What trump says and what he does are often two very different things. As with everything he does or says these days, this is likely all just a show to score re-election points.
Besides, I have zero confidence that this administration could execute a military withdrawal that doesn't ultimately make things even worse and more dangerous for Americans, both home and abroad. But what does trump care? He's been quoted as saying "I won't be around when the bills come due" .... meaning he couldn't care less about the potential long term negative consequences of his actions. The deficit was the context in which he said this, but it can also apply to his foreign policy. As long as the short-term results benefit trump, it's all he cares about. It's the trump/Republican motto.
4
Russian did it in the early days. Their voluntary withdraw from Afghanistan should serve us a warning. Why not let the country rotten to the core. It will not hurt us. We are not responsible for their failure nor success.
In the age of big budget deficit, we can use the military budgets to do a lot of more useful things in domestic projects such as rebuild infrastructures, improve healthcare, and invest more in science research & development. We need to think clearly what is important and what is our priorities, thus we won't fall behind too far in 5G, quantum computing, and AI.
1
I’ve worked with the CIA several times during my career. First, with the operational side re Laos during the Vietnam war; later, several times with CIA analysts. My experience was that they were absolutely first-rate – particularly the analytical side of the Agency. From my perspective, analysts typically told truth to power (unlike George Tenent who helped the Bush administration lie us into our Iraq fiasco).
Using the CIA as a paramilitary force in Afghanistan imperils the CIA and our country. By definition, CIA operations lack accountability; this inevitably corrupts the CIA and will further tarnish America’s reputation. Worse, the CIA’s fundamental mission becomes perverted. Short-term “kinetic” operations inevitably compromise the primary CIA mission - collecting and analyzing information – then crafting intelligence assessments for decision-makers at the highest levels.
More than ever with our moronic president, we need a CIA that provides distanced, robust intelligence for the existential decisions that face our country.
9
This thoughtful and clear observation reveals an important truth: one should not send an organization on a mission it is not trained to undertake. Thank you for clearing away the clutter so we can see the path forward.
4
@USAF-RetProf Thank you for sharing this, and thank you for your service to this country.
3
This is all face saving, it will not effect the final outcome. The decision has been made that we will leave. Let's try to avoid the debacle of the Vietnam exit when we were pushing aircraft off the decks of carriers to make room for others as we ran.
In the end it will make no difference, the government in Afghanistan will collapse as soon as we leave. Line things up and let's get out. This was a bad idea from the get go. Do not kill any more of our people for nothing, get out, get out now.
1
This all sounds way too much like the Phoenix program in Vietnam. Or supporting the death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Or Rios Mott in Guatemala. Or on and on. It never brings any advantages to America and mostly makes people around the world hate us. So sure, keep it going. This sort of deadly action has become a great American tradition.
6
Ironically, the US campaign targeting Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, named Operation Enduring Freedom, or OED, was one main reason for the failure of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. Offloading the same task to CIA directed Afghan special forces just promises more bad news.
OED was small groups of US special forces roaming the country to find and kill or capture known or suspected "terrorists". Their small-unit size meant they frequently called on air and artillery strikes if someone fired back at them as they sneaked up on a village, which resulted in great loss of civilian life and destruction of homes, crops and livelihoods in Afghanistan's poorest regions.
NATO's task was to enforce the peace and support the Western-backed government. This entailed an intensive "hearts-and-minds" campaign by NATO members' troops to elicit cooperation among suspicious countryfolk, while "protecting" them from Taliban infiltration and takeover.
NATO commanders became embittered and enraged when the US OED units -- which were not part of ISAF -- would attack villages at night that ISAF had worked to reassure and pacify during the day -- often just on suspicion or fingering of a village elder by an Afghan rival.
The futility of their mission and the unconscionable civilian casualties soured NATO member voters and forced their countries' withdrawal. The irony is that it's that same counterproductive hunter-killer force that will be the "enduring" Western factor.
4
We must face the fact - we lost the war in Afghanistan just as the Soviets did. Even the British with a great colonial tradition of nation building also lost their war in Afghanistan.
The reason these nations (including the US) lost wars in Afghanistan is geographic. It has one of the worst geographies for war fighting. It is mountainous and the local people live in isolated mountainous villages.
We should have left Afghanistan after we wiped out the Taliban in the initial fighting in cooperation with the Northern Alliance. We should have declared victory then and gone home.
I have never understood why so many American leaders and diplomats think we can do Nation Building as we did in Europe after WWII. We forget that we would never have won WWII if it were not for Soviet Offensive in the East which effectively destroyed the German Army. We never faced the well-equipped and battle ready Wehrmacht that the Soviets faced. There was no battle of Stalingrad or Leningrad for the US army to fight. We defeated Japan only because we used the Atom bomb.
We were able to rebuild Western Europe because we were dealing with a civilization and culture like our own. In Afghanistan and Vietnam we found civilizations that are not based on Western culture and thus we could not duplicate our European success. Europe.
It is time to leave and if we need to in the future we can always bomb the country back to the Stone Age.
5
"American intelligence agencies do not believe the Islamic State’s presence in Afghanistan justifies a vast increase in resources given limited budgets."
That is good to know.
Then it also does not justify an expensive war and lots of American troops.
Our own intelligence agencies don't want to be bothered, so get out.
4
@Mark Thomason
Sometimes the truth is actually simple and obvious.
4
80% of the population still uses wood fired cook stoves. We built power plants here and Iraq that still do not produce electricity.
I read this NYT article to find out whether the U.S. government is ready to renounce terrorism, and also ending giving aid and comfort to terrorist organizations. Reading between the lines, the answer is -- no.
7
Whatever one's criticisms might be of American involvement in Afghanistan, we've supported moving on from the local traditions of female enslavement, illiteracy, child abuse, and authoritarian rule. Those, among other things, are what the Taliban are fighting to defend. If we were truly so terrible, the Afghans wouldn't be climbing all over themselves to move here. The problem is that they are too feckless and ungrateful to even consider trying to establish there what they want to experience here.
We need to change course to help them in a different way - to help them live with each other. Make it clear that if they can't support decent governance and defeat the Taliban (and ISIS), our policy will change to let them do what they want.... they just do it in their country. No more immigration whatsoever. They get to enjoy each others' company in their Islamic wonderland, and can venerate their medieval warlord (and their modern-day warlords) in "peace".
The trouble in Afghanistan is that it's full of Afghans.
2
I see. The Trump Pompeo White House will dishonestly claim that it is withdrawing from Afghanistan but secretly expand the CIA's presence there where the expanded CIA force will support shadowy, brutal militias.
7
Examine the CIA’s history from the 1950’s to today. Read the Church report from the 70’s. Read about the torture sessions in the 2000’s. As an old man, I am convinced that the CIA cannot co-exist with our Constitution and morals. It is a fantasy to think they will have a positive role in Afghanistan. People would rather believe a lie than face the truth.
4
Let me re-word the article: "Legitimate skepticism that secret, shadowy government terrorist militias can serve as a bulwark against the other side's terrorists".
4
@Shirley
BAM— you nailed it.
1
The CIA " role " will be to absorb blame, so that Trump can claim "Victory " during his re-election Campaign. " Only Trump could end the War ".
Sure, Stable Genius. Whatever you say.
3
I don't know why we are so worried about terrorist threats once we leave Afghanistan when we have hundreds mass shootings in American every year killing thousands. As of September 1, which was the 244th day of the year, there have been 283 mass shootings in 2019.
The terrorists are here at home.
4
I am very glad that tRump became POTUS because he is the true face of America/Americans and the west/westerners. I just wish Boris the tRump-lite clown had succeeded David CaMoron as Tory leader and UK PM after the EU referendum vote instead of Theresa May and I wish the far-right had come to power in Europe. Anyway, no big deal, things are going fine at the moment.
Contrary to common misconception, Pakistan has no ties with the Taliban. The Taliban hates Pakistan for allowing NATO to use it as a supply route for NATO's occupation of Afghanistan (that is why the TTP was created in 2006), and the Taliban will have their revenge by conquering Pakistan and by bringing all the murtad traitors within it to justice.
1
The CIA is one of the most sinister, dangerous, and secretive covert arms of the American hegemony project, and it works domestically, not just overseas.
One of my naive college buddies went for an interview at Langley. The first question he was asked is: "If you were told to assassinate a foreign national on foreign soil, for purely political reasons, what would you do."
When my buddy started explaining that he'd ask questions and attempt to ascertain if the killing would be legal and ethical, the CIA interviewer abruptly told him the interview was over. He was quickly escorted out of the building.
The CIA is a criminal organization.
3
@Steve Davies
True that. And on our dime.
3
These militias are local police and they are called arbakis, and they get slaughtered by the Taliban. The ANA is just a mantlepiece decoration that is rarely used by the Kabul admin. The so-called ASF/Commandoes are also a mantlepiece decoration that are rarely used against the Taliban and they are only used to kill, wound, loot and abduct Afghan civilians in raids with US troops/"special-forces".
Once again the ignorance and incompetence of Trump's White House staff undermines the experience and expertise of career professionals in national security decision making. Trump and his advisors are a threat to our national security.
Insecure people trust loyal sycophants over experts. Trump is the most dangerous kind of personality to be in the White House. I pray every day that our country gets through the remaining days of the Trump era without existential threats. Can you imagine Trump in charge on 9/11?
1
It's about prioritizing the external threats to the US.
According to our President, the greatest threat to the US comes from persons trying to enter our country at the southern border.
Then redeploy the CIA and similar agencies to Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to stabilize those countries such that their citizens no longer deem it necessary to flee and seek residency in the US.
If we're going to fight terrorism, we should begin at home. And it's not the muslims who should be at the top of the list.
3
Jimmy Carter created Al Qaeda in 1979 with the CIA. It's now 40 years later. What exactly is America getting out of this, other than protecting the opium trade?
3
@lf
So you never heard of Lockheed, Raytheon, GE, Boeing, etc.?
1
The civilians don’t want the CIA there. The American people don’t want the CIA there. Even the CIA doesn’t want the CIA there. Why does the Trump administration always have to contemplate the worst decisions?
4
What a great great way for Trump to control the intelligence agents... say what we tell you to or you are off to the Eastern Front.
1
"proposed secretly expanding the C.I.A.’s presence in Afghanistan"
Not much of a secret now, is it?
stupid is, as stupid does...
6
People all over the world despise the CIA operations. Those who live in other countries know of civilians arrested, jailed, and tortured by the CIA. Beyond that, this all smells of Eric Prince who once said that he would like the rule Afghanistan as the British once ruled India. Now's his chance for power and fabulous wealth.
3
All this will do is shield the US actions from view. We will have no idea what they are doing and far less control over them. I do not like military action, but is it preferable to the CIA as a hidden "military" force.
54
Another Viet Nam...an endless war we pay for. Ike's military-industrial complex loves a war like this.
Soldiers die. The militancy of poverty continues. Leaders get rich siphoning cash from military contracts.
Some of that money could have been used for an Afghan Marshall Plan that would have delivered critical services to the rural population and uplifted the lives of the poor who have felt no other option to their plight than that of fighting for some kind of a better future. I understand that the Afghans got a nice road out of their years of struggle.
The rest of the waste of funds could have been spent in the USA to fix our failing infrastructure, significantly improve educational programs and educate our workforce for the new economy.
Rather, we have trillions more of debt from a tax cut for the very wealthy, the cost of a healthcare system that is out of control, real estate money grabs that push people out of their neighborhoods, and a tariff debacle that should never have been started by this inept and corrupt administration.
What's left of the middle working classes bears the brunt of the costs for this utter failure of leadership.
I'm not sure how I'll vote in 2020. One thing is clear from Ms. Warren. We must ask ourselves, who do we want the government to work for? I want the government to work for people for the next 300 years, not an oligarchy as the GOP has promoted with its "trickledown" mantra. The evidence of its failure is all around us.
75
@Leslie Duval
I, too like Warren, but I deeply believe that only Sanders has the knowledge to see US foreign policy clearly, and to stand with courage and vision against the forces that want to continually use CIA/military force all over the world.
Sanders also intends to cut the military budget.
Now, if elected will he be allowed to do so?
Sanders, like Warren, intends to make the government work for the ordinary people, whose interest he has worked hard to promote for forty years.
4
@Leslie Duval "I want the government to work for people for the next 300 years, not an oligarch." Then it should be clear that you will not support Trump.
8
@Leslie Duval I don't know how you could possibly have doubts about how you will vote in 2020. Trump cannot be the choice, no matter who the Democrats nominate. This is no time for purity tests. That's how we got Trump last time.
3
A headless America that refuses to nation build at home forges ahead abroad as it's slowly and surely swallowed in the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan.
Cut your losses and get out.
Unfortunately, America has a bankruptcy expert running it into the ground.
Don't expect too much wisdom.
