Afghanistan - Time to leave
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Afghanistan election results are nearing their conclusion:
BBC News - Afghanistan's Ashraf Ghani leads in early vote count
Former Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani is leading the race to replace Hamid Karzai as president, according to preliminary results.
Mr Ghani won 56.44% of votes in the 14 June run-off, election officials said. His rival Abdullah Abdullah had 43.56%.
Mr Abdullah, who fell just short of an outright majority in the first round, rejected the result.
Both men have alleged fraud in the election. Votes are being re-checked at more than 7,000 polling stations.
They represent nearly a third of centres where votes were cast and correspondents say recounts could significantly alter the result.
-----
From all appearances, Afghanistan has its democracy that so many in the pro war camp wanted. Therefore, no further use in staying there. It's now up to those people to determine their own fate without international meddling.
BBC News - Afghanistan's Ashraf Ghani leads in early vote count
Former Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani is leading the race to replace Hamid Karzai as president, according to preliminary results.
Mr Ghani won 56.44% of votes in the 14 June run-off, election officials said. His rival Abdullah Abdullah had 43.56%.
Mr Abdullah, who fell just short of an outright majority in the first round, rejected the result.
Both men have alleged fraud in the election. Votes are being re-checked at more than 7,000 polling stations.
They represent nearly a third of centres where votes were cast and correspondents say recounts could significantly alter the result.
-----
From all appearances, Afghanistan has its democracy that so many in the pro war camp wanted. Therefore, no further use in staying there. It's now up to those people to determine their own fate without international meddling.
Obama's Surge in Afghanistan failed. It resulted in the defeat of the United States by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Poll: Americans Oppose 2003 Iraq Invasion, Oppose Going Back
US Doing Too Much in Other Countries Already, Most Agree
Poll: Americans Oppose 2003 Iraq Invasion, Oppose Going Back -- News from Antiwar.com
A new Quinnipiac poll offers yet more confirmation of public sentiment against a new war in Iraq, with 61% saying the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong and 63% saying they oppose the policy of sending ground troops now.
The polls went further than just touching on Iraq’s wars, past and present. 64% of Americans polled also said that the United States is “doing too much in other countries” and should focus on domestic issues instead of foreign interventions.
Previous polls have showed similar opposition to US involvement in another war in Iraq, though they don’t seem to be impacting the Obama Administration’s decision to continue escalation.
Rather, they seem to have impacted the “talking points” without any real change, with officials promising they wouldn’t send troops, then that they wouldn’t send “combat troops,” then, having sent the combat troops, spurned claims of “mission creep.” US officials seem to recognize voters’ opposition to the new war, but they aren’t letting it get in their way.
-----
Brought to you by the same poll which said Obama was the worst president since WW II.
US Doing Too Much in Other Countries Already, Most Agree
Poll: Americans Oppose 2003 Iraq Invasion, Oppose Going Back -- News from Antiwar.com
A new Quinnipiac poll offers yet more confirmation of public sentiment against a new war in Iraq, with 61% saying the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong and 63% saying they oppose the policy of sending ground troops now.
The polls went further than just touching on Iraq’s wars, past and present. 64% of Americans polled also said that the United States is “doing too much in other countries” and should focus on domestic issues instead of foreign interventions.
Previous polls have showed similar opposition to US involvement in another war in Iraq, though they don’t seem to be impacting the Obama Administration’s decision to continue escalation.
Rather, they seem to have impacted the “talking points” without any real change, with officials promising they wouldn’t send troops, then that they wouldn’t send “combat troops,” then, having sent the combat troops, spurned claims of “mission creep.” US officials seem to recognize voters’ opposition to the new war, but they aren’t letting it get in their way.
-----
Brought to you by the same poll which said Obama was the worst president since WW II.
Here's the latest regarding corruption in that Afghanistan election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/asia/kerry-visits-afghanistan-to-urge-election-deal.html
Kerry Visits Afghanistan to Urge Election Deal
Secretary of State John Kerry made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Thursday in a bid to rescue the political agreement he negotiated almost four weeks ago.
The Obama administration is pressing the Afghans to inaugurate a president before NATO nations hold a summit meeting in Wales in early September.
“We would like to see the president inaugurated and arriving at NATO as part of a government of national unity,” said a senior State Department official who is travelling with Mr. Kerry.
But that will require the two sides to stop squabbling so that the vote auditing process can be accelerated and power-sharing issues can be resolved.
A delay in picking a president could have enormous ramifications for Afghanistan’s security.
more ...
A total waste of time and resources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/asia/kerry-visits-afghanistan-to-urge-election-deal.html
Kerry Visits Afghanistan to Urge Election Deal
Secretary of State John Kerry made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Thursday in a bid to rescue the political agreement he negotiated almost four weeks ago.
