This is a trend with the administration where he announces decisions that aren't really decisions, or announces executive orders that don't really do anything.
It's really incompetent.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump addresses nation on Afghanistan strategy
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
This is a trend with the administration where he announces decisions that aren't really decisions, or announces executive orders that don't really do anything.
It's really incompetent.
NyMartin90
Member
Realistically that is what our objective is now to escape Afghanistan. The occupation doesn't have to only be us though we can slowly change hands. If we leave immediately it will be a repeat of this in Iraq 2014:
Mighty Chin
Banned
Tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree.
SerAardvark
Member
To at least one journalist:
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/899802454895861760
The enduring myth of the Trump Pivot/Presidential Trump lives on.
Which only works with his trumpaloompas. Most of the rest people can handle multiple issues at the time.
Hah! I love the word immediately here, it implies that we haven't been there for 16 years.
To be clear, I don't know of a good option for Afghanistan, I'm not sure how you win. But staying there longer is also kinda crazy given we've been there for 16 years. Pretty soon we'll have people serving in Afghanistan who are younger than the War in Afghanistan.
And to achieve that requires finesse and reasoned thinking.
So don't expect it under Trump.
rocketskates
Member
Welcome to the real world. Rome wasn't built in a day my sweet child.
It's not only the US's job to grant them stability. Afghanistan is so incredibly impoverished and corrupt (and tribe-oriented) that everyone else has to pick up their socks for them.
Or to put it another way, it isn't for a lack of effort that Afghanistan is still a failed state.
NyMartin90
Member
I agree with you that staying there is crazy. By immediately I mean without any plan to help the Afghanis to safeguard their new government and institutions. 16 years is a long time but also 16 years involves lots of policy changes under two different administrations, new developments in the region, new adversaries (ISIS), failed elections in Afghanistan, etc.
I do think that allowing Afghanistan to quickly topple over (lets say a year) if we leave will definitely create more problems (foreign policy wise) than solve and inevitably force younger people as you say to fight there again.
NyMartin90
Member
This war will last longer than the current administration (4 or 8 years). Just as Obama handed this war off, so will Trump.
To at least one journalist:
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/899802454895861760
The enduring myth of the Trump Pivot/Presidential Trump lives on.
The bar is so low for some people its on the other side of our flat earth.
Fenderputty
Banned
Yes but you see ... we've been there for over a decade and this post below isn't any more or less relevent now than it was then.
Where do you draw the line? Two decades? Three? Half century? We can't even fix corruption in our own government
Basically yeah.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Difference is Obama took the conflict and pushed the role of US forces as more of a peacekeeping mission and exercising soft power to aid the government. Trump is signaling (who knows if he actually will still hold the same plan tomorrow) that he is pushing to a more military centric approach while pulling away from the soft power and nation building that will help long term.
US presence in Afghanistan will like last a decade more or two but I don't think Trump's approach as he says it will ensure a more autonomous and stable Afghanistan than he inherited.
I can foresee Afghanistan possibly stabilizing within the next 15 years if foreign powers are willing to sit down and talk -- it's at the center of too much geopolitical issues (pipelines, resources, terror, and so on) for the US to take on alone.
Fenderputty
Banned
So the tell me that (bit you) instead of giving me some militaristic yet nebulous victory metric.
NyMartin90
Member
Trump will say one thing but he may make something else happen. The Chiefs of Staff have seen the lowing amount of casualties in the past few years as peacekeeping forces and I'm sure they will want to keep it the same, but in correlation with our soldiers being peacekeepers the areas under Taliban control have increased. We need a balance here.
I think his approach to India and Pakistan here is the nation building. He wants India to take the bill for nation building, which they've already proceeded to give billions to Afghanistan for that very reason.
I do think that the military approach is what he's using against the hardliners in the Taliban and we have to see what Pakistan does on it's side of the border but he did speak about bringing certain parts of the Taliban to a political settlement. There are several Taliban commanders who have been in negotiations with the Afghan government in the past 16 years but the US refused in the past due to "all Taliban being the same." The tribes must come to a political agreement but that is still a possibility.