116
@Socrates
Like GWBush and Obama, Trump campaigned on bringing our troops home?
The REAL QUESTION is who/what keeps them from being able to "bring the troops home".
6
@Lucy Cooke
Just an FYI;
Troops in the Muddled Waste 2009 = 375,000
Troops in the Muddled Waste 2016 = 37,500
Thanks Obama
10
@Blank
Be careful: if you present actual facts, eyes glaze over and you lose the ideologically blind....
3
Let's refer to things with their proper names. The CIA is over seeing Death Squads. To suggest otherwise is a clear case of Orwellian Double-Speak.
3
More money down the drain,was this plan created by Eric Prince.
7
Starting at 2017, with Pompeo at its head, CIA essentially returned to its old tricks. Although in 2018 Pompeo moved to the State Department to act as the Secretary of State, he has remained the CIA chief for all practical purposes, while Gina Haspel - who has the Chief title - carrying out her previous duties as his deputy.
The article suggests that the CIA is now engaged in building an essentially independent militia force for Afghanistan, following Israel's model in forming militia forces in Lebanon. Based on that model, one can expect, soon after signing a "peace treaty" with Taliban, CIA campaign of sabotage, political executions, and running assassination squads to start.
No doubt the critics will point to this as another example of the US foreign policy in the region, decided in Jerusalem. Clearly, the Phalange militia were Israel's loyal ally, to the extent that they carried out the massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. But one can question if they actually served the interest of Lebanese people. For those who have forgotten:
"The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the slaughter of between 762 and 3,500 Palestinians, by a Lebanese militia in two refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am 16-18 Sept. 1982. The Phalangist militia, were led by intelligence chief Elie Hobeika. Many of the victims were tortured before they were killed. Women were raped and some victims were skinned alive. Others had limbs chopped off with axes."
3
If the US is so worried about terrorism why not ban assault type weapons?
You have to bomb Muslim neighbourhoods to provoke terrorism from Islamics whereas if you just lay off a white guy he kills seven people.
It’s not about preventing terrorism as much as it’s about saving face after the worst debacle in military history.
4
Let's get the heck out of there, and betterdefend our boundaries instead.
2
Remove the military, and leave the CIA with their death squads/militias? Do we think the Taliban negotiators are stupid?
3
Afghanistan has been an ongoing sink for US resources, including our military, intelligence, and nation building efforts. But it’s hard to see the long term payback. Whatever gains in civil society, education, and women’s rights we and our allies have achieved will probably evaporate within a year or two of our exit.
We have an interest in regional stability and the quaint concept of human rights. But the Afghan people are facing warlords, drug cartels, various strains of religious extremism, and an ineffective national government. That’s not to mention the meddling of Pakistan, India, Russia, and China. None of those folks want us there, but we probably haven’t endeared ourselves to the locals, either.
We’ve seen the limits of our influence and have made virtually no progress towards a self sustaining liberal democratic society. That makes leaving inevitable. The main question in my mind is how best to influence the various bad actors in the region in the aftermath. We can emphasize our interests in our bilateral relations with the neighbors. To the extent it’s important to us, we can exert our influence diplomatically but also via overt and covert spending among the locals.
On the other hand, I have zero confidence the Trump administration can negotiate anything worthwhile. They’ll just do what they do, and the next Democratic administration will add another cleanup to the litany of foreign policy disasters they’ve left behind.
5
The U.S. needs to pull out of Afghanistan. Living off of 18 years post 9/11 fears is draining the DOD budget, not to mention taking unnecessary lives. If former officials like Mr. Jones report that increasing CIA officials, while pulling out troops would be ill advised, why question this plan? The U.S. no longer has business within Afghanistan. If the terrorist groups and insurgent cells handle disputes by playing judge, jury , and executioner, then that is a system we must respect.
3
The U.S. needs to pull out of Afghanistan. Living off of 18 years post 9/11 fears is draining the DOD budget, not to mention taking unnecessary lives. If former officials like Mr. Jones report that increasing CIA officials, while pulling out troops would be ill advised, why question this plan? The U.S. no longer has business within Afghanistan. If the terrorist groups and insurgent cells handle disputes by playing judge, jury , and executioner, then that is a system we must respect.
1
I watched the 2009 inauguration last night on YouTube to remember that feeling of joy and relief
2
One of the biggest problems with the trump administration is that they are completely untrustworthy when it comes to making good, well-informed decisions. Even if he has what seems like a good idea, it's immediately suspect due to his gross lack of knowledge.
When you vote next year, think of how different things would be had Al Gore been president. Votes that went to Nader in Florida indirectly led to the Iraq quagmire and an immoral, extremely costly delay in confronting climate change. Even if you don't like the Dem nominee, consider the dire consequences of your vote - we could end up in another 20-year quagmire that goes nowhere.
1
18 years in Afghanistan, 18 Generals, how much treasure and lives lost/broken on all sides? Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran. Military and political support for dictators in Egypt, Saudi’s Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain. Since WWII, there hasn’t been a dictator that the CIA didn’t support. Why are we always on the wrong side? In two words money and empire.
4
The U.S. needs to pull out of Afghanistan. Living off of 18 years post 9/11 fears is draining the DOD budget, not to mention taking unnecessary lives. If former officials like Mr. Jones report that increasing CIA officials, while pulling out troops would be ill advised, why question this plan? The U.S. no longer has business within Afghanistan. If the terrorist groups and insurgent cells handle disputes by playing judge, jury , and executioner, then that is a system we must respect.
let's just declare victory and withdraw completely. we've wasted enough blood and treasure.
1
It was bad enough being in this war when we had an intelligent, consistent, reasonable president. But now we have a flip-flopper who doesn't bother with briefings much of the time. Much as I would like to see our military out of other countries, especially Afghanistan, I don't see how we can leave under the current conditions with the current administration in charge.
1
We have no business in Afghanistan, we need to leave now, it is only the special interest groups who are making money that want us to stay
4
The only reason why Obama stayed in Afghanistan was to get reelected. Trump is more of a patriot than that.
2
here's a radical proposal: how about no role?
1
Afghanistan has been a tragic boondoggle since the Afghan-Russia war. The US has been flailing around supporting brutal local forces. The US is seen as an occupying force by the vast majority of the Afghan people. The Taliban has won the war. But the US can continue to keep the hostilities alive.
2
“Senior White House advisers have proposed secretly expanding the C.I.A.’s presence in Afghanistan”
Well, there goes the element of secrecy....
2
It would be really great if the United States had a competent administration to face the many profound legacy challenges it faces.
1
More Peace with Honor with the Afghani population the chosen sacrificial lamb. No forethought in 2001 and none since. It seems the CIA is always involved. It is to me always disquieting to see American forces with WWII era German-style helmets.
Any chance this is the result of lobbying efforts, finally paying off, of one Erik Prince (Mr. Blackwater/EP Aviation LLC), who is pressing hard to privatize the war in Afghanistan?
The political pitch is perfect: "You, Mr. President, can claim that you ended the war, just in time for the next election, and I allow you to continue to drain the US Treasury, as is your master plan."
3
Can we get some people in there who have an inkling of what to do, and how to respond. In case they’ve been too busy, this country is a thriving Petri dish of its own, an incubator egged on by our dear leader. Maybe we get some people that are able to think clearly as a prerequisite. I’m tired of only the best sinking the ship.
We want our $3 Trillion back.
2
@John so many ignorant Americans supported the Bush wars There are still some who believe Iraq flew planes into the buildings on 9-11.
Knowing how the Trump administration works, I doubt it will allow vulnerable Afghans, particularly those who worked closely with us in non-military positions, to immigrate to the US for their safety. They’ll be discarded just like the undocumented workers at Trump’s golf clubs.
Get out period. Time is up. The Taliban will fight ISIS for us. The Taliban are Afghanistan centric and will not be a terrorist organization we should fear.
2
Let's be up front about this: there is no one in this WH who is competent enough to formulate policy for Afghanistan or anything else. Use your imagination to see a group of incompetents, minus military officers, sitting around a table without a clue as to what they are talking about.
trusting kalilizad ("the most hated man in kabul") is dubious. guess they could not find another person who speaks dari.
After so many wars they cannot tame the beast.
It's the Taliban. Ask Malala. This administration is clueless. The current occupant of the white House knows nothing of Afghanistan and it's long history of rebuffing foreign engagements.
The competition is tough, but I think this wins it: The notion that Aghanis will think we should withdraw soldiers but it's OK to leave CIA types.
The Afghanis don't (and shouldn't) distinguish between soldiers and CIA types. They want ALL Americans gone. So do I.
What does it take for our government to comprehend the word “leave?”
1
@Fred
CIA & Trump
As the arm chair Generals debate out costs and goals lets remember what the Taliban will do once we surrender and leave.It will be a blood bath.Women,children,old,it does not matter.The Taliban will slaughter them.
All of our troops will have served,and died for a surrender?This just makes me sick.Surrendering to the Taliban will be something that is remembered forever.And not fondly.
"Senior White House advisers."
Who might they be; Jared, Ivanka, Steven Miller?
2
So, this is a "secret" plan..... got it. (don't tell anyone!)
1
Question: Can the United States kill enough people in Afghanistan so that we feel safe?
About a dozen fanatics who took orders from a CIA trained and Saudi backed leader who lived in a cave almost completely unraveled the most powerful country on earth. for 2 decades we lived in existential fear and waged endless war.
Maybe its time to rethink how to create feelings of safety and security in society?
38
“Senior military leaders are divided. Some believe the peace talks are worth trying, but many remain worried that a troop drawdown that moves too quickly will lead to a collapse of the country.”
This is practically the same argument as presented b6 anonymous Pentagon functionaries and stenographically passed on to Times readers by Eric Schmitt on January 27, 2014.
So, no, five years and four months further down the road, we are no closer, nor no further, from making Afghanistan more palatable to our putative interests. So the only reasonable outcome is complete withdrawal.
12
@Paul
"So the only reasonable outcome is complete withdrawal."
Yep. If we can "save face" (whatever that means), so be it. But whether we can save face or not, full withdrawal is the solution. Not necessarily tomorrow -- the following morning will be OK.
The enemy of the people and a national security threat is our very own president: trump.
“We are reducing that presence very substantially and we’re going to always have a presence and we’re going to have high intelligence”... Mr. Trump said that the troop level in the country would be reduced to 8,600, down from roughly 14,000."
For a man whose campaign derided Obama for 'telling the enemy what we are gong to do' trump never tires of explaining his secret intelligence community's plans with great bravado.
In May 2017, trump revealed our secret intelligence source to the Russians, trump revealed that our CIA was hacked; trump held a security meeting at Mar-a-Lago in a public setting; trump announced Pelosi's and Kushner's trips overseas prior to their departures; trump tweeted a photograph of Iran's launch site revealing our satellite capability; and now revealing 'secret plans' for moving forward.
You can tell trump's embarrassed by his braggart errors. He barks defensively with: "which I have the absolute right to do!"
19
Once again Trump will listen to loyal, bumbling sycophants rather than experienced and expert specialists.
13
You can't realy fault the Taliban (I can't believe I'm writing this!) for equating the CIA-led militias with the formal US military. Whatever the outcome of these negotiations is though, it will mean that your near-20 year war comes to an end and that you haven't got much to show for it...
9
I don't think any country has ever truly beat Afghanistan on their own turf, and it looks like we aren't going to have to change the history books, we aren't going to beat them also.
8
@BorisRoberts It is there turf...what exactly does "beating them" even mean?
More covert ops, more US aggression, more mass murder, more trauma to the world. This is Trump's America. This is what he stands for.
7
By jove, I believe I've got it: pull them all out! No mas!
4
The world is in awe of the might and cleverness of the American empire.
Ho Chi Minh brought the US to its knees. The Iraqui Sunni insurgency saw the death of 5,500 and 35,000 wounded, many severely.
And now there is to be a surrender to the Taliban after only 18 years of war and the US puppet government, like the South Vietnamese, will be abandoned.
The empire fades and China rises.
17
Sounds like the Erik Prince 2.0 plan. There's a reason General Mattis resigned, and a good part was because of this desire by the Trump people to privatize our military with mercenaries. That Erik Prince was in up to his neck on this Russia stuff only makes it worse.
29
The C.I.A. are American actors and so are the militia groups. The militias and special fighters are not acting for the Afghan state and without the Americans become unaffiliated groups likely to become independent actors in the country. In effect, we have created a violent faction to add to the anarchy.
