U.S., Taliban sign deal aimed at ending war in Afghanistan

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  one month ago  •  69 comments

U.S., Taliban sign deal aimed at ending war in Afghanistan

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The United States signed a peace agreement with Taliban militants on Saturday aimed at bringing an end to 18 years of bloodshed in Afghanistan and allowing U.S. troops to return home from America's longest war. Under the agreement, the U.S. would draw its forces down to 8,600 from 13,000 in the next 3-4 months, with the remaining U.S. forces withdrawing in 14 months. 

The complete pullout, however, would depend on the Taliban meeting their commitments to prevent terrorism.

President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Some U.S. troops currently serving there had not yet been born when the World Trade Center collapsed on that crisp, sunny morning that changed how Americans see the world.

It only took a few months to topple the Taliban and send Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaida militants scrambling across the border into Pakistan, but the war dragged on for years as the United States tried establish a stable, functioning state in one of the least developed countries in the world. The Taliban regrouped, and currently hold sway over half the country. 

The U.S. spent more than $750 billion, and on all sides the war cost tens of thousands of lives lost, permanently scarred and indelibly interrupted. But the conflict was also frequently ignored by U.S. politicians and the American public.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the ceremony in Qatar, where the Taliban have a political office, but did not sign the agreement. Instead, it was signed by U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. 

The Taliban harbored bin Laden and his al-Qaida network as they plotted, and then celebrated, the hijackings of four airliners that were crashed into lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania, killing almost 3,000 people.

President Trump has repeatedly promised to get the U.S. out of its "endless wars" in the Middle East, and the withdrawal of troops could provide a boost as he seeks re-election in a nation weary of involvement in distant conflicts.

Mr. Trump has approached the Taliban agreement cautiously, steering clear of the crowing surrounding other major foreign policy actions, such as his talks with North Korea.

Last September, on short notice, he called off what was to be a signing ceremony with the Taliban at Camp David after a series of new Taliban attacks. But he has since been supportive of the talks led by his special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Under the agreement, the Taliban promise not to let extremists use the country as a staging ground for attacking the U.S. or its allies. But U.S. officials are loath to trust the Taliban to fulfill their obligations.

The prospects for Afghanistan's future are uncertain. The agreement sets the stage for peace talks involving Afghan factions, which are likely to be complicated. Under the agreement, 5,000 Taliban are to be released from Afghan-run jails, but it's not known if the Afghan government will do that. There are also questions about whether Taliban fighters loyal to various warlords will be willing to disarm.

It's not clear what will become of gains made in women's rights since the toppling of the Taliban, which had repressed women and girls under a strict brand of Sharia law. Women's rights in Afghanistan had been a top concern of both the Bush and Obama administration, but it remains a deeply conservative country, with women still struggling for basic rights.

There are currently more than 16,500 soldiers serving under the NATO banner, of which 8,000 are American. Germany has the next largest contingent, with 1,300 troops, followed by Britain with 1,100.

In all, 38 NATO countries are contributing forces to Afghanistan. The alliance officially concluded its combat mission in 2014 and now provides training and support to Afghan forces.

The U.S. has a separate contingent of 5,000 troops deployed to carry out counter-terrorism missions and provide air and ground support to Afghan forces when requested.

Since the start of negotiations with the Taliban, the U.S. has stepped up its air assaults on the Taliban as well as a local Islamic State affiliate. Last year the U.S. air force dropped more bombs on Afghanistan than in any year since 2013.

Seven days ago, the Taliban began a seven-day "reduction of violence" period, a prerequisite to the peace deal signing.

"We have seen a significant reduction in violence in Afghanistan over the last days, and therefore we are also very close to the signing of an agreement between the United States and the Taliban," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday in Brussels.

He was in Kabul on Saturday for a separate signing ceremony with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper. That signing was intended to show continuing NATO and U.S. support for Afghanistan.

"The road to peace will be long and hard and there will be setbacks, and there is a risk always for spoilers," Stoltenberg said. "But the thing is, we are committed, the Afghan people are committed to peace, and we will continue to provide support."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    one month ago

"We have seen a significant reduction in violence in Afghanistan over the last days, and therefore we are also very close to the signing of an agreement between the United States and the Taliban," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday in Brussels.

He was in Kabul on Saturday for a separate signing ceremony with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper. That signing was intended to show continuing NATO and U.S. support for Afghanistan.

