.
1
If and when we ever leave Afghanistan, it will revert to what it would have been had we never gone there. The politicians responsible for wasting billions of US taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan should be held accountable. The money could be used much more productively to support our country.
30
I think you're correct that no matter how long we stay, Afghanistan will revert to what it was before. Except we'll never know how many attempts the terrorists have made, or would have, if we hadn't been there to stop them.
3
"We will win, and we will win decisively."
But don't ask me how, or what winning will look like, or how many troops it will involve, or what it will cost, or about the sacrifices we'll need to make, or how long it will take.
But don't ask me how, or what winning will look like, or how many troops it will involve, or what it will cost, or about the sacrifices we'll need to make, or how long it will take.
77
"We will win handily." Really? You think that both Commanders in Chief before you didn't want to do that, too? You think you're sooooo smart? Let's just wait and see.
Great businessman, isn't he?
They made him own this. Against his inclination, he saw that saying no would blow up in his face should there be another terror tragedy in the US.
However, I don't know where Congress is on all this. Their feet should be held to the fire too. As far as I can tell, congressional authorization for these quagmire wars hasn't been updated in more than a decade.
So it's just the generals and Trump. The former know how to play him and the latter is so vain he dreads being accused of not doing enough.
And so we remain in a state of perpetual war, with each renewal making it impossible to ever get out.
However, I don't know where Congress is on all this. Their feet should be held to the fire too. As far as I can tell, congressional authorization for these quagmire wars hasn't been updated in more than a decade.
So it's just the generals and Trump. The former know how to play him and the latter is so vain he dreads being accused of not doing enough.
And so we remain in a state of perpetual war, with each renewal making it impossible to ever get out.
86
Spoken like one who has access to the full range of top secret intelligence, electronic intercepts, overhead imagery, and order of battle.
Yes, its a quagmire, but unless we take a very, very hard line against our ally Pakistan, the conflict in Afghanistan will never end.
Yes, its a quagmire, but unless we take a very, very hard line against our ally Pakistan, the conflict in Afghanistan will never end.
The military industrial congressional complex is in charge. Watch the stock of the war makers. They own us. And yes, we have to be really careful about Pakistan.
12
Afghanistan is a make-work project for the Army. We should turn it over to China and leave.
6
You really need to think about that.
First take another look at the map and notice the countries that are adjacent to Afghanistan and those that are close by, then have what's called a thought experiment that involves turning it over to China and how would you negotiate that. Think bout allies that have interests in the area and how they would respond. It takes while and much research to decide if it's a good idea.
First take another look at the map and notice the countries that are adjacent to Afghanistan and those that are close by, then have what's called a thought experiment that involves turning it over to China and how would you negotiate that. Think bout allies that have interests in the area and how they would respond. It takes while and much research to decide if it's a good idea.
1
You can fight for the interests of the "allies" if you want to . But how is our being there better than China anyway? The people will end up all working for Chinese companies in any case.
You mean to tell us that Trump really doesn't know more than all the generals? Darn.
12
Trump's motives are completely transparent.
As like with everything else, this decision is about "changing the subject" more than it is about a "strategy" for the Afghanistan conflict.
If there was one thing he was unequivocal about during his campaign, it was his opposition to this war. However, when the opportunity presented itself to use it to his political advantage as president, he very predictably embraced exactly the opposite approach that he had been touting for two years.
Not that his decision is so unlike any of his predecessors. Even a man as principled as President Obama felt compelled to arrive at a similar conclusion. I would argue that their motives were completely different, but ironically we end up in the same, sorry place once again.
Trump's man crush on General Officers I'm sure played no small part in his decision. Military men like to make war, and their obvious enthusiasm for escalating the conflict perfectly dovetailed into Trump's necessity to find cover for his current problems.
Problem solved.
All that being said, I think that it's becoming clear that Afghanistan is becoming an analogue of sorts to North Korea in terms of having a standing force. That area of the world is so hot that the reality is we are going to need troops there, probably forever. Not for the purpose of a continuous, kinetic war, but just to "keep the lid" on things and as a jumping off platform to get to other conflict zones in the area in a timely fashion as needed.
As like with everything else, this decision is about "changing the subject" more than it is about a "strategy" for the Afghanistan conflict.
If there was one thing he was unequivocal about during his campaign, it was his opposition to this war. However, when the opportunity presented itself to use it to his political advantage as president, he very predictably embraced exactly the opposite approach that he had been touting for two years.
Not that his decision is so unlike any of his predecessors. Even a man as principled as President Obama felt compelled to arrive at a similar conclusion. I would argue that their motives were completely different, but ironically we end up in the same, sorry place once again.
Trump's man crush on General Officers I'm sure played no small part in his decision. Military men like to make war, and their obvious enthusiasm for escalating the conflict perfectly dovetailed into Trump's necessity to find cover for his current problems.
Problem solved.
All that being said, I think that it's becoming clear that Afghanistan is becoming an analogue of sorts to North Korea in terms of having a standing force. That area of the world is so hot that the reality is we are going to need troops there, probably forever. Not for the purpose of a continuous, kinetic war, but just to "keep the lid" on things and as a jumping off platform to get to other conflict zones in the area in a timely fashion as needed.
4
I agree with most of this except that I think it's unfair to say that military men "like to make war" - I think that's absolutely untrue for the vast majority.
What I think IS true - and it sadly leads to the same place policy-wise - is that military men are dedicated problem solvers, and that the solutions that they specialize in are military ones - ie "making war".
Since the dysfunction of Afghanistan has - long ago - been dumped into their laps it can't be surprising that given a choice between "give up and go home" and "soldier on" they will pick "soldier on". If this is the wrong decision - and I suspect that it is - it's up to the civilian leadership to decide so.
What I think IS true - and it sadly leads to the same place policy-wise - is that military men are dedicated problem solvers, and that the solutions that they specialize in are military ones - ie "making war".
Since the dysfunction of Afghanistan has - long ago - been dumped into their laps it can't be surprising that given a choice between "give up and go home" and "soldier on" they will pick "soldier on". If this is the wrong decision - and I suspect that it is - it's up to the civilian leadership to decide so.
1
I don't disagree with your reply.
The way I phrased that was not properly nuanced.
It might even be true that in our modern day military some general officers might be less likely to want to start a war in the first place than many of the "chickenhawk" neocon nincompoops that initiated this tragic catastrophe back in the GWB administration.
The way I phrased that was not properly nuanced.
It might even be true that in our modern day military some general officers might be less likely to want to start a war in the first place than many of the "chickenhawk" neocon nincompoops that initiated this tragic catastrophe back in the GWB administration.
1
You couldn't write a novel about an administration this incompetent because no one would believe it.
So the Secretary of State objects that the military plan lacks a diplomatic component, but meanwhile, the State Department eliminated its office of the representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes, I would call that an awkward objection for Rex to make.
Unbelievable.
So the Secretary of State objects that the military plan lacks a diplomatic component, but meanwhile, the State Department eliminated its office of the representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes, I would call that an awkward objection for Rex to make.
Unbelievable.
134
@Ann in Dallas
It would have to be nonfiction to be unbelievable.
Unfortunately this not a novel (invention) and in concurrence with
your comment, "Unbelievable".