9
Afghanistan is nothing more than a geographical depiction on a map. To call it a country is laughable. It is composed of tribes lead by warlords whose only concern is maintaining control over their own little fiefdom. For 18 years the US has been their biggest benefactor. Before us it was the Russians. Then Bill Casey's CIA introduced stinger missiles and logistical support to militias so they could "kill Russians". After enough Russians were sent home in body bags they left, as did we. Then Osama bin Laden moved in with lots of money and support from extremist Saudi princes made fabulously wealthy from their near monopoly on oil production. Meanwhile Pakistan was behind the scenes partnering with Bin Laden's jihadis to facilitate instability in a "country" it considers its own and foment terrorism in Kashmir. After 9/11 the US stupidly used Pakistan as a conduit to dole out funding and logistical support to various warlords to kill or capture bin Laden. Of course they never did. Pakistani duplicity in protecting bin Laden is now of record.
Now that president Trump has called out Pakistan for what it is and cut off aid and India has finally decided to retaliate against it for years of terrorism in Kashmir perhaps the dynamic has changed. The Taliban have never trusted any outsiders or accepted their blood money. Perhaps we are finally negotiating with the only semblance of a government Afghanistan has ever known. Keep the CIA out of it.
9
@tim k
Very Good comments, sir.
However, Carlotta Gall, in 2014 book 'The Wrong Enemy'
, makes the case that the Pakistani ISI and military 'ran' the Taliban in Afghanistan, determined to prevent a secular government installed by the West.
They have moderated a bit since they encountered some domestic terrorism. Ms Gall also describes how the Pakistan state manipulates the media, and rules over the journalists, oft with brutal means.
Even if Imran Khan is well-intentioned, it is unknown how much leash he has....
6
@Tom Mcinerney
Miss Gall is a journalist for hire. She thinks what her forefathers were doing on the frontier of their Empire, the Pakis are repeating on the same foreign imperlist drawn line.
Actually, this article discloses the type of show the CIA and American Foreign Policy are running.
It was on account of Gall-made stories that she received marching orders from Pakistan. Now how brutal was that?
We are all watching to see how much leash (or lashes) Imran gets from America. America likes poodles.
As Russia learned before us - Afghanistan was "their Vietnam" - nothing good can come from continuing our presence there. Withdraw, maintain undercover observers and let them kill each other until they figure out that's not the road to internal peace and national survival. Too often, wisdom is earned the hard way, but this could be one such time it must be.
4
When it comes to foreign and domestic issues, will the US ever get it right? Doubtful. Repeated CIA blunders or repeated mass shootings, Gore Vidal said it best, this is the United States of Amnesia.
10
@ET
Amnesia is an affliction. Denial is not an affliction! It takes America 200 years of denials, before it offers a limp apology.
Afghanistan is not a winnable country, If we look at history we will see that. The British in their heyday sent 20,000 odd soldiers to fight the Afghans into submission. Six men returned! The rest were slaughtered. Russia retreated after occupying them. What are we thinking we can do?The West has never understood this area as we have never successfully won in our Asian encounters. Western minds fail to understand other cultures and we cannot accept that.
9
CIA or whomever, Afghanistan has defied control for centuries. It will have to come from the inside, that's always been the case, whatever they determine themselves to be. It is tragic for those who have tasted the potential of freedom etc. It is tragic that so many have died - over hundreds of years. IMHO the Taliban are secretly amused/bemused by these current talks...would you trust them?
3
The Taliban were ‘not born yesterday’. If they know [as they certainly do] that the US is leaving surrogates, they will not agree to ‘end’ to this quagmire. Get out clean. Let the Afghans figure out their way of life. The ‘rest’/‘west’ cannot enforce anything on them.
4
@Tamza
There are significant foreign forces (aside from U.S) in
Afghanistan. Among them:
-Pakistan
-Iran
-Opium dealers
So let’s see, our military has been in Afghanistan for about 40 years, give or take.
Tens of thousands of people have been killed there, including thousands of Americans. American taxpayers have forked over what, a few trillion dollars?
All this at the direction of a few hundred men who surely knew next to nothing about Afghanistan except that war there would secure their careers in Washington and later in the defense industry.
And of course the press helped, disseminating mostly just the preposterous official story fabricated by those who profited (still do) from war there.
American generals, politicians, spooks, arms dealers, and opium barons love the conflict.
The American people may not like it – not even the few who can find Afghanistan on a map. The dirt-poor Afghans who die and are maimed there may not like it either.
But the few hundred (maybe a few thousand by now) careerists and investors whose vast fortunes depend on never-ending slaughter there DO like it.
And because they have the most money, they’re in charge of American policy there.
It's just good business, right?
33
@Bill Banks
Thank you for writing the clear yet succinct summary of the situation
5
@Bill Banks With very rare exception war and religion have been business. Forever. Afghanistan is no different. Army personnel [GIs] paid ~$20-30k/ year while mercenary troops are at $100-200k + expenses. Each missile is ‘a few million’ dollars. Logistics of getting in and out is a ‘few hundred’ billion dollars.
Yes. Stay there so the few [US and Afghan] benefit hugely [bigly].
1
Pretty much sums up the US as it relates to the world.
If you have access to the Doonesbury website go look at the 10 year flashbacks. It's the best summary of the situation in Afghanistan I have seen. The old hand operative tells the green kid that the Taliban are nationalists fighting to overthrow a kleptocracy that we are supporting, just like in Vietnam. It's sad when the funny paper has a better grasp on the real world than the people running our government.
30
@rawebb1
Yes, but... kleptocracy is normal, esp in third world. Our
policymakers need account for, and incentivize against that.
Sarah Chayes new book, "Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security,"
Hardcover: 272 pages Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (January 19, 2015)
The Looting Machine: Warlords, Oligarchs, Corporations, Smugglers, and the Theft of Africa's Wealth Tom Burgis Publisher: PublicAffairs; First Edition edition (March 24, 2015)
1
I think that the Taliban should send President Trump a "beautiful letter," just like Kim Jong Un does, thanking him for revealing the bottom-line U.S. negotiating position at the peace talks. Well done, Mr. President: yet another opportunity blown.
As for the Taliban's objection to the CIA remaining after U.S. troops have left, that in turn reveals their actual position. They have no real interest in peace unless it is entirely on their terms. That is because once they are again in charge in Kabul, they really won't care what we think, and will deal with international terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS as they see fit -- and it won't be long before those groups are planning attacks on the U.S. again.
We should stop fidgeting around and just face facts. We are stuck in a forever war, and there is no realistic alternative at present. Our choice for now is to stay and continue the fight against international terrorism in and around Afghanistan, or to cut and run, and eventually face those terrorists on our own streets, or in our own skies.
It's a bad choice either way, but we must be realists and work with the opportunities we have, not those we imagine.
2
@James So naive. We interfere in their ‘way of life’ and they retaliate. Get out. Stay out! They have damaged, possibly irretrievably, our ‘way of life’ [freedoms etc]. We have created a new crop of US-haters. The solution, at much lower cost, is a Marshall Plan -like economic support framework,
3
@James
For me this situation is something Cheney Bush and Rumsfeld have to answer for
@Tamza I don’t think it’s naive to be concerned that terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS will use Afghanistan as a base, unimpeded, as they did before 911. The Taliban has no incentive to stop these groups so long as they don’t threaten its power.
It's almost impossible to have any confidence that this administration knows what it's doing in Afghanistan. Lead by Trump, who has no knowledge or the country or our history there, from all reports CIA Director Haspel has to reduce intelligence briefings down to a few key points that she thinks Trump will understand. Apparently, Trump favors pictures and graphics over text, likely because he is not a good reader and doesn't comprehend what he reads. And reports are that Haspel has to be careful not to contradict Trump or question his opinions. What kind of leadership could he possibly give?
Then, you have to consider that our "best people" have left the agencies by now and we have a second string doing analysis of the issues. Plus, Trump has spent a lot of time criticizing and insulting the CIA and intelligence community, so how does that affect their work? And, finally is Trump really committed to a long-term solution in Afghanistan, or is he merely looking for a "win" to claim for his re-election? With this administration, you always have to look for whatever personal motivation may be driving Trump's actions.
18
@Ms. Pea
>It's almost impossible to have any confidence that this administration knows what it's doing in Afghanistan.
And the previous ones did?
>Trump has spent a lot of time criticizing and insulting the CIA and intelligence community, so how does that affect their work?
If their previous work was so good why have they failed so badly?
2
@Ms. Pea
It’s too bad we don’t have Obama with his vast knowledge of Afghanistan. Surely he could convince the Taliban to give up their demon ways.
Any for a traditional covert operation, balloon drops?
When he was DDO, Clare George told me 1) that when White Houses run out of ideas, they often ask the CIA to come up with a covert operation and 2) when, as was often the case, no covert operation could make a difference, CIA powers that be would suggest dropping leaflets from balloons, with messages tailored for the policy objective.
There is no way in Afghanistan to have our cake and eat it too. A CIA paramilitary presence is, in fact a military presence. Even if contractor and third country nationals make up most of the contingent, there will be new stars on the CIA Wall.
Inasmuch as we have long overstayed our welcome in Afghanistan, a forever force, which is what the CIA presence would become, wouldn't make much difference to the eventual balance of power between the government and the Taliban. But it would make President Trump responsible for prolonging our losses in the Afghan war.
If we really get out, I can foresee even the Taliban asking us for help against ISIS, ranging from intel sharing to stand off weaponry, such as targeted drone attacks.
5
Let's review some history.
The Brits waged a war in Afghanistan. How'd that work out for them?
The Soviets waged a war in Afghanistan. How'd that work out for them?
Why should we expect a different result if we continue to stay and fight what is already the longest war in U.S. history?
13
@MidtownATL Add Alexander [the one we call ‘the great’]. Afghanistan was where he had to turn back.
3
@Tamza
Excellent point about Alexander the Great.
The Afghans are fiercely independent people who live in the mountains and have demonstrated throughout history that they refuse to be conquered by the great military powers of their day.
1
The only reason the US military is still in Afghanistan is that it can't bear to walk away after so many US military casualties. We are fighting now because of the sunk costs. When you ask the Generals "how does this end?" they have no response. They just say we have to keep fighting because if we stop, the US homeland will be in danger. But the real truth is they just can't let go. How can they urge young soldiers to risk their lives in future wars if we walk off the field after so many dead and wounded in Afghanistan? The US military has no illusion that it can wear the Taliban down and eventually win, but they feel a debt of honor to those who died in Afghan service and can't walk away.
How many more Americans have to die protecting our sunk costs in Kabul? The billions we spend every year in Afghanistan could a long time ago have solved the situation in Central America that leads so many people to flee that region. Any good businessman knows when to cut their losses!
14
@Kite runner
There are much truth in your analysis. The strategy of turning new recruits into devote members through forcing them to make deep personal sacrifices for "the cause" (that is, creating sunk costs) is not totally new. Many organizations that engage in brain-washing have been busy using that for centuries.
The religious cults and political organization (e.g. the communists) for long have proven the effectiveness of that strategy. And now, surprise, surprise! The military, the biggest brain washing organization, is using that too, albeit in its own twisted way.
1
@Kite runner
You had me until you suggested we spend the money saved in Afghanistan to be used to solve the problems in Central America.
1
One of my relatives bombed it from the air and the other got bombed by it on the ground from a road-side attack. The one is a hero still living and raising a happy family and the other is a hero who died a slow and horrible death leaving behind a devastated wife. They both volunteered to go when most people stayed at home. In the end it will have been for what reason? To get access to rare metals? To transport oil faster and cheaper? Think about that the next time you buy gasoline. Think about that when you say you don’t want thoughts and prayers when people die.
7
@William Perrigo
People tried to tell Americans what this war was really about before it started No one listened
2
@William Perrigo
Neither of them are heroes.
There's nothing heroic about killing innocent people in a small foreign country that never attacked you.
1
The US' Afghanistan mission is completely lost and there's nothing left to to be achieved except to quit and allow the Afghans to decide their future in there own way.
5
Yes, it is time for the U.S. to leave, but this will not end well. Those Afghanis who have westernized would be well advised to leave if they can. The Taliban hasn't changed it's stripes. All we have done to support a more progressive society will likely be undone.
If we are leaving, I would like to see a "scorched earth" approach to destroy the poppy fields and to delay development of the vast mineral resources the country has. Let it fall on the Taliban to rebuild.
1
@Mark those Afghans who have ‘westernized’ can easily un-westernize’. Plenty of westernized people live un Iran Saudi Pakistan Malaysia etc.
I understand your sentiments. I assure you that 40 years of war have scorched Afghanistan’s earth well done. The Soviets and Taliban seeded the whole country with mines and cut down the orchards and bombed the dams. Every highway is lined with graves. Americans are dying from Mexican Heroin, US big Pharma Oxy and Chinese fentanyl and miltary weapons which enable any pencil-necked angry teenager to kill at will. We are scorching our own earth pretty good.
One positive outcome of this hideous administartion is that the tensions within and between competing institutions of terror which in one form or another have always bee there become more and more revealed. And more and more clearly defined.
