jordan0386
Member
How do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
How do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
Speak for yourself. I asked.
This is a discussion forum BTW.
All good points. I want to add that the way things are in Afghanistan are really sustainable so worrying about endless war is actually the wrong mindset. The United States isn't involved in any other massive military conflicts, currently. Troop deployment in the region will barely be above 12,000 after this increase. Engaging other countries over time will allow the United States to disengage without causing security holes. So instead of asking if the US can afford to stay in Afghanistan, one should ask if the US can afford to pull out for no reason other than war-weariness and leave an unfixable situation.There will not be any deadlines realistically. I don't think we can have timetables on this until we straighten out what will happen with the Taliban, which Trump actually acknowledged that elements of the Taliban will have to be involved in a diplomatic deal for the future of Afghanistan. He literally openly just said that they will be involved in talks with them, acknowledging how much political sway they hold. The Taliban as bad as it is has too much sway and can be isolated as a political party, like Hekmatyar has been recently.
I think the nation building is being thrown more on the Indians for economic reasons, but again as I said before this is dangerous. Pakistan doesn't want India in its backyard. The Indian embassy was attacked in Kabul for this reason alone in recent years.
Stability is not a timetable and it does seem endless but that's the realistic viewpoint here imo.
Yea its not going to end in this presidency (4 or 8 years) Trump will save face here like his predecessors and give it to whoever surpasses him.
they ask you to stay because their own troops keep getting blown up by the former dictators of the countryHow do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
How do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
There was no practical reason for this to be a primetime address.
Because leaving doesn't honor the sacrifice of those who have fought and died to this point.How do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
There was no practical reason for this to be a primetime address.
I think the drone strikes might have had more to do with it.
the USA has been in Afghanistan for 16 years. it's the longest war ever. your last question doesn't make any sense.All good points. I want to add that the way things are in Afghanistan are really sustainable so worrying about endless war is actually the wrong mindset. The United States isn't involved in any other massive military conflicts, currently. Troop deployment in the region will barely be above 12,000 after this increase. Engaging other countries over time will allow the United States to disengage without causing security holes. So instead of asking if the US can afford to stay in Afghanistan, one should ask if the US can afford to pull out for no reason other than war-weariness and leave an unfixable situation.
Ah yes, the quarterly Trump speech that gets the media to say "now he's presidential" for around 48 hours or so.
There was no practical reason for this to be a primetime address.
Thanks for answering. Appreciate it.
You too NyMartin90.
The feeling I'm getting is that the major significant change here is Trump. He's shifted from seeking to get us out of Afghanistan to owning it and making it an open ended commitment on purpose.
No victory conditions. Nothing even that hints at practical realities. The closest he came to talking about how Afghanistan would look when we left was to describe "everlasting peace"..
Guys in the military can tell when someone is talking a bunch of shit and blowing smoke up their ass.
But to ordinary folks, I wonder if they see Trump as "presidential" after this.
There was no practical reason for this to be a primetime address.
Didn't most people in the military vote for this guy?
Np I feel that all of these threads are just bashing on said politician but we don't actually get to discuss the policies, or in this case Foreign Policy which is very tricky.
Trump has shifted on this but for some to say its a nothing burger is far from what it actually is. Anyone who was expecting actual troop numbers from Trump or an immediate withdrawal has to look at this situation with a larger lens.
Also in terms of stability the Taliban must be brought to the table. They have infiltrated and are easily able to move throughout the country's institutions and infrastructure. Its so common that they show up in Afghan policemen or Afghan soldier uniforms and then cause havoc. They aren't going away anytime soon but there are some Taliban groups that want to negotiate and others are too hardline.
Jesus, not sticking around is he? Obama always made sure to shake a bunch of hands and take pictures. Trump shakes 2 hands and bounces.
What an ass.
All good points. I want to add that the way things are in Afghanistan are really sustainable so worrying about endless war is actually the wrong mindset. The United States isn't involved in any other massive military conflicts, currently. Troop deployment in the region will barely be above 12,000 after this increase. Engaging other countries over time will allow the United States to disengage without causing security holes. So instead of asking if the US can afford to stay in Afghanistan, one should ask if the US can afford to pull out for no reason other than war-weariness and leave an unfixable situation.