It would have to be nonfiction to be unbelievable.
Unfortunately this not a novel (invention) and in concurrence with
your comment, "Unbelievable".
Rex Tillerson was wise to eliminate the special office. The work that that office did -- at a very, very significant cost to taxpayers -- can be done by the existing Bureau of South Asian affairs. No need to duplication of effort.
No mention by Trump, or "his" generals" , to focus on an make it a priority to elevate the status of women in Afghanistan.
More of the same.
Men at Work.
No wonder the war will continue.
More of the same.
Men at Work.
No wonder the war will continue.
11
trump is not a leader.
he had no option but to curb his impulsive knee jerk reactions and be subdued by the Military Generals.
trump showed no 'LEADERSHIP" capabilities on the campaign and has not changed since elected.
trump has no capacity for learning short or long term strategy except for bullying and tweeting childish emotional responses on twitter and doing the same in press conferences.
conway is a puppet head and will do anything to make the hand that feeds her look good - we're immune to your propaganda conway!
This new strategy in Afghanistan is due to LEADERSHIP by the military not trump.
You can't treat grown men & women like dirt on the earth and get away with it.
trumps base loves the condescension but the rest of the USA will not suffer trumps abuse, racism, hate & bullying anymore!
he had no option but to curb his impulsive knee jerk reactions and be subdued by the Military Generals.
trump showed no 'LEADERSHIP" capabilities on the campaign and has not changed since elected.
trump has no capacity for learning short or long term strategy except for bullying and tweeting childish emotional responses on twitter and doing the same in press conferences.
conway is a puppet head and will do anything to make the hand that feeds her look good - we're immune to your propaganda conway!
This new strategy in Afghanistan is due to LEADERSHIP by the military not trump.
You can't treat grown men & women like dirt on the earth and get away with it.
trumps base loves the condescension but the rest of the USA will not suffer trumps abuse, racism, hate & bullying anymore!
10
Editing suggestion: Find and replace "Trump" with "Obama"
After all of those meetings Trump reached a conclusion which he defined with this statement "In the end, we will win", which is not applicable to the war in Afghanistan. And this is because in that war there is no clearly defined end as there are in regular wars. And neither is the concept of winning applicable to that war because winning can only be possible by defeating the opposing side, which would mean that they have conclusively lost the war and can no longer continue to fight.
However unlike conventional wars, where there is a war and the war is brought to its conclusion with one side winning and the other losing, fighting the Taliban is not the type of fight that can ever conclusively be won, and that the fight will be over. And this is because the Taliban are simply people that live in Afghanistan, and will continue to live there regardless of the outcome of what can only be described as a series of battles. And no matter what the outcome of those battles will be, the Taliban will be sure to back there fighting the next fighting season.
The Taliban have already been fighting there for over 30 years. Many Taliban fighters are already the 2nd generation in their family to be fighters.
So fighting those people for control of the land on which they live can never have a defined end, nor can such a fight have a conclusive win. However its not Trump who is the idiot that doesn't realize this, its the US government that took up this impossible mission in the 1st place.
However unlike conventional wars, where there is a war and the war is brought to its conclusion with one side winning and the other losing, fighting the Taliban is not the type of fight that can ever conclusively be won, and that the fight will be over. And this is because the Taliban are simply people that live in Afghanistan, and will continue to live there regardless of the outcome of what can only be described as a series of battles. And no matter what the outcome of those battles will be, the Taliban will be sure to back there fighting the next fighting season.
The Taliban have already been fighting there for over 30 years. Many Taliban fighters are already the 2nd generation in their family to be fighters.
So fighting those people for control of the land on which they live can never have a defined end, nor can such a fight have a conclusive win. However its not Trump who is the idiot that doesn't realize this, its the US government that took up this impossible mission in the 1st place.
3
"The Impossible Mission." Didn't that belong to GW Bush?
It seems so obvious that Trump knows nothing.
After years of insisting that we leave Afghanistan, he sends in more troops. The words that emerge from his mouth seem so meaningless that I find it difficult to understand how his legions of supporters continue to believe what he says. Are they so unaware of what is going on in the world, that they still think he knows what he is doing?
Please, I urge all Trump supporters to pay more attention to the reality of: geopolitics, domestic and global economy, climate science, American history, 20th century European history. It is not "fake news" that he relentlessly urged an exit from Afghanistan. It is not "fake news" that the world is moving away from relying on fossil fuels for its energy. It is not "fake news" that the coal industry will continue its decline. It is not "fake news" that the polar ice caps are melting. It is not "fake news" that Robert E. Lee fought to preserve the institution of slavery. It is not "fake news" that the Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews.
What will it take for Trump's supporters to wake up to reality. Will they wait until they too become victims of his ignorance and madness?
After years of insisting that we leave Afghanistan, he sends in more troops. The words that emerge from his mouth seem so meaningless that I find it difficult to understand how his legions of supporters continue to believe what he says. Are they so unaware of what is going on in the world, that they still think he knows what he is doing?
Please, I urge all Trump supporters to pay more attention to the reality of: geopolitics, domestic and global economy, climate science, American history, 20th century European history. It is not "fake news" that he relentlessly urged an exit from Afghanistan. It is not "fake news" that the world is moving away from relying on fossil fuels for its energy. It is not "fake news" that the coal industry will continue its decline. It is not "fake news" that the polar ice caps are melting. It is not "fake news" that Robert E. Lee fought to preserve the institution of slavery. It is not "fake news" that the Nazi's murdered 6 million Jews.
What will it take for Trump's supporters to wake up to reality. Will they wait until they too become victims of his ignorance and madness?
4
Some of the generals have stated to Congress at hearings that the Russians have been and are providing weapons for the insurgents in Afghanistan.
This conforms to the logic: Moscow is doing to the US what the US under Carter did to the Russian attempt to conquer this country.
In any event, it's one thing to have Taliban and "terrorist" bodies fighting, but to be dangerous they have to be armed.
The key to Afghanistan victory is to block and stop the flow of weapons to the insurgents. If it is Moscow, then Mr. Trump should consult and deal with his personal cronies in the Kremlin.
Q.E.D.
This conforms to the logic: Moscow is doing to the US what the US under Carter did to the Russian attempt to conquer this country.
In any event, it's one thing to have Taliban and "terrorist" bodies fighting, but to be dangerous they have to be armed.
The key to Afghanistan victory is to block and stop the flow of weapons to the insurgents. If it is Moscow, then Mr. Trump should consult and deal with his personal cronies in the Kremlin.
Q.E.D.
2
The paradox of Pakistan is what America must resolve. They take billions in aid to allow America to use the country as its base to supply troops in Afghanistan and to purportedly help rout terrorism. Their intelligence agency, the nefarious ISI, then gives shelter to Taliban and other terrorists in their country. So Pakistan gets money and terror, the Americans pay a traitorous regime, the terrorists get shelter. How will this siutation end? Don't forget China and Pakistan are colluding against India, so China has a hand in the protection of terrorists as well. So, you've got three states--Afghanistan, Paksitan and indirectly even China--giving aid and comfort to terrorists. Now America wants India's help in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan? What are they going to offer India in return? How are they going to handle the devious Pakistanis?