The Obama administration is pressing the Afghans to inaugurate a president before NATO nations hold a summit meeting in Wales in early September.
“We would like to see the president inaugurated and arriving at NATO as part of a government of national unity,” said a senior State Department official who is travelling with Mr. Kerry.
But that will require the two sides to stop squabbling so that the vote auditing process can be accelerated and power-sharing issues can be resolved.
A delay in picking a president could have enormous ramifications for Afghanistan’s security.
more ...
A total waste of time and resources.
Most Americans who died in Afghanistan did so while Obama has been president. Any questions?
iCasualties | OEF | Afghanistan | U.S. Fatalities In and Around Afghanistan
iCasualties | OEF | Afghanistan | U.S. Fatalities In and Around Afghanistan
altogether more died under Bush:
Still there's no excuse for any American dying there - pols from both parties need to stop kissing up to the military industrial complex and keep our troops home where they belong.
Still there's no excuse for any American dying there - pols from both parties need to stop kissing up to the military industrial complex and keep our troops home where they belong.
The difference between deaths under Bush and Obama is the same as the difference between the past and the present.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is over. Operation Enduring Freedom continues.
Perhaps I speak too soon. Obama has recommitted US forces to Iraq. It is a certainty that more Americans will die as a result.
In any event the war will return to New York City and Washington, DC. Thank God that isn't my problem.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is over. Operation Enduring Freedom continues.
Perhaps I speak too soon. Obama has recommitted US forces to Iraq. It is a certainty that more Americans will die as a result.
In any event the war will return to New York City and Washington, DC. Thank God that isn't my problem.
People on this forum say I've given Obama a free pass for the past 6 years but that's BS as I have criticized him for staying in Iraq & Afghanistan. Both countires have gotten about a trillion each and over a decade to train their military and stabilize those countries. As conservatives always say when it's convenient, pouring money into a problem won't solve it. Wasting more money and lives in those useless adventures won't do shtt for either country. GTFO and leave them to their own hassles.
Republican hero Bush said in 2004 that he had defeated the Taliban:
Bush Rewrites History: ‘I Never Said The Taliban Was Eliminated’
Early this morning, during a press conference in Kabul with Afghan President Karzai, President Bush attempted to paper over his previous declarations of victory over the now-resurgent Taliban. Bush claimed emphatically, “I never said the Taliban was eliminated.”
In fact, Bush used the word “eliminated” to describe the state of the Taliban on several occasions:
Likewise, the still-classified Afghanistan NIE reportedly paints a “grim” picture of the country. While Bush deserves credit for trying to bring his current rhetoric more in line with reality, he isn’t allowed to pretend that his past rhetoric wasn’t false.
Traitor Bush lied when he made excuses to 'justify' his invasions, lied when he claimed to have defeated the so called enemy, and used "crusade" which is considered racist to Muslims {tantamount to pogrom to Jews}. It was Bush who started and who lost both wars.
Bush Rewrites History: ‘I Never Said The Taliban Was Eliminated’
Early this morning, during a press conference in Kabul with Afghan President Karzai, President Bush attempted to paper over his previous declarations of victory over the now-resurgent Taliban. Bush claimed emphatically, “I never said the Taliban was eliminated.”
In fact, Bush used the word “eliminated” to describe the state of the Taliban on several occasions:
September 2002: “The Taliban’s ability to brutalize the Afghan people and to harbor and support terrorists has been virtually eliminated.”
transcript:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-107hdoc266/html/CDOC-107hdoc266.htm
At other times, Bush prematurely declared victory using similar language:transcript:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-107hdoc266/html/CDOC-107hdoc266.htm
September 2004: “And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free.”
transcript:
Transcript: Bush Gives Campaign Speech in Ohio (washingtonpost.com)
December 2004: “In Afghanistan, America and our allies, with a historically small force and a brilliant strategy, defeated the Taliban in just a few short weeks.”
transcript:
CNN.com - Transcripts
October 2005: “Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence — the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago.”
transcript/quotes:
DubyaSpeak.com : This Day in Dubya History (October 6)
While coalition forces made significant early progress against the Taliban, President Bush allowed the situation to deteriorate after deciding to invade Iraq in 2003. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, troops and resources have been diverted from Afghanistan. Consequently, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated dramatically in recent years. Currently, the Taliban has a “permanent presence” in 75 percent of the country and exercises control over the country’s “political and military dynamic.” transcript:
Transcript: Bush Gives Campaign Speech in Ohio (washingtonpost.com)
December 2004: “In Afghanistan, America and our allies, with a historically small force and a brilliant strategy, defeated the Taliban in just a few short weeks.”
transcript:
CNN.com - Transcripts
October 2005: “Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence — the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago.”
transcript/quotes:
DubyaSpeak.com : This Day in Dubya History (October 6)
Likewise, the still-classified Afghanistan NIE reportedly paints a “grim” picture of the country. While Bush deserves credit for trying to bring his current rhetoric more in line with reality, he isn’t allowed to pretend that his past rhetoric wasn’t false.