The same dude gave trump 24 hours(his rally tomorrow) before he acts a fool again, so i think the post was tongue in cheek
I don't even understand what this is saying...
But anyhow, the basis for success in Afghanistan should hinge on a few things, namely the formation of a relatively-stable central Afghan government (debatable, but it's up), a self-sufficient civilian military apparatus (somewhat done), and the cessation of insurgent and Taliban attacks on the government. I'm probably missing a few...
Unfortunately, the last one is the biggest as it directly interferes with the success of the other two.
How many tribal leaders will negotiate with the Taliban though? I was under the impression that neither like each other very much.
NyMartin90
Member
The return of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar this year has shown that a majority of the tribes are willing to accept a peace deal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/hekmatyar-returns-kabul-20-years-hiding-170504145123325.html
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
There is good reason not for the US to be the ones negotiating with the Taliban (we have though on specific issues). That is to build up the institutional power of the government. Biggest charge the Taliban uses is claiming the Afghani government is a puppet state and therefore illegitimate. Again it's part of the nuances of soft power that Trump can't seemingly understand in a complex situation like Afghanistan.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I don't think a speech about Afghanistan in 2017 moves many people.
NyMartin90
Member
The issue in the case that I pointed out is that the US dictated to the Afghan government not to negotiate in the past. I do agree with your point that the Afghan government must stand on its own.
Cautiously optimistic, but there may be parallels to Iraq with the whole long-time exile coming back and all.
Then again, one of the issues with Iraq was the (lack of) Sunni participation in the new government, which is completely different in Afghanistan.
old manatee
Banned
Username1198
Member
So I'm at work and didn't see it, but I'm guessing he didn't pardon joe apriao? And no mention of Erik princes mercenary force?
1) Not yet
2) That was Bannon's brainchild.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
You hold the American populace in better regard than I do
Username1198
Member
Ah ty for the clarification. Both Joe and Erik suck ass so that's good news so far.
Arpaio is tomorrow's rally in AZ, aka Trump goes ballistic
That's what dictators want..more war, more pointless war.
He is sending another 4000 towards Afghanistan? Why is this still going on...
Monocle
Member
Listening to Trump talk about the gravity of office is like watching a child fingerpaint a picture about bathroom hygiene with their own liquid poop.To at least one journalist:
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/899802454895861760
The enduring myth of the Trump Pivot/Presidential Trump lives on.
Souldriver
Member
I had to clench my mouth to keep my lunch in. Haha.
FreedomFighter
Member
Our strategy is to continue "not winning"... basically. Feel sorry for any soldiers who die there for no real reason at all.
.
But the intent is to keep this going because certain contractors and some Afghans profit handsomely from the war continuing
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
CNN: His speech last night was very good. Will be get the same tone tonight in Phoenix?
*head desk*
*head desk*
FreedomFighter
Member
Oh, and I forgot the whole privatization angle...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Pentagon still hasn't received official orders for that transgender service ban. But I probably shouldn't even bring that up, we don't want to remind them.
Dead Prince
Banned
And then think of all the hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians who've lost their lives, and we're pretty much abhorrent murderers.
And then the same civilians in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, in Pakistan, and in Yemen.
And suddenly we might realize how incredibly evil we are.
gutter_trash
Banned
pretty much;
Trump is the Bullshit Artist in Chief.
Ana is right about the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde analogy. The worst part is the neither version of Trump is credible because he flip-flops from both versions constantly.
The real Trump is the Bullshit Artist
Poetic.Injustice
Member
:lol
FreedomFighter
Member
I caught Rachel Maddow and she had a guest on openly discussing the plan to put more troops in to protect corporations from looting Afghanistan's mineral wealth.
This is getting out of hand. But it is refreshing to see people discussing the real reasons for these wars instead of the usual "democracy" and "freedom" platitudes.
This is getting out of hand. But it is refreshing to see people discussing the real reasons for these wars instead of the usual "democracy" and "freedom" platitudes.