"The road to peace will be long and hard and there will be setbacks, and there is a risk always for spoilers," Stoltenberg said. "But the thing is, we are committed, the Afghan people are committed to peace, and we will continue to provide support."

As Picard would say - "Make it so".

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one month ago
"Make it so"

Hear, hear. This is a good thing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one month ago
As Picard would say - "Make it so".

I hope you're right, but it sounds too much like the same sort of agreement he had with North Korea.  The one where we gave up everything and received nothing in return.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
The one where we gave up everything and received nothing in return.

What did we actually give up ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Military exercises ? jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.1    one month ago
Military exercises ?

Yes.  Military exercises with South Korea.

What did we get???

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one month ago

Sure would absolutely LOVE to see some of that PROOF that you're looking at regarding the exercises.

They're still having the exercises but had postponed them due to the virus -  " The United States and South Korea have  postponed  annual joint military exercises until further notice amid the coronavirus outbreak. The announcement comes after the U.S. military reported one its 28,500 service members stationed in South Korea tested positive for the virus the virus. The South Korean military has tracked nearly two dozen cases of the virus among its ranks."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/27/coronavirus-fear-united-states-joint-military-exercises-south-korea-asia-trump-cdc/

Now, it's your turn.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.3    one month ago
 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.4    one month ago

Please note the date of that agreement - 6/11/18 - 18 months ago.  Since that time, the U.S and South Korea have conducted war exercises and have told Kim to pretty well shove it.  The exercises are on a smaller scale, but they are still war exercises and they have not been stopped.

U.S., South Korean Defense Leaders Talk Military Exercises - https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2017615/us-south-korean-defense-leaders-talk-military-exercises/

US and South Korea may scale back joint military exercises over coronavirus fears -  https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/02/25/us-and-south-korean-may-scale-back-joint-military-exercises-over-coronavirus-fears/

The above two links are from 11/19 and 2/20 - both showing that the exercises are continuing.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one month ago
What did we get???

Saved some Money ?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    one month ago

The only problem with this entire Afghanistan situation, regardless of us trying to deal with the Taliban or even the "Afghanistan" government is that there is essentially NO central entity to control the situation.

Afghanistan has and continues to be essentially a tribal land mass controlled by tribal leaders who work and deal with each other for trade and sustenance.  No one there recognizes any centralized authority.  Hell, there isn't even a word in their language for 'democracy'.

The way to view it that I'll surmise most Americans can relate to is to look at the various 'controlling' entities in Afghanistan as variants of our "Crips" and "Bloods".  They don't play very well or nicely in the sandbox together.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago

You know it will not happen we call this pissing in the wind.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago

You have to cringe and stifle a laugh when the deal calls for "no major" attacks by the Taliban for the next 7 days...

Odds are not good for this coming to fruition.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.2    one month ago

Maybe we should just ramp up MOAB production and vaporize the whole country eh?     Or perhaps we could just pull out 100% tomorrow and tell all our service people who served/died there and our involved allies to pack sand as well.

This treaty may not work but imo it’s better than what’s been done the previous decade or so.    Some chance is better than no chance.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.1    one month ago

MOAB's ( GBU43) are a ridiculously expensive way to clear small small areas,

but the concussion is likely to kill anyone underground.

It doesn't matter if we carpet bombed them with BLU 82 daisy cutters.

As long as one escapes, it's a blood oath to kill Americans, or any other invaders,

for each successive generation.  Bombs cannot change that.

Rudyard Kipling warned us long ago...

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.2    one month ago

I agree.    

My point was the futility of any option on different levels.    It’s a catch-22 no matter what we do.   I’m all for pulling out and letting them kill each other off if that’s what they want to do.   We’ve already spent way too much national treasure in $$ and lives.

pull back, circle the wagons and protect the homeland from the eventual shit that will come out of there and elsewhere.    Not a huge fan of isolationism but enough is enough.

You can’t reason with a fanatic.    NTers is proof enough of that.

That said, this deal may be a start of getting out.    I’m all in on that.

Speaking of Rudyard Kipling, one of my favorite lines of his:

”A woman is just a woman but a good cigar is a smoke”

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Split Personality @2.2    one month ago

attacks by the Taliban for the next 7 days

On the eighth day we give them a check for a bridge.  The Taliban being the nice guys that they are will throw in a swamp for free.