2
The simple answer is that they can't. Pakistan will run circles around the US. It has its own interests in destabilizing Afghanistan, its primary interests focus on its rivalry with India, and it has the tacit support of China. In addition, Iran has now found ways to work with the Taliban. The US has no chance - Pakistan will eat it for breakfast; Iran will clean up the dessert. By doubling down in Afghanistan, the US has simply provided its enemies with more fodder for their various geopolitical machinations. The Americans are so far out of their depth here that it is almost tragic.
1
This situation is only confusing and contradictory if you believe that all our military adventures are genuinely aimed at eradicating "terrorism". Really that's just a convenient fig leaf to justify endless conflict and a state of perpetual war which is, after all, a very profitable enterprise. Remember how Iraq became about democracy building once the WMD rationale collapsed? We never found WMDs and Iraq is not a democracy, but billions were made and the dramatic destabilization of the region has guaranteed that the same characters will make billions and even trillions more.
Sounds like World War 111. Everybody into the pool!
1
two thoughts.
1. although it is somewhat comforting these generals are helping keep an unstable man from destabilizing the world further, we also have to be aware of their proclivity towards war. That's who they are and what they know. That's their mindset and success arena.
2. After another "worst week ever," Trump once again focuses our attention on military solutions and physical confrontation. "Hey, this will distract 'em!" And it does. It has to.
1. although it is somewhat comforting these generals are helping keep an unstable man from destabilizing the world further, we also have to be aware of their proclivity towards war. That's who they are and what they know. That's their mindset and success arena.
2. After another "worst week ever," Trump once again focuses our attention on military solutions and physical confrontation. "Hey, this will distract 'em!" And it does. It has to.
3
40 years ago, the Army Recruiting Command, under General Thurman, came to us for counseling on how to sell the volunteer army concept (and how to improve recruiting) to the public. In separate conversations several extremely well-educated officers on his staff said the one thing worrying them was that, over the years, having an draft-free 'independent' army would not only reduce civil side contact but would produce leaders set in an inbred all-military viewpoint on issues, one that would not have a grasp on larger societal needs and viewpoints. The changes those people led (with many other dedicated military leaders) have moved us from the post-Vietnam doldrums and produced the world's finest army.
But now we have key military members of the Trump administration applying their years of military-only experience to a a critical foreign policy issue. Moreover, they are dealing with a president that cares only about his image and twitter.
Kelly, Mattis, McMaster and Dunford are all good men and far better than most members of Trump's cabinet. They have the best intentions and are staying put (one hopes) for the good of the country.
But I think those officers that we consulted with 40 some years ago were right. And we all should be worried.
But now we have key military members of the Trump administration applying their years of military-only experience to a a critical foreign policy issue. Moreover, they are dealing with a president that cares only about his image and twitter.
Kelly, Mattis, McMaster and Dunford are all good men and far better than most members of Trump's cabinet. They have the best intentions and are staying put (one hopes) for the good of the country.
But I think those officers that we consulted with 40 some years ago were right. And we all should be worried.
6
Generals fight wars because that is their job. Killing is their trade. The last war they won was in Grenada. Think about that.
There is no mystery in Afghanistan. Hundreds of years of history is there for even the slightly curious. Hundreds of books have been written and one of the best is "The Great Game". It is a war for the generals to play their messy games. Seven hundred and eighty billion dollars and many lives over seventeen years and we have not moved an inch. Soon a Trillion will be spent.
I have absolutely no respect for Trump, but to bring in those four enlisted men was brilliant. They told him the truth. He listened for a few days, but he ended up listening to those who have only vested interests to proceed in their careers. Those on the ground have no illusions. Those sitting in Fort Meyers at the Pentagon with their spit shined shoes are delusional.
There is no mystery in Afghanistan. Hundreds of years of history is there for even the slightly curious. Hundreds of books have been written and one of the best is "The Great Game". It is a war for the generals to play their messy games. Seven hundred and eighty billion dollars and many lives over seventeen years and we have not moved an inch. Soon a Trillion will be spent.
I have absolutely no respect for Trump, but to bring in those four enlisted men was brilliant. They told him the truth. He listened for a few days, but he ended up listening to those who have only vested interests to proceed in their careers. Those on the ground have no illusions. Those sitting in Fort Meyers at the Pentagon with their spit shined shoes are delusional.
4
Trump sends these soldiers to die, similar to the debacle in Vietnam. Trump should have the courage to go to Afghanistan BEFORE sending our youth!
5
Trump has set out conditions for our increased engagement in Afghanistan but I don't see the one where the Afghan military brass would stop raping boys (see in NY Times 2015 - "U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies"). Afghanistan is a quagmire where the routine rape of boys is part of the cultural landscape, gang rape of women is seen as a form of justice, and the Taliban will not go away. One of the platforms President Obama ran on and won- was the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Sacrificing more American lives and American money to a morally bankrupt and corrupt country is one of the dumbest foreign policies decisions I have seen in a long time.
5
What is the main goal of fighting the longest war in U.S. history, 16 years and counting - could it be the one trillion dollars of untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan?
6
Yep. Rachel Maddow hit on this last night.
BTW, our longest war is actually the Civil War, which President Swamp also decided to extend indefinitely.
14
We need to focus on the war Trump has started in the US. Afghanistan 5.1 is simply a diversion to draw attention away from the real issue. Which is that the country is without leadership.
11
It's easy to make ridiculous statements when you have no responsibility in the outcome. Who ever knew The Afghan war could be so complicated? Trump is a blowhard and will always be one.
13
W was "the decider." Trump is "a problem solver." Got it.
13
No infrastructure bill, no health insurance for citizens, no money for schools or textbooks, none of our tax money goes to anything but wars and weapons. We haven't made a dent in Afghanistan in 16 years, and we never will. Of course Trump's generals want war - that's what they live for. All this while we again squander human life and money for what exactly? Color me totally disgusted.
154
I wonder how many no-bid contracts will be awarded to people with ties to the Republican party.
OK, it looks like only the Generals are capable of imposing any indicia of structure and restraint on the most incompetent administration in history.
But it also looks like we are returning to W: An unqualified President who will serve as a tool for the military industrial complex.
OK, it looks like only the Generals are capable of imposing any indicia of structure and restraint on the most incompetent administration in history.
But it also looks like we are returning to W: An unqualified President who will serve as a tool for the military industrial complex.
3
If only Trump would do some research instead of just doing what the last person told him, especially now that he's fully surrounded by military men.
He should begin by looking into "The Great Game."
Afghanistan is an empire killer.
He should begin by looking into "The Great Game."
Afghanistan is an empire killer.
2
This is precisely the thinking that was circulating throughout the Pentagon during the Vietnam Era: "Don't knock the Vietnam War...it's the only one we have!"
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
3
This is Obama's strategy with a slightly bigger hat and a few more cattle. Nothing to see here, folks;more of the same... It isn't winning.
5
"the plan, which now had benchmarks for reducing corruption in the Afghan government"
Which is to say that going forward, bribes of government officials need to pass through hotels owned by those officials.
Which is to say that going forward, bribes of government officials need to pass through hotels owned by those officials.
3
Trump unlike his predecessors acknowledged there needs to be an end to this and did not accept Obama era answers. He took the cloves off and essentially told them to get it done with no half measures. He also took to task Pakistan and Saudi, demanding they cease providing safe harbor to terrorist. Korea 101, don't fight to a line, finish it.