3
@Robert Roth
One might note that even you don't claim the tensions within and between competing institutions of terror have not changed, only more revealed and defined? So what?
@Mark Shyres
Am not quite sure what the "So what?" means.
For me it brings into sharper focus what I already knew but not exactly. Not that these were terrible institutions (I knew that) but gave me more clarity how they function in relationship to each other. Knowing better the dynamics of what we are up against can only help in finding ways to resist it. At least for me.
1
The only rational and sane thing to do is to withdraw all American presence fro Afghanistan. It is a tribal country and has been in civil war with itself for centuries. The British lost in the 1800's, the Russians and now the Americans in this in the 1900s and now we Americans have lost in this century. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. The US is supposedly in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and the Osama Bin Laden networks but neither were or are based in Afghanistan. Just like Viet Nam, we are in the wrong, unwinnable war.
1
@Jeff
Since when has "rational and sane" things have anything to do with war? By the way, there are no "winnable" or "winners" in war. Only those who lose less..and most often by the slimmest margin.
This peace agreement is nothing more than a capitulation to the Taliban and a betrayal of the Afghan people. A withdrawal of U.S. military forces will almost certainly lead to a cut off of U.S. financial support for the Afghan National Security Defense Forces (ANSDF) as Congress will follow the isolationist sentiment of the American people. The ANSDF can not recover from these double blows and the Afghan Government will likely fall, a repeat of what happened to South Vietnam in 1975, with the big difference being that a return to power of the Taliban will spur Haqqani Network attempts to stage a 9/11 level attack on U.S. soil.
A Taliban takeover will not only lead to vicious and bloody repression in order to cow an urban population (especially women) who are strongly opposed to the Taliban agenda, it will also lead to Taliban compliance with Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) demands to hunt down and execute NDS officers, the CIA's partners in counter terrorism operations.
1
@Allan Langland Nothing like this. The ‘betrayal of the Afghan people’ you lament is only to the small group of ‘traitors’. Help them migrate, as Vietnam. Problem solved at much lower cost.
This peace agreement is nothing more than a capitulation to the Taliban and a betrayal of the Afghan people. A withdrawal of U.S. military forces will almost certainly lead to a cut off of U.S. financial support for the Afghan National Security Defense Forces (ANSDF) as Congress will follow the isolationist sentiment of the American people. The ANSDF can not recover from these double blows and the Afghan Government will likely fall, a repeat of what happened to South Vietnam in 1975, with the big difference being that a return to power of the Taliban will spur Haqqani Network attempts to stage a 9/11 level attack on U.S. soil.
A Taliban takeover will not only lead to vicious and bloody repression in order to cow an urban population (especially women) who are strongly opposed to the Taliban agenda, it will also lead to Taliban compliance with Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) demands to hunt down and execute NDS officers, the CIA's partners in counter terrorism operations.
@Allan Langland
You don't think the Taliban are already in compliance with Pakistani Intelligence? What world do you live in?
1
There's something about the record of the CIA in virtually every country it's ever been involved in that does not give much cause for confidence. I'm afraid this agency needs to spend a lot more time home being examined thoroughly for its myriad failures and crimes before it's ready to be sent anywhere...except maybe Mar a Lago.
26
@Dave
One might point out that what is on recored for the CIA's accomplishments is no where near what is not on record. You might have forgotten that the greatest mark of covert operations is to leave no fingerprints behind.
3
@Mark Shyres
There are no CIA covert involvement that has not ended in some books.
The greatest CIA achievement, which also involved the British, appears to be the CIA-arranged coup in Iran some 70 years ago. And now, after 70 years, we can see the unexpected consequences of that "achievement."
Similarly, all CIA involvements in Latin America have backfired, to the point that today no country south of the border supports the US in its actions against Maduro regime in Venezuela.
3
Afganistan is a graveyard, always has been. Our mission there was to capture and/or kill Bin Laden, and his Al Qaeda network. For the most part that mission has been accomplished at great cost and loss of life to the U.S. and our allies both in NATO and Afganistan.
The presence of Islamic State operatives in Afganistan "is not an immediate threat to the West". Sooner or later the U.S. and our NATO allies will need to withdraw from Afganistan. In my opinion, the sooner the better. I know this will leave our Afgan allies in the lurch, to fight it out on their own. We did the same thing in Vietnam. Our ally Pakistan, in my estimate was never of much assitance in our mission in Afganistan. They provided cover to Bin Laden, in Pakistan. They now have their own real problem in Kashmir.
Yes, there is a threat, that in time, terrorist organiztions in Afganistan can emerge as a threat to the West. Unfortunately, that is a threat we will all have to live with for the forseeable future. However, remaining in Afganistan is not necessarily going to prevent that from happening. It is time to go, in orderly fashion, if possible. Let this history be a painful learning experience to the U.S., especially regarding our current situation with Iran. We should not think that we can police the World. War does not always solve our problems. It oftens leads to more problems. "Blessed Our the Peace Makers." Jesus.
11
Vietnam currently is a manufacturing center for multi nationals. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the argument was that they would be controlled by Communist China. Since 1979 the Soviet Union and the United States have taken turns to take part in widespread warfare within the entire area. Would be amazing if somehow within twenty years they are self reliant and non aggressive in Afghanistan. Has drug export fallen since the US and USSR have been in Afghanistan. Funny for there was a huge drug trade leaving Vietnam to the US during the Vietnam War.
Remember all the articles written about how women’s rights and children’s rights in the Muslim world were not being respected and that is why the West should go to war. A trillion or two or three later has anything gotten any better with respect to those rights. Time to talk up all the financial costs, social costs, human rights abuses , and what is the end result. Still worried about the Muslims dominating in Afghanistan. So many soldiers came back realizing how nice the people were in Afghanistan and have memories of the atrocities committed against them. Somehow they will do just fine when the foreign powers leave.
7
Conducting combat operations through intelligence agencies, rather than through the official military, reduces Congressional oversight.
Another expansion of one-man rule as the evolving norm in the U.S. Government.
31
Afghanistan will be unstable as long as the U.S. government is there. We may object to their treatment of their citizens, but look at our treatment of our citizens. Our government allows massacres and never lifts a finger to impose any restrictions on the lawless elements that cause it. Namely take away weapons of mass destruction here - assault rifles - and impose restrictions on other types of guns. There are a myriad of other problems that need solving. Educating the public would help tremendously. We can’t do anything good in this country as long as political leaders get to flex their hubris in other countries.
14
@Barbara Snider
You make a valid, excellent point about gun control in this country but your suggesting that foreign interventions has anything to do with it undermines your point and is illogical at best= as did your blame on the current administration (albeit, it is their problem and charge at the moment). That said, gun control problems did not start with Trump and will continue long after he is gone. The president does not make the laws (gun control laws among them). Look to Congress if you wish to shame anyone. And look homeward, angel (apologies to J. Milton).
1
"Afghanistan will be unstable as long as the U.S. government is there. We may object to their treatment of their citizens, but look at our treatment of our citizens."
Apparently you support the "stability" of the Taliban. Unless I've missed something, we don't hold public executions or require females, such as yourself, to forego education.
1
Negotiations with the idea that the U.S. will be partially or totally out and that peace will reign is naive, to put it politely. The Taliban are resident there, with Pakistan next door, and both will take advantage of any degree of U.S. withdrawal to increase their hold on power. One should not even have to remember Viet Nam to understand this. The mistake of the U.S. going back decades was to support Pakistan against 'communist' India, where India has been a very democratic country as opposed to Pakistan's violent and meddling history.
8
@Me
To add to your point, the Afghan government is not party to the negotiations. This is not a sign that points to peace.
Then add that the president is already announcing the troop withdrawals, before the negotiations are concluded.
Then add that the Taliban continues to blow stuff up during the talks. This means that they are pressing for more favorable terms.
Like all things Trump related, this appears to be a show.
15
@Me GMAFB - The US support for Pakistan was not against communist India, it was to circle the USSR. In fact India has USED Afghanistan as a base for supporting terrorists activity in Pakistan. India’s claim of being the world's largest ‘secular democracy’ has been blown apart by Mr Mudi’s policies and actions. Leave Afghanistan ALONE. They will do fine.
@Tom Woods
The Afghan government (especially its former presidents) have been bribed out of the picture. One might recall, the former president complaining publicly that his monthly bribe was late in delivery.
2
Based on my experiences in Kabul the following arrangement, '...agency paramilitary officers — working often from an annex near the American Embassy in Kabul — team up with militias and other small Afghan intelligence teams across the country to go after Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the Haqqani Network and often various factions within the Taliban, seems like an invitation to be eradicated one fine day.
6
the administration is putting politics over strategy; they want to be able to boast that they 'got us out of Afghanistan' while secretly trying to prevent terrorist attacks that would make the withdrawal look premature and unwise - and hurt their electoral chances: more double-talk from an administration that traffics in lie after lie.
19
@DS I agree with DS--but what is the solution? Darned if I can come up with one.
1
Osama Bin Laden continually warned the United States about keeping a troop presence in Saudi Arabia because he and others like him considered it sacred ground. Those warnings were ignored with a resulting blowback that has devastated the power of the Constitution in our nation. The most successfully subversive attack in contemporary history. East San Jose, CA, the birthplace of Cesar Chavez use to be called "sal si puedes," get out if you can. It was good advice then and even better advice now. And it will be ignored by the warmongers running our country.
6
Sure. Let's take the easy way out.
Arming militias always works ;)
It will guarantee a need to return there, soon.
8
The Taliban are right about seeing “little difference” between US military troops and CIA officers, who have been conducting a shadow war in the country, overseeing an Afghan proxy called the Khost Protection Force.
This highly secretive paramilitary unit has been implicated in civilian killings, torture, questionable detentions, arbitrary arrests and use of excessive force in controversial night raids, abuses that have mostly not been disclosed earlier.
The US aims to keep these CIA-backed militias as a “counterterrorism” force to prevent the resurgence of ISIS and Al Qaeda after troop withdrawal.
If the CIA has to leave, these militias will be disbanded and they will join the Taliban, other warlords et al, and the fighting goes on. There is no ideal solution to ending the turmoil and wars in Afghanistan, as long as it remains a tribal and ethnic oriented country.
7
@J. von Hettlingen Yes. And people there still likely remember the secret police, Khad, just like Savak in Iran prior to Khomeini days. Or the east german police.
The US has no need for essentially a permanent presence and drain on resources. This seems to have been ‘sold’ as possibly a listening post for China.
1
Finally! We are now debating a full military departure from Afghanistan. This is what many Americans, including democratic voters, have been demanding for years. Trump is delivering it so it will now likely be criticized as folly, which just demonstrates that partisan politics leads to policy decisions removed from reality.
6
@AACNY
If DJT actually delivers a military departure, I will praise him (Despite my many objections to him in other fronts).
But this does not appear to be a military departure. Many thousands of US military are proposed to remain as a counter-terrorism force ….. plus, perhaps, the CIA mercenary militias described in this article.
If DJT makes a clean break, I will give him the credit such a clean break would merit.
7
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. No statesman nor tactician he, Trump knows expensive when he sees it.
3
@AACNY
We abandoned Afghanistan to its fate once before.
Those Americans, including Democratic voters to whom you refer, just hope this isn’t a prelude to deja vu all over again, with the same consequences as a result.
There is the faint smell of the administration trying a little too hard to get this done (as with the idiotic wall) so as to score points for a re-election bid.
The circumstances regarding wind down of the war in Iraq (you know, the never-should-have-been war) were different but the consequences vis a vis ISIS should be instructive.
Hopefully the people our Stable Genius has put in place to be involved will get it right. We owe as much to our war dead & their wounded comrades and families, let alone the people of Afghanistan.
Let’s not forget the pre-Iraq war admonition - you break it, you own it (& pay for it). We have helped break it twice...
5
The only OECD country that allows citizens to routinely go armed with predictably tragic results is worried about the foreign terrorist threat? Is this a joke?
83
Two party talks that exclude the Afghan government,
yeah, that will work out well.
23
We took care of things after 9/11. Raising a country was the mistake.
1
Like with previous administrations, there is a powerful group that doesn't want the US to leave Afghanistan or Syria . The same people were the reason Obama did not leave Afghanistan
The idea that the US needs troops in Afghanistan to prevent future attacks in the US is ridiculous. Most people who have carried attacks in the US or Europe in the last 10 years have trained or been in countries such as Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq.
There are more than 45 Islamic countries in the world. Should the US keep a military bases in each of them to prevent attacks on the US?
Or should the US force countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.. to stop funding madrassas and extremist Islamic teachings?
Syria and Libya were safe countries until the US decided to support groups that have turned those countries into terrorist hubs.
The CIA militias from 2019 are no different from the CIA trained Mujaheddin of the 80s. We all know what became of those Mujaheddin. Basically the US wants to repeat the same mistakes.