Traitor Bush lied when he made excuses to 'justify' his invasions, lied when he claimed to have defeated the so called enemy, and used "crusade" which is considered racist to Muslims {tantamount to pogrom to Jews}. It was Bush who started and who lost both wars.
Afghaniversary: The US Occupation Turns 13
Afghaniversary: The US Occupation Turns 13 -- News from Antiwar.com
Today, the US occupation of Afghanistan officially entered its awkward teen years, as 13 years ago today marks the first US attacks of the conflict, airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar.
The Afghan War at 13 seems very much like it did in years past, with the Taliban in control of vast territory and the Pentagon claiming “progress” that doesn’t seem to have any real impact on the ground.
Untold billions wasted, the advancement of the Afghan War into adolescence doesn’t mean the end is near. Indeed, last week the new Ghani government signed a deal to keep US and NATO forces on the ground “through 2024 and beyond,” ensuring at least another decade of occupation.
The plan right now, at least from a PR standpoint, seems to be claiming the war is ending at the end of the year, when the troop level gets down to 10,000 US ground troops. Yet those troops are staying more or less forever, with re-escalation a possibility at any time.
Yup - it's time to GTFO.
Afghaniversary: The US Occupation Turns 13 -- News from Antiwar.com
Today, the US occupation of Afghanistan officially entered its awkward teen years, as 13 years ago today marks the first US attacks of the conflict, airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar.
The Afghan War at 13 seems very much like it did in years past, with the Taliban in control of vast territory and the Pentagon claiming “progress” that doesn’t seem to have any real impact on the ground.
Untold billions wasted, the advancement of the Afghan War into adolescence doesn’t mean the end is near. Indeed, last week the new Ghani government signed a deal to keep US and NATO forces on the ground “through 2024 and beyond,” ensuring at least another decade of occupation.
The plan right now, at least from a PR standpoint, seems to be claiming the war is ending at the end of the year, when the troop level gets down to 10,000 US ground troops. Yet those troops are staying more or less forever, with re-escalation a possibility at any time.
Yup - it's time to GTFO.
After 13 Years, US-Led Afghanistan War is Officially Over but Nightmare Goes On | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
After 13 Years, US-Led Afghanistan War is Officially Over but Nightmare Goes On
The war in Afghanistan claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians and about 3,500 foreign troops
With little fanfare, the United States and NATO formally ended the longest war in U.S. history with a ceremony in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, leaving observers to wonder what—if anything—was achieved.
Over 13 years, U.S.-led war in Afghanistan claimed the lives of about 3,500 foreign troops (at least 2,224 of them American soldiers) and an estimated 21,000 Afghan civilians; most experts agree that the country is as violent as ever and that the death toll will continue to rise. Many say the war is over in name only.
"Afghanistan's war is as hot as it has been since the U.S.-led invasion following the 9/11 attacks overthrew the Taliban," Lynne O'Donnell writes for the Associated Press. Some 5,000 members of Afghanistan's security forces—army, police and armed rural defense units—have died this year fighting the Taliban, according to Karl Ake Roghe, the outgoing head of EUPOL, the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan.
And while the ceremony marked the end of the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a new flag for the international mission "Resolute Support" was immediately unfurled.
In late September, the U.S. and Afghanistan signed a controversial Bilateral Security Agreement that allows for U.S. training, funding, and arming of the Afghan military; establishes long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan with access to numerous bases and installations in the country; and extends immunity to U.S. service members under Afghan law.
Stars and Stripes set the scene in Kabul: "During an hour-long ceremony in a drab gymnasium at the headquarters of the military coalition that has battled against insurgents for 13 years, generals hailed the end of a mission, while struggling to explain the parameters of what will still be a substantial military operation in Afghanistan."
There will still be roughly 11,000 American troops in Afghanistan next year as part of the Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist Afghanistan’s roughly 350,000 security forces. ISAF spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Belcher told Stars and Stripes that there would be a total of roughly 17,500 foreign troops in Afghanistan next year, which the publication notes is "far more than the 12,000-13,000 U.S. and NATO officials have been saying would be part of Resolute Support. Belcher could not say where those additional troops would be coming from nor when or why the decision was made to increase their number."
As Dan De Luce writes for Agence France-Presse:
Instead of a sense of triumph at the close of the longest conflict in America's history, there is mostly regret and fatigue over a war that claimed the lives of more than 2,300 American troops and cost more than a trillion dollars.
U.S. commanders insist the Afghan security forces will hold the line in a stalemate with the Taliban. But some officials fear a repeat of Iraq, in which an American-trained army virtually collapsed in the face of a jihadist onslaught.