1
Nope.
Trump's strategy differs very little from strategies of past (though there was a report that stated he told his team to come up with strategy appeared less similar to Obama's). But there really aren't a lot of options.
This illustrates, once again, what hypocrites Trump supporters are.
Trump's strategy differs very little from strategies of past (though there was a report that stated he told his team to come up with strategy appeared less similar to Obama's). But there really aren't a lot of options.
This illustrates, once again, what hypocrites Trump supporters are.
1
Yeah he took the cloves off. That's very heeling.
1
Well, is it any surprise? You surround yourself with generals - who are needed to instill some discipline into the chaos - and then they push their agenda.
4
That's not fair. I've known many general officers and none of them, ever, had an agenda that included sending troops into war casually.
1
Trump had it right before inauguration when he criticized Obama for sending troops to Afghanistan. Obama had it right when he refused to build up troop levels again for an non-existent strategy. Now Trump is sending more troops. What do they put in the White House drinking water that makes presidents want to send soldiers to wars that have no real military solutions?
1
Their reasoning is predictable, really--no president wants to be the president that gave up Afghanistan to the Taliban.
3
Trump needs to offer his sons for duty first, then we will know it's the thing to do.
4
Strategy? We don't need no stinking strategy!!!
What we do need, apparently, is the script for "Wag the Dog" and yet another Trump rally.
What we do need, apparently, is the script for "Wag the Dog" and yet another Trump rally.
2
Harold MacMillan, British prime minister, stated in 1963:
"The first rule of politics is never invade Afghanistan".
The US fear of terrorist attacks will never disappear. Expect troops to still be in the country in 2040.
"The first rule of politics is never invade Afghanistan".
The US fear of terrorist attacks will never disappear. Expect troops to still be in the country in 2040.
3
The US were also cautioned not to invade Vietnam – unwinnable war.
It seems the US and its once-upon-a-time allies continue to have no idea where ISIS or other terrorists groups live and hide. It seems that the US is, indeed, in a quagmire. It is unlikely that any "benchmark" will indicate an actual reduction in corruption within the Afghan government, or that "pressing" Pakistan to wipe out terrorist sanctuaries. The woeful situation in Afghanistan has attracted and subsequently defeated the British and the Soviet Union. If we were not continuing to spend for Iraq... now at over $2 Trillion plus interest on this borrowed amount...perhaps we could afford the inevitable burst of spending we are now implicitly or explicitly committing to Afghanistan. The US started shaping Afghanistan's current dynamics in the Reagan era. And we're still bleeding money into that sad country.
1
Though there are good reasons to be happy Steve Bannon was fired, those of us who believe that the nation is militarily, and futilely, overextended have one reason to regret he is gone: he was the most powerful administration adviser to argue against our occupation of other countries. Our political and military establishment does not learn from the history of our intervention in places where we do not belong and are largely unwelcome.
The animosity toward our intrusions is, perversely, reflected in terrorist acts against us.
To understand that we cannot control the world is not isolationist. There are other, better ways than force to be involved internationally
It is ironic yet unsurprising in this instance that the first hoped-for move of the president to what is called the political center is an expansion of a war effort, instead of, say, health insurance reform.
The animosity toward our intrusions is, perversely, reflected in terrorist acts against us.
To understand that we cannot control the world is not isolationist. There are other, better ways than force to be involved internationally
It is ironic yet unsurprising in this instance that the first hoped-for move of the president to what is called the political center is an expansion of a war effort, instead of, say, health insurance reform.
3
Yes, there are other ways. But diplomacy takes time and rarely results in an outcome that makes headlines or that increases a president's poll numbers.
1
Just watch.
President Swamp will blow all of that extra spending on the military that he demanded and then ask for more.
So many world powers have stretched themselves too thin to recover, meanwhile neglecting domestic needs.
How fitting that it will be wasting blood and treasure in Afghanistan yet again.
President Swamp will blow all of that extra spending on the military that he demanded and then ask for more.
So many world powers have stretched themselves too thin to recover, meanwhile neglecting domestic needs.
How fitting that it will be wasting blood and treasure in Afghanistan yet again.
3
My guess is that the story flows from an orchestrated leek to cover Trump's flip flop.
4
In a sign that all may not be lost, Trump has finally acquiesced and acknowledged that, in reality, he does not "know more than the generals" regrding the war in Afghanistan. The fact that he acceded to their recommendations (scant as the information might be) is a step in the right direction. It's time for him to surrender his bluster and megalomaniacal approach to foreign engagements, and let the grown ups wearing the snazzy uniforms make the important life-and-death decisions regarding Americans fighting overseas.
1
I don't think he acknowledged that at all. I just think they made the point that what he wants will cost more political capital than he has.
Great - so now are being governed by an incompetent, unstable president, a cowardly, ineffective, GOP leadership, an ideologically extreme GOP base - and a military junta.
Not to disparage Generals Kelly, McMaster and Mattis, but the Constitution provides for civilian government, and for good reasons. We wouldn't be the first nation to turn to the military in the face of corrupt civilian leadership. That is not, however, the way things should be.
The generals drove the Vietnam war – big success that was, remember? They wanted to bomb Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. Had they succeeded in convincing JFK and RFK to do so, I wouldn't be typing this comment right now.
If the only way to keep Trump under control is to replace him with a junta of three generals, then Trump should not be in the White House and should be removed.
Not to disparage Generals Kelly, McMaster and Mattis, but the Constitution provides for civilian government, and for good reasons. We wouldn't be the first nation to turn to the military in the face of corrupt civilian leadership. That is not, however, the way things should be.
The generals drove the Vietnam war – big success that was, remember? They wanted to bomb Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. Had they succeeded in convincing JFK and RFK to do so, I wouldn't be typing this comment right now.
If the only way to keep Trump under control is to replace him with a junta of three generals, then Trump should not be in the White House and should be removed.
9
Mr. Trump. It is time to get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq). NOW! You have no strategy. Neither did W. Bush or Obama.
3
"To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail".
Generals have a hard time thinking otherwise and an even harder time admitting defeat. In essence, we could flood Afghanistan with a million soldiers and the results would be the same. We've certainly not won the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan populace at large and Americans are still considered invaders by everyone outside of Kabul.
How many more American soldiers have to die before we realize that the country has been a graveyard for empires for hundreds of years.
The Iranian "hardliners" must just love Mr. Trump's decision!
Generals have a hard time thinking otherwise and an even harder time admitting defeat. In essence, we could flood Afghanistan with a million soldiers and the results would be the same. We've certainly not won the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan populace at large and Americans are still considered invaders by everyone outside of Kabul.
How many more American soldiers have to die before we realize that the country has been a graveyard for empires for hundreds of years.
The Iranian "hardliners" must just love Mr. Trump's decision!
347
You can't ask your question to the miscreant, it has no soul, it doesn't care unless it owns stock in the MIC.
At this point one has to ask just how many modern generals you have actually met or read policy papers by, given how quick you are to lump them all into some caricature that just so happens to flatter your political biases.
Culture cannot be changed by force.
Maybe the Generals next plan will be a Coup de Tat in Washington D.C.
We have been down this path in Iraq and it has not done us any good. Is there any other decision besides continuing war in the Middle East.