Iran a Shiite majority country that borders Afghanistan would have been a good partner to fight all those Sunni groups that are fed Saudi style Wahhabism, that have turned them into terrorist groups in the first place.
Afghanistan, like Iraq, Libya or Syria are just the results of stupid and costly policies by the so called experts in D.C. The MIC is the one profiting from those policies, but don't expect any sound policy soon.
39
@Chaks
Yes, there are many reasons why Iran should be an important strategic ally. But rational strategic decisions don't seem to exist in the current administration.
5
@Chaks - "Most people who have carried attacks in the US ... in the last 10 years have trained or been in"
Most have been trained in Texas, Florida, Colorado, and the other 47 states.
3
Let's be real. If we leave, terrorists bases, including ISIS, will once again bloom Al-Qada style, and who knows what they will plan against us and our allies.
We need to remain and have the quick ability to gather intelligence and take out any terrorist bases in the region. There is risk to our base, but only go outside the wire when we see real threats. Pay some money to the theocrats to contain themselves and others.
Above all we need a new stable President who doesn't think he knows more than the generals and the experts.
2
@wyatt
1) Yes, we need a new stable President, BUT
2) No, we don't want a President who is subservient to his generals. George W, Bill Clinton, Obama and Donald all gave their generals too much rein at the high end of setting political/military strategy.
Generals are there to execute. Basic decisions about war and peace, and about our national security objectives, belong with the civilian authority.
7
Sometimes the public fails to understand the chain of events that leads into more American deaths because of inadequate planning or lack of exposure to the people who live there. By live there I don’t mean men and women who have done 4 or 5 tours but I mean men who come back stateside at most a week and call that place home because they have been there since September 11.
Those CIA militia will be overrun. Afghan forces afraid of ISIS and AL Quaeda sometimes run in fear and leave behind our gifted weapons, weapon systems and vehicles. So that militia will be outclassed, they will most likely seek help from S.A.D. These men will be headed into numerous night missions seeking and destroying the American gear that ISIS is using. With troop withdrawal they will not have access to military drones, satellite communications, a QRF incase they need medical evacuation.
But sure, let’s leave these nameless CIA operatives there to be overrun and stretched too thin with massive casualties because we want 23 year old Johnny who runs comms for Special Forces back home.
If you completely leave then in a way we abandon our European allies who will be the first to feel their exposure to an influx and increase in terrorist attacks in 2020.
@wyatt
"We need to remain and have the quick ability to gather intelligence and take out any terrorist bases in the region. "
Since when have we ever had that ability? Let's be real, indeed!
From everything I have read, the "peace talks" between the Taliban and the Trump administration -- absent the corrupt and incompetent Afghan government -- will allow the fully armed Taliban to take over Afghanistan as soon as U.S. forces withdraw. So what's left to negotiate?
5
@Christy
The Taliban have neither the organization talent nor the kinetic capacity to take over the whole country.
They will be the dominant element in some regions.
The old Northern Alliance warlords will hold sway over more territory and more population than the Ts.
4
What else could one expect from a feckless president?
Trump is not a leader. Maybe a better question would be, what does Putin say?
Trump did say the Russians have more business being there than we do. Maybe that is how he wants it to go for Afghanistan.
3
Terrorists do need Afghanistan as a base to launch attacks on the U.S. They can set up shop anywhere, including within the U.S. borders. Remember that the 9/11 attack was launched from domestic American airports. More terrorist murders occur within the U.S. by Americans than those launched by foreign terrorists. The U.S. presence in foreign countries where they are not wanted by locals, does recruit for anti-American terrorist organizations.
9
The militias "trace their roots to the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the C.I.A. began assembling a patchwork alliance of warlord-led fighting groups to topple the Taliban and chase Al Qaeda".
What utter historical amnesia. Al Queda and the Taliban were creatures of the CIA in its clandestine effort to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
20
@Riversong
Actually, the government of Pakistan played a larger role than the CIA in creating and sustaining the Taliban.\
We contributed, but Pak ISI and the Pak Army were far more instrumental than the CIA in this story.
6
@John B
Does Mujahideen mean anything to you in historical terms of the origins of the subsequent conflict in Afghanistan?
Who provided the funding for its creation in the US attempt to disrupt the Soviet Union and its part in Afghan politics?
Umiliviniq
1
What a mess. But oddly, I see hope. In Saudi Arabia. However their internal politics has managed it, the recent abolition of the travel restrictions for women indicates they have realized the beneficial (global) aspects of moving towards a moderate Islamic government.
I want to see Afghanistan move in the same direction, with a stronger democratic government. With neighboring states wanting different things, (minerals, Russia, the U.S.. Pakistan, an enlarged presence, control. India not wanting an enlarged Pakistan. The West, no more terrorist bases), Afghanistan has to realize there is no going back to a quiet, ignored haven for tribal, warlord dominance.
Forget the military/CIA argument. And tell the Taliban their day of extremism is over. Adjourn these defeatist peace talks. Bring in Saudi, Pakistani (and yes, maybe Indian) representatives and begin real talks. They, not we, will be the large peacekeeping forces in southern Afghanistan, working with the present Afghan government.
U.S./allied forces will stay in the northern half of Afghanistan for....X number of years as a ...reminder of our interests in, peace. This quasi partition, with Islamic peacekeepers can work. Perhaps India can work as a monitor with both sides- and in doing so, find a way to work with Pakistan on Kashmir; Saudi peacekeepers might be beneficial there, too (a whole new global mission for Saudi Arabia- and a positive one, finally).
2
@Jo Williams
Do you really want the Saudis, the fountainhead of Wahhabism, to run Afghanistan? And add India & Kashmir to the mix? What makes you think the Saudis want another "global mission"? Their religious extremism worked pretty well & all it needed was money. this might entail actual work.
3
@Jo Williams
Historically, Iran has tried to call the shots in the region and is probably better equipped to do so now. Too bad we are quietly at war with them.
1
Last week I would have agreed with you- and have in previous comments. But in lifting the travel restrictions for Saudi women, I sense- hope- the Saudi government has ....overpowered, overcome, neutralized the extremist voices in Islam. Accepting a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan would extend, strengthen the moderates, as well as support Pakistani moderates. I’d include Iran- as soon as I see more moderation there- aka, stop supporting their own extremists.
The ideal peace conference would be Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel - someday.
It is a stretch to believe that the
presence of American troops and
CIA operatives are keeping the terrorists
at bay. Terrorists are carrying out
attacks almost daily killing Afghans.
American presence will continue to
destabilize that country. 9/11 was one off attack. Now there are huge resources in place to prevent such
attack. We should feel confident
about our security apparatus rather
than live in fear of another major
attack originating from Afghanistan.
It is high time to bring all the troops
home. Presence of small troops won't
make any difference when the larger
number in the last 19 years didn't
produce desirable outcome. After
lot of blood of both Americans
and Afghans as well as expenditure
of almost $1TN, we need to sober up.
Vietnam did well after we withdrew
and dominos we feared didn't fall.
Time to apply that lesson to Afghanistan.
5
Afghanistan is a composite of tribes. The concept of nation is an overlay imposed by the Russians or us to support some faction that claims to represent the non-existent nation.
The common cultural tie if any among the tribes is religious and focused through the Taliban which originated to stop warlord extortion at checkpoints.
Regardless of whether we stay in force, remove the CIA, or do some hybrid solution we will always be the outsider/foreigner supporting a faction that represents an unpopular warlord.
We should just get out and let them work it out among themselves.
14
@Mojoman49 Agree. And all this started, really, with the British, attempting to impose a "nation" where one is impossible in that region. You'd think we would learn something by the abject failures of both the Brits AND the Russians.
11
@Doug
Bad history re the Brits in Afghanistan.
The British Empire clashed with Afghans in the Great Game, but there was never any British "nation building" in Afghanistan.
Both the Soviets and the Americans did try to foist foreign concepts of governance on the Afghans. Without great success.
5
Actually, it all started with Alexander the Great.
How might this situation be different today if the US had not “pivoted” from Afghanistan, in early 2003, to pursue the invasion of Iraq in pursuit of non-existent WMDs?
11
@Margaret
If we had not pivoited from Afghanistan to Iraq, things in Afghanistan would still look about the same.
The US had little ability to shape Afghanistan pre-Iraq war and little ability to do so today.
8
@Margaret
Agreed, totally! We not only lost momentum in Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban etc. to regroup but our invasion of Iraq lost good will from muslim and non-muslim nations who were on board with our presence in Afghanistan and served as a recruiting tool for the terrorist groups in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
1
The CIA can't properly support the militias without the support of the regular military. Without CIA support, the militias are ineffective and the US risks complete national collapse. The Taliban takes over and we've lost the war. Ergo, we can't remove the regular US military without losing the war. Hence the reason we call this war the "endless" war. We cannot end the war without losing.
Sorry Trump. Smarter minds than yours have already approached this problem. I'm having déjà vu already.
8
It is always good to have as much intelligence as you can get. So certainly secret, undercover intelligence operations where surveillance subjects are not aware they are being observed should be maintained where possible. What is done with the info collected is a question that must be answered on a case by case basis. But special operations where Americans are involved in the overthrow of foreign governments such as happened in the 20th century should never again be condoned, and certainly not encouraged.
The incompetents Trump administration (led by the Incompetent-in-Chief) has done nothing but weaken our alliances and strengths around the world. We don't belong in Afghanistan or anywhere else in Asia where we are not wanted by the majority of people living there. We have accomplished nothing but make enemies of people who could have been friends and done nothing to protect those who were friends. Best to pull all troops and all non-covert ops out of Afghanistan. And everywhere else where our presence has only created more terrorists. We can't, and should not, be the world's police force. We can't even adequately police our own country.
4
@RLW
US power and prestige has fallen dramatically as a result of equivocation in conflict zones. Look at the Russian experience. Do not get rid of the troops in in Afghanistan as such a policy will simply embolden insurgents there and around the world. The answer is to finish the job once you have engaged. Retreat there means defeat every where.
2
@Tom Horan
And how do we "finish the job?" Level the country? And what is the job - defeat the Taliban? defeat ISIS? defeat the Haqqani Network? establish a solid national government? establish an educational system? develop health resources? Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaida does not threaten the US. What, exactly, is the specific goal? Hearts & minds?
1
“The Afghan government is not part of the negotiations, but the deal is expected to open a path for talks between the government and the Taliban.”
Nearing the end of the second decade of this clearly unwinnable war, if it even is a war, we can acknowledge relief that there has not been another attack thus far. We continue to live with the fear of it, however, and this detailed report adds no comfort or assurances.
Over three administrations, with various experts and operatives in the field, there is not an established stable governing body in that country except for the quasi religious and ruthless Taliban, who are dictating the conditions of any agreement. They have refused to consider any women’s rights, as well as any US presence remaining in that country.
Is it correct to assume that whatever we agree to, they will control the country as they want, regardless of the terms of any agreement?
And how I wish we had an administration that was serious and competent, staffed by dedicated country first patriots.
4
Somewhere toward the beginning of the American miasma in Afghanistan, I read that Afghanistan has minable deposits of elements we need for electronics and other industrial applications. China was going in after those deposits while we provided military cover. Have we wised up yet? Are we continuing to play war while China actually rules the world with its mercantilism? Or have we decided to stay in Afghanistan so we can mine its natural resources ourselves, since we are cutting ourselves off from China's supplies? In other words, how low are we going to go?
3
And who can tell what clandestine influence the foreign buyers of Afghanistan’a opium poppies wield over our government’s decisions to protect their supplies?
1
@Chip
Yes, there are minerals in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The USGS mapped them quite thoroughly in the 1960s and early 70s.
Owing to a lack of infrastructure (roads, highways, railways, massive electric power etc) it was deemed uneconomic to exploit them at that time (by the global mining corporations, not the government).
Most of the minerals are still there and are still uneconomic to exploit for the same reasons (no infrastructure).
6
@Pottree
The foreign buyers of opium in Afghanistan do not wield influence over our government.
They do not need to. The poppy trade works very nicely on its own.
We can't even control the level of violence in our country. We have sent our people half way around the world for the past 18 years and are still unable to find a way to extricate ourself.
We finally left Vietnam. We up and left. It was ugly, messy, and many died. Of course, many were dying long before we left. But few discuss the vast sense of relief many Americans had when we were finally out of there. Forty years later, communism didn't rule the world.
Maybe next time, we will think a lot more before we invade another country in the name of some high ideal which we aren't keeping here at home. But Vietnam didn't prevent Afghanistan or Iraq, so I suspect we haven't learned a thing.
18
What peace? The Taliban is already attacking cities, in case the White House hasn't noticed. They'll continue to do so after American withdrawal and keep Afghanistan in tumult for years or even decades.