Involving India in this way is a good way to put pressure on Pakistan - either play ball or get shut out of developing regional power structures. It's soft power at its best. I don't think it's dangerous at all.
they ask you to stay because their own troops keep getting blown up by the former dictators of the country
How do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
I thought the deadline was predicated on the notion that the Afghanistan government wasn't really interested in protecting anybody but themselves, and that a date would force them to confront the realities of the situation once we left.2) This is basically Obama's strategy, only more honest. One of the ways that Obama dropped the ball foreign policy wise was by explicitly naming an exit date that he should have known the generals couldn't meet. So, it's not a "new" anything, just more of the same. It's also probably not going to do much at all but kick the can down the road for the next guy. A few thousand troops in Afghanistan is like trying to plug a sucking chest wound with a band aid.
Didn't most people in the military vote for this guy?
The USA destroyed Afghanistan. Cut a check and move on.
How many more Fathers have to come home in a box?
All those terror groups are/were funded by the USA. Why are you sword fighting those you trained.
Its the worst L of the 21st century. Its time to move on.
3) Trump's appeal to India is a clear fuck you to Pakistan. On the one hand, Pakistan is basically the reason why the war against the Taliban is unwinnable, since the Taliban can just hop across the border for sanctuary. On the other hand, I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. Wouldn't Pakistan, for fear of having India on one border and an India-friendly state on the other side, be even less incentivized to see Afghanistan attain any level of stability? Why would that threat make them any more willing to stamp out the Taliban?
And that's the rub. Leave and you allow ISIS to take over where they can. Stay and you give ISIS a reason.Getting into a war is easy but getting out without creating a bigger situation or making it worse than it was is tough. If you thought the Taliban regime was hardline in the 1990s, I wonder how bad it would be if ISIS took control of a weak government in Afghanistan next to nuclear armed Pakistan.
Jesus, not sticking around is he? Obama always made sure to shake a bunch of hands and take pictures. Trump shakes 2 hands and bounces.
What an ass.
Yes lets quickly leave and let the rest of the world deal with it until it comes back to attack us. AMERICA FIRST! /s
Getting into a war is easy but getting out without creating a bigger situation or making it worse than it was is tough. If you thought the Taliban regime was hardline in the 1990s, I wonder how bad it would be if ISIS took control of a weak government in Afghanistan next to nuclear armed Pakistan.
Also a "check" as you say it would solve nothing in Afghanistan. Money is not the only issue here. It is social along with tribal tensions.
It's called conquest. We just stopped pretending that was a good thing in the middle of last century and try to justify it through other means.How do you just occupy someone's country and refuse to leave?
Watch for his approval ratings tomorrow.There was no practical reason for this to be a primetime address.
If the American Gov't cared, they woulda left already. Like 10 years ago already.
I ask again. How many more deaths should be added to the tally?
There is no fucking reason for America to be there. Leave. It's that fucking simple.
There was no practical reason for this to be a primetime address.
what's your problem? just because it has never worked, militarily, in all of history?
details
/s
If the American Gov't cared, they woulda left already. Like 10 years ago already.
I ask again. How many more deaths should be added to the tally?
There is no fucking reason for America to be there. Leave. It's that fucking simple.
The occupation has seen less US troop deaths in the past few years. Notice I said occupation, we are not in a large scale battle focused war. I agree loss of life is terrible but if we leave the loss of life will be larger and we may have to revisit that country to remove ISIS down the road. There's no answer of how long it would take. The repercussions could be disastrous.
Like it or not this is the US' call on whether the Afghan government succeeds or not. They are way more susceptible to corruption and infiltration than the Iraqi government (which was basically a dictatorship under al-Maliki for his tenure) due to the tribal issues. Afghanistan's last election was mired in fraud. Stability is not easy to obtain but if we just leave it could become way worse.
Has no one bothered to tell you we're not at war with "the Afghans"?Has no one bothered to tell them that the Afghans, throughout their history, are very very good at this shit?
The occupation has seen less US troop deaths in the past few years. Notice I said occupation, we are not in a large scale battle focused war. I agree loss of life is terrible but if we leave the loss of life will be larger and we may have to revisit that country to remove ISIS down the road. There's no answer of how long it would take. The repercussions could be disastrous.
Like it or not this is the US' call on whether the Afghan government succeeds or not. They are way more susceptible to corruption and infiltration than the Iraqi government (which was basically a dictatorship under al-Maliki for his tenure) due to the tribal issues. Afghanistan's last election was mired in fraud. Stability is not easy to obtain but if we just leave it could become way worse.
USA had 15 years to figure out stability
We refuse to fire our self for a job clearly not done to satisfactory
Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban and Afghanistan