I realize we need to be protected from Terrorist attacks. I also remember that we were not attacked by Afghans on September 11th but by Saudi citizens who were based in Afghanistan. Let's let the Saudi's take this one on.
We have already been responsible for too many American Service men and women's deaths.
We have been down this path in Iraq and it has not done us any good. Is there any other decision besides continuing war in the Middle East.
I realize we need to be protected from Terrorist attacks. I also remember that we were not attacked by Afghans on September 11th but by Saudi citizens who were based in Afghanistan. Let's let the Saudi's take this one on.
We have already been responsible for too many American Service men and women's deaths.
2
The war is not meant to be won. It's meant to be forever.
According to the BBC, this war costs us, or will cost, $25 Billion dollars a year. How about $25B/year into infrastructure?
According to the BBC, this war costs us, or will cost, $25 Billion dollars a year. How about $25B/year into infrastructure?
4
Has anyone ever heard of generals *not* coming up with a plan that asks for more troops (calling General Westmoreland...)? What did Trump think they were going to say? "Let's pursue a political solution or cut the cord and get out"? Now we're just going to get more American soldiers killed for no clear purpose in a place that has little to no chance of being "tamed" by the United States and its armed forces. How many times do we have to go through this to learn this lesson? Isn't 17 years long enough to realize that we need to bite the bullet?
4
From today's op-ed from Boylan re: Vietnam:
"Perhaps the key lesson of Vietnam is that if the reasons for going to war are not compelling enough for our leaders to demand that all Americans make sacrifices in pursuit of victory, then perhaps we should not go to war at all."
EXACTLY
"Perhaps the key lesson of Vietnam is that if the reasons for going to war are not compelling enough for our leaders to demand that all Americans make sacrifices in pursuit of victory, then perhaps we should not go to war at all."
EXACTLY
11
Analyze all you want. The end result will be the same. The Russians and the British spent billions in national treasure and countless lives to no avail. The U.S. is well on the way to the same result no matter how many troops we pour into Afghanistan or how many craters we leave behind. We will not win a war there. Military minds come up with military solutions. We need to get out...period...except...there are trillions of dollars worth of precious metals in the hills and mountains of the Hindu Kush. They have been surveyed by the U.S. over the last ten years and huge mining contracts are up for grabs. Maybe that's why we are still there? Follow the money.
5
This is what I understand, Generals want war because when they retire
they are then welcomed by the companies who manufacture war supplies.
The breath is knocked out of me by the thought of all the lives to be lost
in this insane upgrade, especially in our own military. Of course not the
Generals, nor Trump.
they are then welcomed by the companies who manufacture war supplies.
The breath is knocked out of me by the thought of all the lives to be lost
in this insane upgrade, especially in our own military. Of course not the
Generals, nor Trump.
6
I don't get this war. The article says that Mr. Trump accepted the logic that "a big military" approach was needed to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a launching pad for terrorism against the US. This is the logic that says we should continue a 16-year-old war that essentially is just stabilizing and managing chaos? When that is the best we can come up with for war and occupation of a foreign country, we have really lost our way.
A strong case can be made that the mere presence of a foreign military presence in someone's country can stoke terrorist attitudes. Terrorist attacks are launched continually in Europe and some other regions. European countries have military forces present. Has not stopped anything. We are good at hunting them down after the fact and making them very wary, but we have not stopped regular attacks. Vehicular homicide, home-made bombs, and guns are all that are needed to wage a continual campaign against any country and achieve the desired terror objective.
Why don't we try to get to the root causes of terrorism. Waging war in a foreign land fomented terrorism on a diabolical scale with ISIS. Why don't we focus on doing constructive things in foreign countries, stop waging war, listen to grievances, and engage in solutions with those who are willing to engage, and deal with those who won't when needed?
Death is much more common from many other causes than from terrorism, many of which we have control over personally and societaly.
A strong case can be made that the mere presence of a foreign military presence in someone's country can stoke terrorist attitudes. Terrorist attacks are launched continually in Europe and some other regions. European countries have military forces present. Has not stopped anything. We are good at hunting them down after the fact and making them very wary, but we have not stopped regular attacks. Vehicular homicide, home-made bombs, and guns are all that are needed to wage a continual campaign against any country and achieve the desired terror objective.
Why don't we try to get to the root causes of terrorism. Waging war in a foreign land fomented terrorism on a diabolical scale with ISIS. Why don't we focus on doing constructive things in foreign countries, stop waging war, listen to grievances, and engage in solutions with those who are willing to engage, and deal with those who won't when needed?
Death is much more common from many other causes than from terrorism, many of which we have control over personally and societaly.
5
I thought Trump knew more and was smarter than the generals. Apparently not.
4
It is good know that 7 months in office, President Donald J. Trump is no longer bone headed about his decisions on key issues and somewhat maleable. More importantly he is beginning to admit when he is wrong and hopefully apologizes for his mistakes when he realizes that he makes them. The blunders of the presidents who preceded him have devastated countries like Syria, Yemen and Libya and left Iraq and Afghanistan in a continuing turmoil and misery. US troops in Afghanistan have ranged from a few thousand beginning during Bush years to 100,000 during the Obama years at a cost of over trillion dollars and loss of precious brave Americans by the thousands and over 100,000 Afghan deaths and the end result is the saga of America's longest war rages on. Let us hope for the sake of the USA armed forces and the innocent civilians of Afghanistan that the outcome of the strategy outlined by Trump will finally lead to peace and elimination of terrorism.
2
Early on in this report reference is made to "dealing with neighboring Pakistan, where many of the terrorist sanctuaries lay."
"Many" terrorist sanctuaries? Just how many is "many"?
Shortly after August 10, the authors write, "General McMaster continued tweaking the plan, which now had benchmarks for reducing corruption in the Afghan government and for pressing Pakistan to wipe out terrorist sanctuaries on its border with Afghanistan."
A "benchmark" for "pressing" Pakistan?
That is diplo-babble for essentially not doing anything concrete to punish our supposed ally for hosting terror groups that aim to kill US soldiers.
This has nothing to do with too many generals in the White House.
This has to do with craven fear and pure cowardice.
"Many" terrorist sanctuaries? Just how many is "many"?
Shortly after August 10, the authors write, "General McMaster continued tweaking the plan, which now had benchmarks for reducing corruption in the Afghan government and for pressing Pakistan to wipe out terrorist sanctuaries on its border with Afghanistan."
A "benchmark" for "pressing" Pakistan?
That is diplo-babble for essentially not doing anything concrete to punish our supposed ally for hosting terror groups that aim to kill US soldiers.
This has nothing to do with too many generals in the White House.
This has to do with craven fear and pure cowardice.
2
So what do you suggest, we invade Pakistan too?
1
Your comment indicates you have an incomplete understanding of US policy in South Asia. Pakistan is a purported US ally. An ally does not support terror groups that aim to kill US personnel. Some have argued that Pakistan holds the key to controlling the Taliban insurgency.
The US must conduct a cost/benefit analysis to punishing Pakistan for its behavior. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so we must be thoughtful in our approach.
Setting benchmarks for *pressing* Pakistan indicates that the US has absolutely no intention of addressing this one root of the overall problem in Afghanistan.