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.5  evilgenius  replied to  Split Personality @2.2    one month ago
You have to cringe and stifle a laugh when the deal calls for "no major" attacks by the Taliban for the next 7 days... Odds are not good for this coming to fruition.

I heard a report that the Taliban were kidnapping members of the Afghani government to use as bargaining chips in upcoming negotiations.  The US deal allows for 1000 Taliban prisoners to be released in a Afgan/Taliban prisoner exchange. The Taliban want all 5000 of their people released.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.6  Ender  replied to  evilgenius @2.2.5    one month ago

I already read an article that said the taliban cease fire is over. They supposedly said they would not attack US forces but are restarting and going to continue attacks on the Afghan government.

So nothing has changed really.

And donald had the nerve to accuse Obama of sleeping with the enemy.

 
 
 
zuksam
2.3  zuksam  replied to  XDm9mm @2    one month ago

Let's face it if we haven't fixed it yet we never will. The fact that we're even talking to the Taliban is proof we are giving up, we're not defeated but we're not victorious either. I see this as the first step in getting the hell out of there and I'm fine with that but I expect the Taliban to be back in power within a decade after we leave. The only way to win in a country like that is to kill everyone you see and burn any crops and animals so the ones who hide starve, we won't do that so we won't win ever so it's time to go.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.3.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  zuksam @2.3    one month ago

Not giving up - just charting a new course that will, hopefully pull the U.S. out of ME politics.  We have no business over there, especially since we're producing as much, if not more, oil than they are.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.1    one month ago
Not giving up

Of course we are.  They have the home field advantage.

We have a poor record except for coming into two World wide conflicts late with overwhelming numbers.

The Brits gave up on the American colonies and eventually every colony they had.

We had a draw in Korea, walked away from Vietnam, Somalia, the Russian Civil War, the Bay of Pigs and Libya.

Hell we walked away from Powder River and Red Cloud too.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.3.3  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.1    one month ago

Let me be a  bit more specific.

There are two Presidents and Administrations in Afghanistan because of "voting irregularities".

The old Administration won't leave or recognize the election results.

There are damned few women in either government, usually in symbolic roles related to women's issues.

There were no women present during the US / Taliban "negotiations".  None on either side.

Neither government of Afghanistan was invited to participate.

Last week Mr. Pompeo told reporters that releasing any Taliban prisoners was not negotiable.

Today the signed truce calls for 5,000 Taliban prisoners to be released immediately in exchange for 1,000

prisoners, westerners, etc.  Both Afghan governments say this is not going to happen.

So if the "government of Afghanistan" was not present during negotiations and doesn't agree with the terms,

the whole charade is just the US saving face while we try to "cut and run" with grace.

This excerpt is from 2014 when the world assumed the new government of Afghanistan would ask us to leave.

How much "stuff" is the United States military leaving behind as it withdraws from Afghanistan after 12 years of war? Try some $6 billion worth.

And much of it may yet end up in a junk pile.

That includes 850 MRAPS (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles which have been credited with saving countless lives from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on the road, but now will either be given to an allied country (as long as they pay the shipping costs) or for scrap on the Afghan market.

This calculation is being done over and over, as U.S. military officials weigh what to bring home and what to leave in the battlefield. As Afghanistan heads into elections this weekend, U.S. forces are preparing for a total, or almost total, withdrawal by the end of the year.

Ultimately, some 170 million pounds of vehicles, equipment and "white gear" -- that's all the non-military stuff that contractors have been using, like furniture, generators, chemical toilets, air conditioners, non-classified computers and more -- are being left behind. What they cannot, or will not, donate or sell to the Afghans or to allies is being destroyed so that it doesn't rot in place or fall into Taliban hands. Some reports indicate that most of the $6 billion worth of materiel will indeed be sold for scrap or thrown in the junkyard.

Pentagon officials would not confirm that, but consider this: in the month of February alone, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Disposition Services sold 34.7 million pounds of scrap from its own vehicles and equipment to local Afghan vendors, according to figures provided to FoxNews.com.

And in the past 12 months, the agency sold 387 million pounds of scrap, sending $46.5 million back to the U.S. Treasury.

Officials say it's the only alternative to shipping everything back to the States, which by air or through dangerous land routes via Pakistan would be entirely cost-prohibitive.