The resurgence of the Taliban is no surprise. Afghanistan is less a country than a collection of tribes that are often at war. Considering the terrain, it's almost impossible to occupy, let alone conquer, more than a single province. Alexander realized that two thousand years ago, and for the same reason Eisenhower pushed negotiation after visiting Korea.
While some American involvement in Afghanistan was to be expected, the consequences of our choice of actions have been less than promising. Arming the mujahideen, whose members were drawn from countries other than Afghanistan, produced the many Islamist movements in Asia currently active in the world. A unilateral invasion to capture Osama bin Laden was a mistake, an almost silly one.
Time to leave, and rue the trillions of dollars not spent on education, science, or infrastructure. Doing so will leave Afghans another conflict with the Taliban, but is that really much of a change?
4
I don't know why nobody talks about why we are there is to protect opium crops. This is one of the objectives.
I know Afghanistan is the leader of opium production in the world, which is necessary to manufacture narcotic pain meds as such as morphine.
4
@Goahead
No, we are not in Afghanistan to protect the poppy fields.
Turkey produces the legal opium for the world's pharmaceutical companies and they fully meet legal commercial demand.
Poppies are quite easy to grow. Illicit production thrives in the hills of Burma and many other places.
So, again, this is NOT the reason we are in Afghanistan
3
The wind down and withdrawal from Vietnam took about four years to achieve a fig leaf of a honorable exit, two years later it ended with the defeat of the one time ally. These things have messy and ugly endings to them that's a fact and unavoidable truth.
Vietnam gave us half a million refugees that have assimilated into American society that was the good outcome perhaps a similar outcome can be had especially taking in Afghan woman and orphans.
The CIA Director is correct in her reservations perhaps she remembers the Hmong.
3
The USA should secure, establish, and operate a huge rare earth ore bearing element mining and processing center there. These are strategic materials and besides the value of the end product having it there provides a CIA footprint and regional monitoring station as well as negates the need to set up such mines in delicate ecosystems in USA national forests.
@Told you so
Umm, do you have any idea what the environment is like in those regions? Really, really rugged mountains, extremes of temperature, no roads - not even one-lane gravel ones - no electricity, little vegetation, and most importantly not enough water to support a small town let alone a huge industrial operation. Also such mining operations often produce massive amounts of polluted earth, which in this case would be air born dust that could travel far. Add to this a sparse local population that would not enjoy being subjected to such "development." Sounds like an economic winner, doesn't it!
By now it is pretty clear to most people in the CIA and our military that the current approach will only end up with the situation in which Afghanistan devolves back into its preferred tribal state with the Taliban as overlords of cultural "correctness".
This process will include a brief civil war between the corrupt current government in the city and the rural authoritarian theocratic Taliban while ordinary Afghans waffle and wait for a victor to emerge. The best that can be hoped for is that this time the Afghans in control will be cautious about allowing any foreign terrorist organizations to operate from their soil. It's is far easier that way to maintain control of their own.
As such, it is prudent for the US to withdraw admitting we've done all that is possible. If the Afghan people ever do conclude that secular democracy is for them, they can make changes internally, just like every other successful democracy has seen fit to do!
5
@Chris " If the Afghan people ever do conclude that secular democracy is for them, they can make changes internally," As if the Taliban is going to allow them to decide that. Afghans have never shown a loyalty towards democracy and western concepts of freedom but rather they have a history of loyalty to religious sects and regional war lords with terrorist organizations and enablers like the Taliban taking an advantage of this. The Afghanis didn't vote or agree to the closing of soccer matches the replacement with torture and beheadings in those soccer stadiums. Women didn't vote for the removal of all civilized behaviors that the Taliban brought the last time they were in power. Nobody voted on having to hide radios so as to block outside info getting in like the Taliban forced people to do the last time the Taliban was in power. I saw no votes as to stoning or the baring of women from the streets unless with a man beside them.
1
I wish the NYT and other news outlets would stop describing these Whitehouse squabbles as if we had a functional executive office. To describe this as a debate, or to say that the administration has a policy position belies the fact that there are few qualified department and cabinet heads, and the chief executive operates with the impulsiveness of a child. They are winging it, and we’re supposed to pretend this is normal.
This article promotes that deception.
148
@NJNative There has always been policy debates within the WH. Think of the battle over Viet Nam policy. John Bolton represented one side of the debates along with Dick Cheney under the Bush Administration.
@NJNative
Absolutely correct.
3
@JDSept
There were always policy debates in the White House under previous presidents that were actually interested in learning about the nuance of policy, and actually interested in the views of others.
Trump just says whatever pops into his head at any given moment, based on willful ignorance, while various appointees try to sneak various policies passed him, and others try to protect his brand. There is no actual debate about policy involved. I believe this is the point NJNative was trying to make.
I'n not saying that Trump does not have goals, just that his goals have nothing to do with his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, or coordinate our defense and intelligence agencies to defend our nation (especially from attacks on our elections by Russian Intelligence.)
Trump spent a life time making himself rich and powerful by destroying the organizations that he leads, and stealing from them under cover of chaos.
That is what he is doing to the USA. Trump knows that the Right opposed democracy and prefers to impose its will through violence. That is the realm of kings, not presidents, and Trump wants to give the Right their king.
9
US foreign policy is being led by the clown-car White House and managed by a staff that are doing their best to read the scattered mind of their leader, the US President.
Afghanistan has challenged the west for centuries and will continue to do the same for the foreseeable future. Western values are no weapon against radical Islam. The deep seated fear that the average Afghan feels will not be overcome by NATO patrols in armoured vehicles that disappear at sundown back to heavily defended operating bases.
Afghans need to see the benefits of democracy. Corruption is rampant in that country (and region) and so will determine what really happens. Radical Islam will drive the agenda and the CIA will need more than briefcases of cash to buy support.
Abandoning Afghanistan will only see it devolve back to the same conditions that existed before 9/11. And then it will be up to the west to do it all over again. History will repeat itself, again.
9
@Lew, western values are no
defence against militant Americans
with access to AR6 and other
weapons. We witness more attacks
from our home grown, supposedly
immersed in wester values, to
carry out carnage almost every week. We don't seem to worry.
More Americans have been victims
of domestic terrorism than from
militant Islamists.
1
For the record, Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all tried to pacify this desolate, warrior country rife with radical Islam and tribalism. All failed. Given the time of the N.A.T.O. the occupation led by the United States western civilized society has failed too. When is enough, enough? How long can we maintain an open-ended commitment to civilize Afghanistan? These are all questions Donald Trump has no answer for, given his childish intellect. Bet you Trump has never read a single book on the subjects of radical Islam or Afghanistan. Not one.
27
Trump does not understand domestic policy let alone foreign policy.
2
By now it is quite clear that Afghanistan doesn’t want to be “civilized” by anyone.
What is really at stake here is access to rare earth minerals that the United States Geological Survey has found in Helmand province in Afghanistan under the protection of American Armed Forces. (Scientific American October 2011). Currently China has the largest supply although mining production is underway in Australia. There are several other sites of interest scattered around the globe - one in Canada’s high north.
But rare earth is called rare earth because it is rare.
Rare earth minerals are used in high-end electronics, and access to rare earth is one of the essentials in future technologies and therefore it is essential to America’s economic and military future.
US interest in Afghanistan has more to do with America’s place on the world stage than it has with concerns about the welfare of the Afghani people.
2
Let’s go with the people who don’t know what they’re talking about (Trump).
9
I don't think there is a favorable solution to the wars we start. There is only the least worst. We invade countries and we actually think the majority of residents will greet us with open arms and listen to how we will transform their politics and culture. They will love us! Our hubris knows no limits.
Nothing has changed. Russia tried to conquer Afghanistan. Almost two decades later, they slinked back home in utter failure. But no, we think we are the omnipotent saviors of humanity. We can do it better with shock and awe. Apparently not.
I hate the culture of some of these countries. Their treatment of women is despicable. Their non-democratic intolerance is primitive and brutal. But it is THEIR culture. We can't change it with weapons or sleuthing.
What is so constantly upsetting to me is the almost total lack of discussion about the longer term implications of international behavior. WWII was a product of WWI. The mess of Israel and Palestine is a result of WWII. The mess of many of these "countries" is the result of Western meddling and domination.
Ask a Kurd what it means to be a Turk or Iraqi. Ask a Pashtun what it means to be an Afghan or Pakistani.
We have no idea what we are doing. And the chest pounding fools that sent us into these countries should be shamed and silenced forever.
Ask an Israeli Arab kid who is best friends with a Jewish kid what to do next. You'll get a better answer.
39
@Bob Bruce Anderson
Alas. it is not only Afghanistan.
The French gave up Indo China, but no, we were going to show them. And we were going to bring peace and order to Viet Nam.
And we were suposed to do the same in Chile by getting rid of Allende and making Pinochet their head chief;
And we were suposed to get rid of Castro with the Bay of Pigs and the embargo;
And now we are rattling sabers in Venezuela.
Not that all these guys are "good people", but no more than Putin or Kim , or the Mollahs, or Xi Ping or the murderes of Khashoggi or the interventionists in Yemen
But apparently, we only wage war on people we consider less dangerous, even if events prove us wrong.
As far as a "Trump administartion at odds", is concerned,what administration? The only administration is Trump
It is HE, and only he, who is permanently at odds with himself!
The "Administration" is just a public who applaud, or gets thrown out of the theater, whatever the play and the "talent" of the actor playng "Mr.President"
3
What you call their culture is a product of European exploitation, who put in power the worst of those people largely because of their treason to their own values. The best of that culture helped the Enlightenment of Europe to come about.
If a foreign government invaded your country, what would you do? In the case of Iraq, twice.
And now you are negotiating for an end to war. You know the war is draining the resources of your adversary, so you are in no hurry to end it.
You also know your adversary wants to keep a peace-keeping forces in your country, something you detest and are trying to negotiate.
So what to do? Keep fighting.
The US needs to leave completely. No other option will result in a sustained peace. The citizens of the US would not allow any invader or their intelligence arm to stay here, so why do we force that option on others?
American leaders are inept. Clueless in the extreme.
Get out, stay out. Let someone else police the World.
But of course that’s impossible. Big business cannot operate that way. Especially big oil.
13
@PC
The US economy is reliant on ongoing conflict.
2
Given Trump's ignorance and impulsiveness, we should all be troubled. Whatever decisions he makes are driven not by what's logical or viable but by what he thinks his base would like. That's no way to be commander-in-chief.
7
Several questions should guide our foreign policy.
1. Is the longing for freedom inherent in all humans?
2. Is there even a common definition of “freedom”?
3. Do all people prefer to live in a secular nation state (i.e. versus clans/tribes/theocracies)?
U.S. policies in Afghanistan and elsewhere assume the answer is “yes” in each case.
The facts on the ground suggest that the answer is “no”.
Afghanistan and indeed most nations around the globe are very infertile ground upon which to spread the seeds of Western liberal democracy. And the seeds that we spread are very, very expensive.
14
@John, It is not the philosophy
that drives us to invade other
countries. It is our deep seated belief that we are the most powerful
country on earth with gigantic
military-industrial complex,
innovative research labs at places
like MIT constantly developing
ever more lethal weapons. We
can run roughshod over anyone
and everyone. Dare to defy us!
Afghan war is not the last one.
There will be many more so long
this mind set prevails. As Gore Vidal put it we believe in perpetual
wars. We rationalize using cliches like democracy, secularism
and women rights. Let us fix our
own abuses of women exposed
by #ME TOO and the unfolding
story of Jeffrey Epstein/Weinstein. Let us not be blind to many angry citizens with guns and many powerful and rich men with sexual predatory behavior. So much to do at home.
1
One of the great failures in Afghanistan was the inability of the United States to differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The endemic tensions between them should have been exploited.The Taliban are not and have never been a direct terrorist threat to the United States, however supported by Pakistan's ISI they are an existential threat to the government in Kabul. The rampant corruption in the government has alienated the majority of Afghans, and combined with ethnic divisions and the presence of powerful warlords, has made the goal of a united Afghanistan a fool's errand for the United States. It's long past time for American troops to be removed from the hopeless morass of Afghanistan.
7
It's going to be impossible to resolve the war in Afghanistan. Conflict between western nations and middle-eastern nations have its roots in the old British Empire, culminating in the post WW1 dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the allies. That's not quite 100 years ago. If historical record has any credibility it's likely this conflict will continue for centuries hence. Our obligation, as I see it, is to humanity and the protection of those the Taliban and others would virtually enslave. Whatever we do, the conflict will go on, innocent civilians will die, American and Afghan soldiers will die, and our national treasures will be wasted. How we resolve that is beyond any imagining I can do. It's an imperfect analogy but we can't put the landslide back up on the mountain.