Ergo, the Taliban will continue to flourish and kill our troops.
The US must conduct a cost/benefit analysis to punishing Pakistan for its behavior. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so we must be thoughtful in our approach.
Setting benchmarks for *pressing* Pakistan indicates that the US has absolutely no intention of addressing this one root of the overall problem in Afghanistan.
Ergo, the Taliban will continue to flourish and kill our troops.
1
I have no doubt that if we spent 1 billion and put the Taliban on the payroll growing flowers that things would come out a lot better. Yet the military industrial complex and 24/7 war continues. So much for the peace dividend after the end of the cold war.
4
Trump is a menace to global security, a huge national divider, and a sociopath. (on other words - unfit and unhinged)
Still, we are stuck with him and his rants and his lies for a while, and I would rather he be getting his talking points from gown-up baby minders like McMaster and Kelly than from a malignant, misanthropic snake like Bannon (I shudder just to think of that bloated, mottled mess) . Also, I was very surprised (shocked even) that Trump could read clearly off a teleprompter and not go on a rant about immigrants and refugees, and how they are "the problem."
Still, we are stuck with him and his rants and his lies for a while, and I would rather he be getting his talking points from gown-up baby minders like McMaster and Kelly than from a malignant, misanthropic snake like Bannon (I shudder just to think of that bloated, mottled mess) . Also, I was very surprised (shocked even) that Trump could read clearly off a teleprompter and not go on a rant about immigrants and refugees, and how they are "the problem."
6
The bigger question is, "How will the U.S. win when all other countries trying to win wars in Afghanistan have failedt." Perhaps this is a war that will continue in perpetuity despite Trump's statements.
4
Better generals talked him into rather than his psychic.
1
Afghan war new policy is nothing but same Obama's policy with new wrapping paper. Only thing Trump changed his mind. He criticized Obama so much for 'failed policy?' . Now he should apologize to Obama. Some people are saying that it is nothing but Trump's diversion and distraction tactic from Charlottesville mess. Bannon is gone, now the hawks are taking over . After 16 years of war in Afghanistan spending 700 billion dollars and loosing so many young soldiers lives and killing so many innocent people, we should think some other innovative policy where everybody can win and bloodshed stopped.
9
"His decision, several officials said, was less a change of heart than a weary acceptance of the case, made during three months of intense White House debate by the military leaders who dominate his war cabinet."
Well, from his bubble, Trump does not have the will or fortitude to withstand "the Generals". Many are saying that there is actually no strategy, just a pumping of more American lives into a difficult situation. The war in Vietnam also had no strategy or visualization of success in that country either, and we know how that ended, after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American military personnel.
My heart goes out to all service-members who are forced to serve in Afghanistan.
Well, from his bubble, Trump does not have the will or fortitude to withstand "the Generals". Many are saying that there is actually no strategy, just a pumping of more American lives into a difficult situation. The war in Vietnam also had no strategy or visualization of success in that country either, and we know how that ended, after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American military personnel.
My heart goes out to all service-members who are forced to serve in Afghanistan.
8
This reads like a story Trump wanted leaked. See? He's not disengaged and mentally ill. This one appears to have been leaked by "John Miller".
8
They will have no greater success in managing this quagmire than their predecessors. That is because this war cannot be "won" in a conventional sense. We have been stuck in Afghanistan for almost two decades now, bin Laden is long dead, and the cost to our nation both in lives and finances has been enormous.
I don't see an end game here, unless perhaps it's a cynical move to maintain our presence in the area for access to resources. This appears to be a desperate attempt by Trump to distract the public away from his erratic administration, embrace of white supremacists, exploitation of his office for personal financial gain, not to mention Russia.
I sincerely hope our media treats this situation with clarity, as opposed to the "shiver up the leg" approach in which they deal with most military actions. Let's get out of Afghanistan and focus on our own nation.
I don't see an end game here, unless perhaps it's a cynical move to maintain our presence in the area for access to resources. This appears to be a desperate attempt by Trump to distract the public away from his erratic administration, embrace of white supremacists, exploitation of his office for personal financial gain, not to mention Russia.
I sincerely hope our media treats this situation with clarity, as opposed to the "shiver up the leg" approach in which they deal with most military actions. Let's get out of Afghanistan and focus on our own nation.
146
Those who have fought Afghanistan have never won. They just get tired and leave and Afghanistan goes back to its tribal leaders and warlords. A written above, nothing will change no matter our military suffer: it's unwinnable.
1
How about at least a war tax to pay for for this 'new and improved' graveyard of empires ?
If we're going to have more war to make Trump and the generals feel good about their manhood, how about at least paying for the war instead of charging it to the national credit card which weakens our country ?
The reckless draft-dodging, tax-dodging Trump is thrilled to inflict yet another act of more mindless Republican insanity on the rest of us and leave us with the bill.
What a wrecking ball of a President.
If we're going to have more war to make Trump and the generals feel good about their manhood, how about at least paying for the war instead of charging it to the national credit card which weakens our country ?
The reckless draft-dodging, tax-dodging Trump is thrilled to inflict yet another act of more mindless Republican insanity on the rest of us and leave us with the bill.
What a wrecking ball of a President.
285
To concur that American troops can be killed in Afghanistan provided that the government there stops being corrupt is the most insane thing I have ever come across.
13
If the goal is preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist base, the United States needs to ask if we need to subdue the country to accomplish that goal. We are not going to conquer the country because, like Vietnam, the people do not support us. We need to find another solution. Maybe, we should support regional warlords or talk to the Taliban. Bribery might be much less costly than war.
5
Trump knows less about foreign policy and military strategy than the average teenage video game player. The way to talk Trump into anything is to appeal to his ego:
"More troops, Trump look strong."
"Fewer troops, Trump look weak."
"More ice cream, Trump look like big man."
"More troops, Trump look strong."
"Fewer troops, Trump look weak."
"More ice cream, Trump look like big man."
33
1933? Why wasn't this speech given from the White House, or in front of congress? Oh boy, are we in trouble. Yesterday, it seems, there were two eclipses: special protective blinders were appropriate for the first, but what about the second one? Mark the date.
5
So are we supposed to support expanding our longest war because a "weary Trump" gave into sober generals?
Everyday it seems that Trump's extremism is being used to normalize anything this side of absolute madness. Now we on the left are to celebrate war and look back fondly on George W. Bush.
Indeed, Trump appears to be the greatest asset the corporate establishment ever had. He is being used to drive America back into the arms of the Bush-Clinton political universe, which perhaps was the goal in the establishment's letting him take the White House: realign the "center" somewhere over Paul Ryan.
Everyday it seems that Trump's extremism is being used to normalize anything this side of absolute madness. Now we on the left are to celebrate war and look back fondly on George W. Bush.
Indeed, Trump appears to be the greatest asset the corporate establishment ever had. He is being used to drive America back into the arms of the Bush-Clinton political universe, which perhaps was the goal in the establishment's letting him take the White House: realign the "center" somewhere over Paul Ryan.
4
So his troops didn't talk him into it...
It seems more like a reasonable assessment of the situation was made and now plans are moving forward to deal with that situation. If our last Commander in Chief did the same thing, maybe there would be no isis.