"You don't really have any great options," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and now senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "At least in Iraq, you had Kuwait where you could have a place to store [vehicles and equipment]. They are making the best of no great choices."

Pentagon spokesman Mark Wright said the military has, over the last 12 years, donated "excess equipment" like base-operating support equipment, forklifts, generators and other supplies to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and has invested more than $53 billion in equipment and support -- including 160 aircraft, 100,000 vehicles, 500,000 weapons and 200,000 pieces of communications and night-vision equipment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scrap-heap-of-war-billions-in-equipment-being-left-behind-in-afghanistan

Six long years later, the ME is the gift that just keeps taking, and taking, and taking...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.1    one month ago

And we can always change course, according to the Bolton interpretation of treaties:

"Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has a long history of encouraging presidents to terminate treaties without going to the Senate for approval under the President’s inherent powers to conduct foreign affairs under Article II of the Constitution vesting of executive power solely in the President."

http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/john-bolton-believes-presidents-can-rescind-treaties-without-the-senate-but-objected-to-president-donald-trump-pausing-military-aid-to-ukraine-a-non-treaty-partner/

The withdrawal will be gradual and measured and immediate penalties will be an option.
According to the article:

"The U.S. has a separate contingent of 5,000 troops deployed to carry out counter-terrorism missions and provide air and ground support to Afghan forces when requested."

 
 
 
charger 383
3  charger 383    one month ago

If we can't get rid of them we might as will make peace with them

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    one month ago

Trump can't make this deal work.  Trump has no comprehension with what and whom he is dealing with.  This is an election ploy and nothing more.  The best that will come out of any Trumpian deal is nothing and the worst is US and American interest in the region will be lost.  Ask the Kurds, they know what the Trump is and how little he can be trusted.

Besides, US would not be there in the manner we are if it weren't for OIL and our dismantling of the Baathist Regimes.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @4    one month ago

WTF!

No other president could even get a deal done.  That includes the left's savior Barack Obama; who signed a POS SOFA tying the US to a weak corrupt Afghan government..

You don't even know what the overall deal is and what the conditions are for withdrawal; and you are bitching. Typical rampant TDS.

As for "ask the Kurds." Which faction? You know that there are 3 major factions right?  Bush Jr/Obama fucked over the Kurds in Iraq when they withdrew forces bowing to an Iraqi government run by Shia loyal to Iran. That was the good Kurdish faction that has supported the US since the first Iraq War they screwed over.  No fucking crying by the left over that what-so-ever.

With Syria, that is a far different Kurdish faction that is tied to the Turkish Kurd faction that are terrorists. Also, thanks to the left's savior Barack Obama we are fighting in Syria illegally.  The Syrian government has asked repeatedly for US forces to leave; and we are still there! Oh, and those poor Syrian Kurds flipped sides just before our "faux" withdrawal, and are now with the Syrian government, Russians, and Iranians. Which is what would have happened to begin with, if not for Obama's moronic decision to involve the US in the Syrian Civil War in an effort to remove Assad from power.

Trump is to blame for the position that past administrations have put the US in. What BS.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  lady in black @4.1.1    one month ago

If only we had some terrorist to exchange for a deserter like the 'son of a bitch' Obama did.

Did you even attempt to read your link, the second paragraph..

Still, the U.S. has said a planned U.S. troop withdrawal over the next 14 months is linked to the Taliban's counter-terrorism performance, not to progress in intra-Afghan talks.

Not are prisoners, not are problem unless you are a TDS sufferer.

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.3  lady in black  replied to  KDMichigan @4.1.2    one month ago

Doesn't matter that it's not OUR prisoners, I don't have TDS=Trump DENIAL syndrome, denying that he is the worst president this country has ever had.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  lady in black @4.1.3    one month ago
Doesn't matter that it's not OUR prisoners,

It doesn't? Well for those of us that read your article and not just the TDS sufferer grabbing headline, the peace deal has nothing to do with prisoners

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.5  lady in black  replied to  KDMichigan @4.1.4    one month ago

And once again, I don't suffer from trump DENIAL syndrome.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @4.1.5    one month ago

True, lots of folks on the left don’t suffer as much from Trump DENIAL syndrome.     They suffer from the original, unedited version of TDS .... Trump DERANGEMENT syndrome.