2
Keeping a CIA-backed militia in Afghanistan after we pull out is a pipe dream. I really don't know what those in the administration are thinking or smoking. Here is how this will play out: We get a "peace" deal with the Taliban and declare victory with honor or some other kind of face-saving nonsense.. We pull U.S. forces out. The weak, incompetent and corrupt Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban, probably within a year, if not sooner (think Viet Nam). The Taliban continue their fight with any ISIS affiliates and will destroy them. We will probably re-enter into a strategic relationship with the Taliban ( the enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing, like when we funded and armed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and like we are doing in Syria, funding and arming al Qaeda affiliates to fight the Syria's Assad). Life will go on and the trillion dollars we spent there and the lives lost will not have made us any safer, just a more stressed out society sniping at each other. Our leaders and CIA will move on to find another existential "threat" for us to be worried about and shovel money at. Look for China to be the next boogyman. More proxy wars, more regime change wars, more military spending to keep us "safe." Don't even ask about affordable college, healthcare or a clean environment. Where are we going to get the money for all those ponies? Life will go on and the corporate media will keep us happily detracted.
41
Well summarized. Frighteningly so.
And the beat goes on...
4
You are right, and the USA is looking like Mughal Empire did when looters of the British East India Company came in and took over the control of the sub-continent the same way kleptocrats are taking over the land of deplorable voter who see Trump as the Messiah
It is too bad that the NYT continues to source its reporting on Afghanistan (and other Mideast wars) to US government officials. They have long ago lost any credibility.
It has been obvious for many years to anyone paying attention that the US will never achieve any worthwhile goals in Afghanistan. The Washington War Party has known this, as well, but cannot face the ignominy of admitting defeat, hence the absurd idea of leaving the CIA and its brutal militias in place.
An “honorable withdrawal” from Afghanistan is a fantasy. The US and its local allies have no hope of preventing a Taliban victory. Our vaunted military has wasted countless lives and treasure on another losing war. We can only hope that some future leader has the courage to point out that our imperial unipolar moment has ended and we must forever renounce the idea of American exceptionalism.
17
The issues involved brought to mind an item from the archives, about our leaving Iraq without U.S. boots on the ground, namely, a letter to the editor of a local newspaper that with modification in detail only seems apt for the debate about leaving Afghanistan, excerpts from which follow:
". . . The United States has perceived it to be in the national interest, strategically and tactically, to keep thousands of boots on the ground for more than six decades in eastern and western locations inhabited by civilized populations that have demonstrated nothing but peaceful intent regarding their neighbors regionally or worldwide — after having been made aware of their limitations militarily.
" However, in leaving Iraq without a significant U.S. presence we, in effect, invited the chaos that has ensued, the foreseeable onset of which, by reasonable assumption, would have been prevented by significant numbers of U.S. boots on the ground.
" Failure to recognize the strategic and tactical value of keeping boots on the ground in places where fragile quasi-democratic governments owe their existence to U.S./Allied military action — especially places inhabited by certain uncivilized elements that have not yet demonstrated awareness of any limitations in their ability to wage unconventional war — is something for which most of “us” (ordinary folks) might be excused, but it’s inexcusable for commanders in chief: They’re supposed to know better. . .."
C.I.A. director, Gina Haspel cheer-led the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. That's how much her views on Afghanistan are worth today. In fact, the Keystone Kops (Haspel, Bolton, Pompeo) guarantee that any decision will be the wrong one.
The new chief of the Keystone Kops, Donald Trump, believes the U.S. can sign a peace treaty with the Taleban while retaining a U.S. troop and CIA presence in Afghanistan. The Taleban has repeatedly stated it will only sign a peace treaty if ALL U.S. troops and the CIA leave Afghanistan. So much for the White House's claims of 'progress' with the peace talks.
18
It’s very scary to think Donald J. Trump is making decisions about this level of security, no matter who is counseling him. He just does what he wants anyhow.
What a difference from seeing pictures Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton sitting together among top intelligence officers the night Osama bin Laden was taken out.
Those days are long gone and look what Trump has done? Criticized, mimicked, and belittled all of them - intelligent people who knew what they were doing. Admitting their assets would be too much for Trump to bear.
21
Give Trump some credit here. He is trying to leave. This has gone on a long time. Its now that we leave or forever we pump billions more each year
7
@MelGlass
I detest DJT, but here is an instance where his isolationism can be useful.
Hold your nose if you must, but support his efforts to withdraw --- if they are genuine.
does our government know what they are doing? i have read nothing that makes me feel comfortable in this regard. the politicians got us in this mess years ago(republicans were in office at the time) and the republicans are trying to get us out and win another election. i suspect that they will have to lie to the public to do this.
6
“does our government know what they are doing?”
The simple and most direct answer is NO.
Not only that, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, neither realizes that at the same time one leg is pressing the clutch and the other is flooring the accelerator, the mechanic is still under the hood changing a fan belt and the car just ran over a dead skunk in the middle of the road.
Pompeo wants to turn right, Haskell wants to turn left, several acting heads of security agencies can’t see down the road, and Trump didn’t know what a steering wheel is.
“does the government know what they are doing?”
The government doesn’t even know that it is the government. And the traffic cops have all left the highway to stop the next mass killing here at home.
2
@john boeger Somebody has got to get us out. Republican or Democrat. We have had bad foreign policy since the days of Eisenhower and the Korean war. Time to use our dwindling tax dollars for the benefit of Americans and not for the benefit of the Military-Industrial Complex.
1
Putin wants the US out of the region. This is the only consideration for Trump. It may be the best thing for US to leave, but US interests have nothing to do with Trump's thinking on this. Putin wants us out. Trump aims to please. For Trump, there's nothing else to consider.
10
CIA activities in Afghanistan stretch back decades and are probably the reason the US invaded in the first place.
In 1978, Afghanistan - then under a communist government - was facing violence from mujahideens in the countryside. You see, many conservative factions were opposed to the government's emancipation of women, who could enlist in the armed forces or become teachers.
We now know that CIA funding of mujahideens began in 1978. At the time, Soviet troops were only in Afghanistan in a support capacity and at the invitation of Kabul.
Funding the mujahideens ratcheted up their ability and probably increased Soviet fears of US interference. This does not legitimse the Soviet invasion in 1979 - without Afghan consent - but it did play a part in escalating the situation.
Throughout the Afghan-Soviet War, America's ally, Pakistan, was known to funnel US aid to the most conservative factions of the mujahideen while withholding such aid to more moderate factions.
After the Soviet withdrawal, only a few million dollars were sanctioned for rebuilding the Afghan nation by the US Congress, even though billions had been supplied in armaments. The US knew how to win a war, but did it know how to win the peace?
It was the resulting instability which provided fertile ground for the Taliban to seize power in 1996. They then gave refuge to a man named Osama Bin Laden - a veteran of the Afghan-Soviet War known to the CIA. The rest is history.
166
I believe the Soviets had reasonable cause to chase down the warlords who where conducting cross-border raids since the Afghan government was inept .
3
@Jack
Exactly what % of the GNP is the entire armaments industry - warplanes to hand grenades to troop supplies -- I believe it's about 60 billion in the deficit-prone budget but that seems low. How much to maintain the military branches during peace time?
It all needs to stop.. and let's consider how the military grade x,yzs all appear on local streets when they are deaccessioned!
3
@Joseph Corcoran
The Soviets intervened partly because their ally Nur Muhammad Taraki was overthrown (and executed) by Hafizullah Amin - also a communist. Afghanistan's internal problems increased drastically during Amin's rule. Initially, the Soviet intervention/invasion was supposed to be temporary.
However, the law and order situation was more dire than the Soviets realised. And they were almost immediately attacked by the mujahideen. The Soviets believed they needed time to stabilise the country.
By this time, the USSR had already drawn condemnation for its invasion of Afghanistan. To make things worse, Soviets failed to capture Amin alive and he was killed in the Presidential Palace while resisting.
The USSR tried to negotiate with the US (already arming the Mujahideen for more than a year) to resolve the ground situation. But the US insisted on an unconditional withdrawal. This was unacceptable to Moscow, which could not hand the country over to the mujahideens. Sensing an opportunity, the US also increased armaments given to the mujahideen via the Af-Pak border, fuelling fanatical resistance and bogging down the Soviets.
This echoes the US demand for an unconditional withdrawal by Vietnam even after the latter had ousted the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Vietnam was willing to withdraw if the Khmer Rouge were not allowed back in power. The US refused this demand and armed the Khmer Rouge instead, bogging down Vietnam.
Such is US foreign policy.
17
You can kill people, but you can't kill ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent to you.
Afghanistan is barely a country, it is and has been tribal, remote, and resistant to outsiders.
We have less than a stellar reputation of advancing our interests through CIA supported militias, gangs, thugs, etc. I pity the families of the last soldiers to die in this fiasco.
We have problems here that need to be addressed; infrastructure, education, healthcare, gun control, etc. We never seem to learn anything from our overseas fiascoes.
220
And yet leaving Afghanistan will increase significantly the odds that terrorism will be exported to the United States itself. Will we then be able to enjoy all the infrastructure improvements, etc., that you outline?
5
Rule #1: never invade Russia in the winter.
Rule #2: never invade Afghanistan.
The US, having broken Rule #2, is now negotiating peace with the enemies of the US backed government of Afghanistan leaving that government entirely out of the negotiations.
As I understand it, the Taliban are not interested in world domination, but want to control Afghanistan. In their process of taking over that country, however, they give support to Qaeda and ISIS, both of which are fighting for Islamic world domination.
Pakistan supports all three. Iran supports all three. Who knows who the Saudis support. Who knows who the Israelis support. And who knows who the US supports - that seems to depend on which country Qaeda or ISIS is fighting in and who their current enemy is.
One thing is clear, Trump and his minions (and the US Security agencies which aren’t believed by Trump anyway) aren’t even reading the same book, much less being on the same page.
Silly me, Trump doesn’t even read.
23
"...our overseas fiascos" are making money for somebody. The point isn't for the U.S. to learn not to get involved.
9
What would Nixon do with this dilemma.
He withdrew from south Vietnam, peace with honor, abandoned the military of that former country.
Many predicted we would have a domino effect of communism if the country was conquered by the north.
Well, the country fell, communism did not spread like a wildfire.
However, the treasure was enormous, vast quantities of blood was spilled and 58,000 plus lives of our military members were lost.
Afghanistan does present a dilemma, a problem much different than what Nixon faced. And there is no easy solution.
If the President was a Democrat and did a complete withdrawal and the Taliban and ISIS came out of the shadows the hue and cry would be deafening-as it was at the Iraq withdrawal that was negotiated by a Republican president and executed by a Democrat president.
If a Republican president does a complete withdrawal of Afghanistan and the same problem emerges, what will the treatment be?
No easy solution to find with this issue and not one that Trump or any successor to the office can find.
We have a dilemma that Trump can't sort out and a different problem when the country falls to either the Taliban or Isis, or both.
1
In the struggle for the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese, many South Vietnamese were impacted by US war crimes and ARVN atrocities against their own people, while the VC could commit similar or worse crimes with seeming impunity.
The same seems true in Afghanistan. The national security forces we support lose popular support for their "brutal tactics" but the Taliban kill and maim hundreds attending a wedding. Yet there is no backlash?
Is our understanding of the true nature of these wars fundamentally flawed? Why do we seem to back the side which cannot achieve what is needed to govern?
We need a rethink.
1
@Brian Barrett I thought it was an ISIS affiliate which was responsible for the recent wedding bombing, not the Taliban.
@Ron Goodman I’ve forgotten, who are we at war with, East Asia or Eurasia?
A good report - but clearly designed by Administration advocates and neo cons on the political struggle inside Washington - forget Kabul - to advance competing agendas.
I supported our original mission to go in Afganistan to hunt for Osama and if need be a regime change from Taliban.
We have been at it for 18 long years.
While Al Qaeda is ostensibly gone - Taliban has become stronger.
To me, this is all a deja vue of Vietnam talks in Nixon administration.
When Nixon signalled we want to be done with Vietnam - the North Vietnamese did exactly what Taliban are doing. Probably Taliban coped from them.
Participate in negotiations but continue to destabilize the country.
And when the papers are signed - before the ink is dry - finish off the current Kabul government. The North did exactly that - wiping Sputh Vietnam off the maps.
One possible consolation.
Vietnam today is one of our strongest allies.
But it has taken some 4 decades.
So, may be Taliban will be our strong ally in another 4 decades.
That's all we can hope from this "threshold of an agreement."
2
Look on the bright side - you can trust both parties to the negotiations equally.
2
Forgive me being naive but my impression of the CIA is that it is covert, secretive. If our intelligence in Afghanistan is exposed such that we are debating their continued presence, it's no secret anymore. What purpose for overt operations in what may soon be a sovereign country?
42
@Michael shenk
First, Afghanistan is no where near becoming a sovereign country, because like the Right in America, the warlords of Afghanistan have no interest in Union, but always seek to divide so that the rich can play the People against each other.