It seems more like a reasonable assessment of the situation was made and now plans are moving forward to deal with that situation. If our last Commander in Chief did the same thing, maybe there would be no isis.
1
Yeah, that good old "maybe". Bought any Brooklyn bridges lately?
3
Don't be silly everybody knows that GwBush caused Isis.
More fake news from the Fox crowd.
More fake news from the Fox crowd.
3
Please reread the article. The last Commander in Chief, whose name was Obama, sent in 30,000 additional troops and you can see what good that did. Winning in Afghanistan is not possible, just ask England and Russia.
1
It's obvious that military officers are the only voices Trump respects. Lacking any Whitehouse leadership. the hawks have lead another president into war.
5
Entirely predictable. He (and his backers) opposed war as a candidate only because it distinguished him from the Democrats, especially Hillary. It was strange to hear Republican Bushhawks suddenly claiming war was a waste. Guess they'll change their tune again now.
4
So now we will succeed, where empires from Alexander to the Soviets have failed, because ... ?
And what will constitute success?
If this is what a careful strategic review looks like, I'd hate to see an ill-thought-out decision.
And what will constitute success?
If this is what a careful strategic review looks like, I'd hate to see an ill-thought-out decision.
10
Obama did the same thing and nobody condemned him for it.
The best way to deal with this is to pull out ALL the troops immediately, and let the Afghanistan government deal with their own problems.
The best way to deal with this is to pull out ALL the troops immediately, and let the Afghanistan government deal with their own problems.
2
"(Tillerson's) position was complicated by the fact that the State Dept had just dismantled the office of its special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Now, that's curious and needs to be looked into.
Was that because Eric Prince was supposed to become a Tzar, a Shah or whatever, some royalty name, the entire military become "privatized" and Betsy's little bro get paid $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars) a YEAR?!?
Folks: No one gets paid ten billion dollars a year.
That should show you just how wildly out of kilter this whole "venture" is.
What was once a simple grab for Afghanistan's natural resources has now become a self-perpetuating money machine.
Trump is a fraud.
He's gone from, Oh, This must end! to, Oh, I'm going to make HOW MUCH??
Thanks for nothing US Military.
Thanks for nothing Trump.
Thanks for nothing US voters.
We are a Banana Republic - minus all the bananas.
They got slipped into someone's wallet and we have dismantled the office to find them.
Now, that's curious and needs to be looked into.
Was that because Eric Prince was supposed to become a Tzar, a Shah or whatever, some royalty name, the entire military become "privatized" and Betsy's little bro get paid $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars) a YEAR?!?
Folks: No one gets paid ten billion dollars a year.
That should show you just how wildly out of kilter this whole "venture" is.
What was once a simple grab for Afghanistan's natural resources has now become a self-perpetuating money machine.
Trump is a fraud.
He's gone from, Oh, This must end! to, Oh, I'm going to make HOW MUCH??
Thanks for nothing US Military.
Thanks for nothing Trump.
Thanks for nothing US voters.
We are a Banana Republic - minus all the bananas.
They got slipped into someone's wallet and we have dismantled the office to find them.
10
Why isn't Eric Prince in jail? To give him any kind of credibility while obviously benefiting - hugely (as even Trump might say) is the very definition of asinine.
Sending four thousand or forty thousand more troops to fight those opposed to the western-style government is beyond pointless if the endemic corruption problem isn't going to be solved. Toward that end, sending over 4,000 judges, lawyers, auditors, and accountants to find and prosecute corrupt officials might be somewhat more useful.
2
I just wish he had listened to those urging him to stay in the Paris accord as well.
1
Even though Washington will not call it that, this is a coup.
Now that Bannon is gone, the generals are in charge.
Is it better or worse than Himself, we will find out soon enough with the North Korean crisis.
Meanwhile, the aging quagmire in Afghanistan is getting a facelift at taxpayers expenses, and the military-industrial complex is happy.
Now that Bannon is gone, the generals are in charge.
Is it better or worse than Himself, we will find out soon enough with the North Korean crisis.
Meanwhile, the aging quagmire in Afghanistan is getting a facelift at taxpayers expenses, and the military-industrial complex is happy.
3
Monumental waste of our treasure. We should declare victory and bring every single man and woman home, the equipment also. We have communities that, with one one hundredth of that money , would be thriving....
2
Trump is an idiot of the worst sort, everyone laving on the flattery gets whatever it is they are selling; China, Japan, Saudi have all expertly played Trump, this time it's the military complex wanting to spend money on toys; bankruptcies is a speciality of his and this time it's not his money; quoting Trump.
Sad.
Sad.
when you are a hammer, all problems look like nails.
What's not like in war when you're a general? Without war, generals are useless misfits in uniform. War is their "raison d'être".
That's why civilian oversight is needed, to strike a balance. But this president is clueless. The Generals probably dangled a shiny object in his face, a WIN probably, and that was all that was needed for this spectacular 180 degrees turnabout.
sad.
What's not like in war when you're a general? Without war, generals are useless misfits in uniform. War is their "raison d'être".
That's why civilian oversight is needed, to strike a balance. But this president is clueless. The Generals probably dangled a shiny object in his face, a WIN probably, and that was all that was needed for this spectacular 180 degrees turnabout.
sad.
The words of President and 5-star general Dwight Eisenhower: ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."
This was my fear as Trump surrounded himself with generals. We don't need a military coup to have the problems of one, Trump is the coup. Trump coming across as anti-war during his campaign was clearly a lie. His fixation with generals and appointments of them, and many statements he made about cleaning up ISIS, the immediate increase in civilian deaths due to US military activities, all signaled his war intentions to anyone who had ears to hear. Now we don't hear about getting out fast, we hear about endless war, as in Orwell's 1984. This is all about the military-industrial complex siphoning vast sums of taxpayer $$. Two kinds of people who should be kept away from the ultimate decisions about going to war or prolonging war: ex-corporation CEOs and generals. As it is, Trump and Tillerson make the perfect match for 3 generals running the show.
This was my fear as Trump surrounded himself with generals. We don't need a military coup to have the problems of one, Trump is the coup. Trump coming across as anti-war during his campaign was clearly a lie. His fixation with generals and appointments of them, and many statements he made about cleaning up ISIS, the immediate increase in civilian deaths due to US military activities, all signaled his war intentions to anyone who had ears to hear. Now we don't hear about getting out fast, we hear about endless war, as in Orwell's 1984. This is all about the military-industrial complex siphoning vast sums of taxpayer $$. Two kinds of people who should be kept away from the ultimate decisions about going to war or prolonging war: ex-corporation CEOs and generals. As it is, Trump and Tillerson make the perfect match for 3 generals running the show.
272
Anne, while I like your analogy to Orwell's "1984" endless war situation, which is certainly true today in this disguised global capitalist Empire trying to monopolize the world's wealth.
However, regarding the issue of a military coup vis-a-vis a Trump coup, 'generally' (no pun intended) the military more often stops coups than starts them in the U.S.
For example, Generals and Admirals like Marine Gen. Peter Pace, and Adm. William Fallon have helped hold back leaders in the executive, such as VP 'Dick' Cheney from starting wars with nuclear armed air-launched cruise missiles illegally loaded on B-52s destined to start a war throughout the Middle East.