A large majority of Americans now say the war was not worth it, and only 23 percent of US soldiers believe the mission has been a success, according to recent polls.
That sentiment is largely shared in the UK. "n Afghanistan, Britain has just suffered a humiliating defeat, the worst in more than half a century and, arguably, ranking with the worst in modern times," Will Hutton argues at the Guardian.
"But the US, although much more effective than the patronising British, was, at a meta strategic level, wrong," he continues. "The war against terrorism, developed by George W Bush in the hours after 9/11 with little consultation with his own military or cabinet, let alone his allies, is one of the great failures of the rightwing mind. The reflex reaction to an act of mass terror was not to outsmart, out-think and marginalise the new enemy—it was to get even by being even more violent, lawless and vicious, leading Nato into the Afghan quagmire, and the coalition in Iraq. Two trillion dollars later and hundreds of thousand dead and displaced, the world is predictably much less safe for the west than it was—and jihadism is much more entrenched."
Right wingers criticized Obama for not ending it earlier so here's their chance to praise him for finally doing so.
After 13 Years, US-Led Afghanistan War is Officially Over but Nightmare Goes On
The war in Afghanistan claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians and about 3,500 foreign troops
With little fanfare, the United States and NATO formally ended the longest war in U.S. history with a ceremony in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, leaving observers to wonder what—if anything—was achieved.
Over 13 years, U.S.-led war in Afghanistan claimed the lives of about 3,500 foreign troops (at least 2,224 of them American soldiers) and an estimated 21,000 Afghan civilians; most experts agree that the country is as violent as ever and that the death toll will continue to rise. Many say the war is over in name only.
"Afghanistan's war is as hot as it has been since the U.S.-led invasion following the 9/11 attacks overthrew the Taliban," Lynne O'Donnell writes for the Associated Press. Some 5,000 members of Afghanistan's security forces—army, police and armed rural defense units—have died this year fighting the Taliban, according to Karl Ake Roghe, the outgoing head of EUPOL, the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan.
And while the ceremony marked the end of the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a new flag for the international mission "Resolute Support" was immediately unfurled.
In late September, the U.S. and Afghanistan signed a controversial Bilateral Security Agreement that allows for U.S. training, funding, and arming of the Afghan military; establishes long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan with access to numerous bases and installations in the country; and extends immunity to U.S. service members under Afghan law.
Stars and Stripes set the scene in Kabul: "During an hour-long ceremony in a drab gymnasium at the headquarters of the military coalition that has battled against insurgents for 13 years, generals hailed the end of a mission, while struggling to explain the parameters of what will still be a substantial military operation in Afghanistan."
There will still be roughly 11,000 American troops in Afghanistan next year as part of the Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist Afghanistan’s roughly 350,000 security forces. ISAF spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Belcher told Stars and Stripes that there would be a total of roughly 17,500 foreign troops in Afghanistan next year, which the publication notes is "far more than the 12,000-13,000 U.S. and NATO officials have been saying would be part of Resolute Support. Belcher could not say where those additional troops would be coming from nor when or why the decision was made to increase their number."
As Dan De Luce writes for Agence France-Presse:
Instead of a sense of triumph at the close of the longest conflict in America's history, there is mostly regret and fatigue over a war that claimed the lives of more than 2,300 American troops and cost more than a trillion dollars.
U.S. commanders insist the Afghan security forces will hold the line in a stalemate with the Taliban. But some officials fear a repeat of Iraq, in which an American-trained army virtually collapsed in the face of a jihadist onslaught.
A large majority of Americans now say the war was not worth it, and only 23 percent of US soldiers believe the mission has been a success, according to recent polls.
That sentiment is largely shared in the UK. "n Afghanistan, Britain has just suffered a humiliating defeat, the worst in more than half a century and, arguably, ranking with the worst in modern times," Will Hutton argues at the Guardian.
"But the US, although much more effective than the patronising British, was, at a meta strategic level, wrong," he continues. "The war against terrorism, developed by George W Bush in the hours after 9/11 with little consultation with his own military or cabinet, let alone his allies, is one of the great failures of the rightwing mind. The reflex reaction to an act of mass terror was not to outsmart, out-think and marginalise the new enemy—it was to get even by being even more violent, lawless and vicious, leading Nato into the Afghan quagmire, and the coalition in Iraq. Two trillion dollars later and hundreds of thousand dead and displaced, the world is predictably much less safe for the west than it was—and jihadism is much more entrenched."
Right wingers criticized Obama for not ending it earlier so here's their chance to praise him for finally doing so.
Why would America leave? That's completely contradictory of their imperialistic policy isn't it? I mean they have only 200 military bases worldwide.
there's nothing like the profit motive for warmongers. All this increases the taxes and then right wingers complain about all the taxes they have to pay to benefit the wealthy elites.