Democracy* demands transparency. We the People are supposed to make foreign policy, through congress and the president. We cannot make good decisions about foreign policy if we do not know what our government is doing.
Of course, governments do have to do some things in secret, and yes the CIA is an intelligence agency that is allowed to do things in secret in foreign countries, but is not allowed to operate in the U.S. or lie to the American Public.
This obviously creates tension between the principles of democracy and the practicalities of covert operations.
Debating how aggressive the CIA will be in a particular country does not compromise sources, methods, or agents. We the People may have to wait for details to be declassified so that we can learn from past action, but we cannot just let Our Intelligence community do whatever it feels like doing.
OVERSIGHT
By the way, even though I have spent decades gathering declassified evidence that the CIA often does things I consider corrupt (usually under orders) I have never accused them of being "treasonous," unlike Trump.
*a Constitutional Republic is not direct democracy, but it is supposed to be a more efficient and unified approximation of democracy, not rule by the rich.
8
@Michael shenk
I have a feeling this is another moment where Trump is the source of his own leak. He probably wasn't supposed to tell Fox News we would maintain an intelligence presence in Afghanistan. Whoops. I guess Trump is declassifying material on the fly again.
7
The US will agree to pulling out all troops and CIA by some set date and then continue CIA operations there. Why should history be different this time?
We’ll announce a date of withdrawal (Republicans will be silent over this stupidity but would be howling if a Democratic Administration even suggested doing so); the Taliban will organize for that date as a take-over target of the Afghan govt (whether they continue attacks between now and then is the subject of another debate); the Taliban will provide support and safe-haven for Qaeda and ISIS administration and training; and the US will covertly work on weakening all three while denying their existence in the country.
6
I wish they were at odds over the nsa's spying on all Americans - without warrant or cause!
7
@David W
Yes, most people do not understand that since phone calls do not route through their own wire any more (but are now multiplexed with other data on fiber optic cables), and texts, emails, etc. (also multiplexed) have largely replaced the mail, it is now physically impossible to capture individual communications. In order to read or listen to any one communication, they have to copy and save all communications.
They can't get a warrant for this, so the government has essentially changed the definition of the word "collect" so that communications are not considered "collected" unless someone actually reads or listens to them.
There are about 25 peering sites around the country where all communications come together in one large fiber optic cable before being redistributed. The NSA has literally put a mirror on each of these cables where everything is copied then sent through filters to massive storage sites. They recently built a new storage center in Utah that has a capacity of a trillion, trillion bytes (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) of storage, enough to save ALL of our communications for decades.
You can't drink water unless it has been collected first, but the NSA saves copies of our communications, then claims they haven't "collected" it yet.
This is not something I read on a web site, but the result of a lot of research of primary sources including declassified materials. Don't just believe me though. Do your own research and verify.
I find the use of the word terrorist and terrorism have gotten rather loose. When I read this article, I got the impression that there are loose groups of completely insane individuals whose only goal is to create havoc and spread fear acting in Afghanistan. But then I read further and see that attacks which are called terrorist acts are targetting what could be called occupying forces. What seems clear to me is there has been and is a civil war going on and it has for over 20 years now.
21
Nothing will change in Afghanistan even though so much American blood and billions of dollars spent there. This includes literally tens of thousands of Afghan deaths.
The big mistake was not allowing the Northern Alliance in taking a counter balancing position in the country.
Another dismal failure!
Paktia/Khost provinces 2003-4.
17
The war in Afghanistan was always un-winnable because of America's duplicitous ally - Pakistan.
The only overland route to resupply US forces passes through Pakistan. This gave Pakistan (also a nuclear power) undue leverage from the beginning of the Afghan war.
Pakistan never joined the Afghan war willingly. Even after 9/11, it had rejected US requests to assist in the invasion of Afghanistan. Only after, the then US ambassador threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the "stone age", did Islamabad begin to cooperate. Hence, curbing extremism was never seen as a moral imperative by Pakistan.
Pakistan's entry on the US side was also motivated by fears that the US would draw closer to India. Under the Vajpayee government, India had offered extensive use of airbases in its north to the US for the imminent invasion of Afghanistan. This was unacceptable to Pakistan, which quickly responded with a more attractive offer to the US, sidelining India.
Pakistan had itself backed the Taliban. It was the first and last country to have diplomatic relations with the Taliban. The other two were Saudi Arabia and the UAE. All are US allies.
Pakistan went so far as to supply Chinese-made armoured vehicles to the Taliban. In contrast, India, Russia, Iran and Turkey supported the secular Northern Alliance which managed to hold on to the northern four districts of Afghanistan during Taliban rule (1996 - 2001). The Northern Alliance later supported the US ground invasion.
24
PakistanNo, it was unwinnable because it was Afghanistan. No foreign power has ever subdued, much less defeated, that place. If Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great failed, if Russia, Britain and the US failed, it's got nothing to do with Pakistan, which didn't exist 70 years ago.
9
@expat
You are looking at the past performance of previous occupying powers. I'm familiar with it but couldn't include it in my post.
Also, the Mongols and Greeks were in Afghanistan for longer than you think. Greco-Afghan kingdoms remained for a long time afterward. Alexander did succeed. If not, why did he sojourn eastward across the Indus and into Punjab?
I think your'e wrong to refute Pakistani armament of the Taliban played a role in the current situation. How does the Taliban source its bullets? Where does it get the materiel to launch consecutive offensive against Afghan forces?
You are unacquainted with Pakistan's policies toward the Afghan war. Why was Bin Laden discovered in Abottabad? That's a military garrison town in Pakistan. This alone should raise questions.
For every five soldiers Afghanistan has patrolling the long porous border, Pakistan has five. This is how the aid is smuggled in to the Taliban.
Afghanistan could never patrol its borders effectively, not with an insurgency raging within and a high attrition rate. Pakistan also has 6 times the population and thus a much larger army to man the border, even resupply the Taliban without Afghan knowledge.
Consecutive Afghan leaders have spoken out against Pakistani duplicity. But this doesn't make its way to the headlines. I would think they know something as Afghans?
4
@Jack
"The only overland route to resupply US forces passes through Pakistan."
Actually, no, Iran was supplying the Northern Alliance or a decade, and in 1998 saw its entire diplomatic mission executed for its pains. In 2001 the U.S. accepted Iran's invaluable assistance, but then betrayed the nation in the same way it betrayed the Kurds, post Desert Storm, and betrayed the Northern Alliance, following the latter's role in expelling the Taleban.
The U.S. hasn't a clue about who are its natural friends and enemies. The U.S. decision to favour Pakistan and Saudi Arabia over Iran was the decision that guaranteed the continuation of global Islamic terrorism.
Yes, I'm Iranian, but that doesn't alter the 'true' facts, as opposed to the 'false' facts disseminated by every U.S. administration from 9/11 onwards.
Israel is happy at the spread of Radical Islam. So is Saudi Arabia. I guess that justifies every U.S. action in the region and beyond.
5
The US could have won in Afghanistan if it had partnered Iran instead of Pakistan:
1) From a small movement stemming from one village, the Taliban came to rule Afghanistan thanks to support from Pakistan's spy agency, the ISI. The logistic's arm of the Pakistan army also supported Taliban offensives.
2) Chinese-made armoured vehicles were given to the Taliban by Pakistan. The anti-aircraft guns grenade launchers used to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas were also sourced from Pakistan.
3) In contrast, Iran fought a proxy war with Pakistan when the Taliban held power. Nine of its diplomats were killed by the Taliban. Despite US-Iran hostility (stemming from bilateral differences), the Taliban was recognised as a common enemy by both. Meetings were held between the two at the UN to seek common ground.
4) Iran supported the Northern Alliance to resist the Taliban. It was a secular alliance - known for progressive attitudes towards women - which held on to four northern districts in Afghanistan.
5) The Northern Alliance assisted in the US ground invasion. A few months prior, its leader had been killed by a suicide bomber, posing as a Pakistani journalist.
6) Iran gave the extensive intelligence about Taliban targets within Afghanistan, speeding up the US invasion significantly. It is the reason the US reached Kabul in November 2001 instead of early 2002.
7) Pakistan is considered an ally of the US despite cutting off supply routes. But Iran is in the "axis of evil" apparently.
66
@Jack
Good argument.
Iran compares favorably to Saudi Arabia in every way, (e.g., Iran has citizens and elections, while the Saudi King has subjects and rules by whim). But we ally with the world's biggest exporter of terror propaganda while attacking Iran, again and again. (And yes we started it when we overthrew their democratically elected president back in the 1950s, a mistake that led directly to the hostages and the Ayatollahs).
We the People must demand that Our Government cut off the Saudis and ally instead with Iran, which was actually attacking ISIS, while the Saudi princes fuel their ideology.
The history of U.S. foreign policies is picking the wrong allies (anti-democratic regimes that terrorize their own citizens--Trumps Right-Wing model for the USA).
We the People need to keep track of what our government is doing and make them do the right thing, instead of Right-Wing policy designed to make billionaires richer, using our tax dollars and the lives of our children.
18
@McGloin
Do you think it is possible to elect a president who can control CIA/military?
2
@Jack, Iran supported the Northern Alliance because they are made up of Farsi-speaking Tajiks. But the Tajiks are a minority to the Pashtun majority. The name Northern Alliance tells it all.
American terrorism in Afghanistan (and Iraq) continues unabated.
13
@David
Your anger is misdirected. It is not those who oppose our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and now complicity in Yemen, that you should call out for the deaths of our soldiers. Stop this government's war mongering instead.
4
@David
To oppose terror, I oppose the Right-Wing, that has killed more Americans in domestic terrorism attacks than all international terrorists, combined.
International terrorists and domestic terrorists oppose democracy, and only believe in the raw power of violence. This is why Trump keeps calling for violence against American Citizens without due process, and why his base responded by committing 90% of the 17,000 hate crimes in 2017 alone (most hate crimes are terror because they aim to change the behavior of segments of society through fear) and 70% of mass shootings.
The Taliban is the religious Right in Afghanistan, demanding the same right to control the private behavior of their citizens that the U.S. Right wants to, with christian "sharia law."
Worldwide, the Right keeps demanding violence within their countries to terrorize (Jim Crow was the Right hijacking the power of the STATE, for example, as is "racial profiling") to terrorize minorities, and demanding wars that never work as advertised.
The Right doesn't believe in democracy. The Right believes in violence, and offers hate, greed, and violence as the solution to every problem. E.g., Trump says that gun violence is a mental health problem, but instead of proposing funding for mental health, says we should use involuntary commitment (state violence) against the mentally ill.
The Right around the world believes in hate, greed, and violence.
The left believes in debate that leads to win/win solutions.
3
@David
Such sorrows of empire...
Problem with continual funding of these shadow militias is that the US only thinks they are under control. After all, that was how Osama bin Ladin got his start. And lets face it, just because these groups are funded and supplied by the US does not make them anything but terrorists.
And as for a threat to the US, one might consider the results of the thousands of people being detained at the southern border and ask what the long term result of that will be.
78
@Greg Latiak Also, dont forget about the threat of domestic white supremacy groups that have become active of late.
54
@Greg Latiak
Those hundreds of thousands of people at the border are fleeing countries the US has destabilized over decades,
Most recently as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton supported a coup in Honduras to install a president supportive of US business interests.
After the coup violence spiked, and the refugees came.
The US is not a force for good in the world.
But it has made the richest .1 percent of US citizens grossly rich.
1
I noticed that the word “Pakistan“ does not appear once in the article. Given that most of the terror activities in Afghanistan are managed by Islamabad, it would seem that whatever US negotiators manage to accomplish with respect to the US presence in Afghanistan will be a mere Band-Aid. It will be interesting to watch what happens as the US role evolves in the resolution or management of the Kashmir crisis.
12
You’re asking the Trump administration to play 3-dimensional chess, when they can’t even master tic-tax-toe.
3
The USA/CIA has been making a mess in Afghanistan for 40 years ! Since 1979 and then Charlie Wilson's War . Nothing has been accomplished except death and destruction . The USA is now negotiating with the warlords it once armed .
Just get out ! It ain't fixable .
44
Regardless of what the Taliban says they will revert to their previous posture where women will be subjugated, a kind of "Sharia" law will be the norm.
In time, other groups will make their home in Afghanistan, possibly setting the stage for more terrorist attacks.
No amount of spin can change the fact the the US "lost" the war. 18 years, trillions of dollars, thousands of deaths and the Taliban controls most of the country.
24
Guess it's not a secret any more....expanding the CIA's Presence in Afghanistan that is...
And as ISIS 'in Afghanistan' isn't posing a threat to the US yet, we wait until it is a known threat to us and then we act? I don't get it...and btw, weren't we told ISIS was destroyed...
6