We can only hope that one or more of the three Generals in this Trumpster Dumbster regime will prevent a nuclear holocaust from being started by the dual-party Vichy-political sector of this first in the world; 'effectively-disguised', 'truly-global', and crony 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE, which is only nominally HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.
However, regarding the issue of a military coup vis-a-vis a Trump coup, 'generally' (no pun intended) the military more often stops coups than starts them in the U.S.
For example, Generals and Admirals like Marine Gen. Peter Pace, and Adm. William Fallon have helped hold back leaders in the executive, such as VP 'Dick' Cheney from starting wars with nuclear armed air-launched cruise missiles illegally loaded on B-52s destined to start a war throughout the Middle East.
We can only hope that one or more of the three Generals in this Trumpster Dumbster regime will prevent a nuclear holocaust from being started by the dual-party Vichy-political sector of this first in the world; 'effectively-disguised', 'truly-global', and crony 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE, which is only nominally HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.
Thanks a lot, Alan. I recognize that, with a madman in office, there is a double side to having the generals there with him, one of them being beneficial. The case you mention with General Pace and Admiral Fallon, however, is very different from the current one. Those men, as far as I can tell from their Wikipedia biographies, performed their good influence on President Bush from within the military. Goodness knows generals are some of the most sober-minded, intelligent people we have at the top. Eisenhower did a decent job as President, and a general as Secretary of Defense like Mattis is logical enough. Every president must consult his generals; but 3 generals so close to the President, and in absence of a credible State Department, is too much military weight in positions of government power. Just as it is evil to go to war for profit (i.e. to plunder another country's minerals), it is also a big mistake to have people whose training and purpose in life has been the exercise of military power. The jist of Eisenhower's warning is that the power of the military should be confined to how to wage war, not whether to wage it. Eisenhower already understood that the military had become inseparable from the corporations (weapons manufacturers, oil & gas, security contractors, etc) that supplied it. He foresaw the potential for them to promote each other's growth in power to the point of endless war. This article shows it is no accident that Trump came out where he did.
GHW Bush presided over the last US military victory when he announced his objective - getting Saddam's troops out of Kuwait - and not going beyond it. The only way to win a war is to have a verifiable objective, like unconditional surrender by the Axis forces in WWII.
There is no entity to surrender in Afghanistan, so overt military action is doomed to failure. Bush II, Obama, and now Trump cannot be winners, and if you're in a fight and you don't win, then you are a loser.
Trump didn't have the nerve to tell Gen. Kelly that the son he lost in Afghanistan died for nothing, and that no amount of further sacrifice will justify the losses we have already sustained.
There is no entity to surrender in Afghanistan, so overt military action is doomed to failure. Bush II, Obama, and now Trump cannot be winners, and if you're in a fight and you don't win, then you are a loser.
Trump didn't have the nerve to tell Gen. Kelly that the son he lost in Afghanistan died for nothing, and that no amount of further sacrifice will justify the losses we have already sustained.
9
Trump proclaimed more than once that he would not lead us into anymore stupid wars.
Another promise broken. If he keeps on like this, he'll break all of his pie on the sky and other promises in just one year and that's more than any other president in history.
The GOP and Trump's adoring mob will applaud a 'surge'. It's just what we need--a real, genuine American blood transfusion into the most stupid of wars in addition to all of the blood donated in the last 16 plus years.
Juxtaposed to this column is another story about the Taliban taking another Afghan village. Yes, well, the local war lords are Taliban, bought and paid for by heroin, consumed by Americans, and by American money, bribes for 'cooperation', which translates into 'corruption' in Pashto.
Turn out the lights, the party's long since over. But, no, Trump wants a big, expensive war in his name, too.
Another promise broken. If he keeps on like this, he'll break all of his pie on the sky and other promises in just one year and that's more than any other president in history.
The GOP and Trump's adoring mob will applaud a 'surge'. It's just what we need--a real, genuine American blood transfusion into the most stupid of wars in addition to all of the blood donated in the last 16 plus years.
Juxtaposed to this column is another story about the Taliban taking another Afghan village. Yes, well, the local war lords are Taliban, bought and paid for by heroin, consumed by Americans, and by American money, bribes for 'cooperation', which translates into 'corruption' in Pashto.
Turn out the lights, the party's long since over. But, no, Trump wants a big, expensive war in his name, too.
15
Once again doing EXACTLY what he chastised Obama for. Our Hypocrite in Chief.
198
They are both hypocrites.
The Military Industrial Complex wins again, no matter the president or party boots on foreign soil with billions to spend and copious bloodshed of the impertinent natives is the new normal.
17
I am old enough to recall President Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17th, 1961...famous for the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex".
It is the stuff of prophecy.
Please, people...(re)read it!
It is the stuff of prophecy.
Please, people...(re)read it!
41
Too many accolades.
Eisenhower was President for 8 years.
What did he do about it other than mention it on his way out.
Eisenhower was President for 8 years.
What did he do about it other than mention it on his way out.
One thing he did was avoid a single combat death during his eight years.
1
We need a new president and we need new generals.
6
NYT " Angry Trump Grilled His Generals About Troop Increase, Then Gave In"
For the first time in modern history, the military is well entrenched at the White House. Generals are now playing an important role in the decision-making process of foreign policy.
Trump has delegated the responsibility of prosecuting the war in hot zones i.e., Middle East, Afghanistan and North Korea to his generals.
People afraid of Trump's hot-headed actions feel relatively safe with the military babby-sitting the president.
The major drawback is: generals become famous/promoted by making war and not making peace.
For the first time in modern history, the military is well entrenched at the White House. Generals are now playing an important role in the decision-making process of foreign policy.
Trump has delegated the responsibility of prosecuting the war in hot zones i.e., Middle East, Afghanistan and North Korea to his generals.
People afraid of Trump's hot-headed actions feel relatively safe with the military babby-sitting the president.
The major drawback is: generals become famous/promoted by making war and not making peace.
5
The US "fights" for natural resources. Oil, for example. In Afghan, it is opium and processed heroin, a $200 Billion per year cash enterprise, washed through London and New York. From where does one believe the "narcotics" epidemic originates? The military and president merely take orders. Their creed otherwise: what the American public doesn't know, is what makes it the American public.
3
Addendum: from 2008, until 2016, under the Obama Administration, Afghan opium production increased over 400% or 5 times, and continues to increase. By some estimates, it has increased 20X over same period. Any basic search will populate numerous data sources. NYT also provided a report on its peerless mineral deposits vital to industrial and military competition: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=...
1
This is no surprise that the generals are running the show. Trump has done a 180 on all that he campaigned on. He knew more that all the generals as a candidate, but apparently forgot all he knew when elected president. Not that he knew much of anything to start with.
31
I think that we have seen this scenario before.
Invade
Get into a quagmire
Point fingers
Escalate
De-escalate
Declare victory and leave
And in the end, the insurgents come back
Invade
Get into a quagmire
Point fingers
Escalate
De-escalate
Declare victory and leave
And in the end, the insurgents come back
73
At long last a balanced and well reasoned and reported story on the presidency from Maggie Haberman. Of particular interest is General McMaster who wrote a book on the dangers of an insulated and overconfident military running government policy. He called his book "Dereliction of Duty", a title that looms large over his current responsibilities. He may become a tragic figure.
2