The butthurt over Trumps win in 2016 is still palpable for many nearly four years later.     How sad for them ......

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.7  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @4.1.5    one month ago

One usually doesn't realize they are in denial that is why it is called denial. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @4.1.7    one month ago

I think the denial is much more likely on the part of those who think that someone who has lied 15,000 times WHILE IN OFFICE should be re-elected. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    one month ago

15,000 times?     Really?   

What a strangely specific number .....

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.10  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    one month ago
someone who has lied 15,000 times

So there's been a decrease? I remember a couple of weeks ago you were claiming more than 16,000. Things should be improving for you then, eh?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.12  bugsy  replied to  JBB @4.1.11    one month ago

If you really look into what the WaPo claim are "lies", you will see most of them are simply extravagant story telling or something the "fact checkers" don't like, so they call it a "lie".

Tell us...what do you think about the "lies" Biden has been telling on the campaign trail the last few months? The latest is when he told the same story several times he was arrested in South Africa when Mandela was released. Now he is saying he was "detained". More than likely it will come out he was not even there,

Do you and Will you and John call that a lie?

Why do I feel like you won't.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.13  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @4.1.12    one month ago

Take for instance the second "lie" claim from the link. It says Trump claims China will buy 40 to 50 billion dollars worth of agriculture a year. When the deal was actually signed, the actual numbers were 36 billion in 2020 and 43 billion in 2021.

The HORRORS!!!!

IMPEACH!!!

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.14  bbl-1  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1    one month ago

Not blaming Trump for the current Western positions in the ME.  I simply do not believe Trump nor his closest loyalists understands the history of the ME or how fast and how often alliances shift.  My advice to Trump would to be very-very cautious in dealing with these people who are opportunists, dishonest and do not give a whit about their own people and their only concern is to maintain their avenues to power.  I most certainly do not wish to have our president make a deal that may give the US and The West any grief in the future.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.16  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.14    one month ago

If any of our PRECEDING presidents had understood the history of the ME, we wouldn't have stepped in during the '50's.

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.17  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.16    one month ago

Totally agree.  But in the 1950s, with the US assuming itself to be a 'transforming power' in the World after WW2 this is what the US did.  The US jettisoned it's ideals of democracy to pursue its perceived and questionable stances against the Soviet Union to covertly and overtly destroy Iran's elected democratic government, thusly replacing it with an autocratic regime the US correctly assumed would be staunch geopolitical and economic supporters of US policy in the region.  In my opinion this action was the first of many mistakes the US made in its pursuit of a Cold War policy whose goals could have been achieved much easier and swiftly had the US simply stood by democratic principals instead of agitation, weapons buildups and meddling in the governance of the ME nations.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.9    one month ago

Okay, so it is really 15,413. Kavatch, kavatch, kavatch.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.18    one month ago

So that's like an average of 14 lies a day so far.

Amazing!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.19    one month ago

The amazing part is that his supporters could care less that he is a continual pathological liar.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.20    one month ago

It would be amazing if any of what you say was actually the truth.

An average of 14 lies per day, every day?   C'mon man!   Even you can't really believe that ....

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.22  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.21    one month ago

It just means that it averaged 14 a day.  In reality, some days had none and other days it was more.  His lies have been checked and verified.  Some are subtle and other are blatant.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.23  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.22    one month ago

So, let's get back to discussing the topic, please :-)

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.23    one month ago
 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1.25  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.24    one month ago

That should make the left-wing neocons happy. The idea of a peace deal seemed to have a lot of people upset.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  KDMichigan @4.1.25    one month ago
The idea of a peace deal seemed to have a lot of people upset.

I know ... crazy eh?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.27  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.24    one month ago

But, think about it - the Taliban did not strike U.S. forces - just the Afghan who were not part of the peace treaty - were they?

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.28  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.27    one month ago

Then why did we support them with airstrikes?

Why not just keep withdrawing per the "deal"?

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.29  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.28    one month ago

Thank Barack Obama for the shitty SOFA agreement he signed with the Afghan government. We are tied to them.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.30  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.29    one month ago
Thank Barack Obama for the shitty SOFA agreement he signed with the Afghan government. We are tied to them.

Tricky situation, maybe semantics, but the existing SOFA dates back to 2003, Bush, not Obama.

In 2012 Obama signed a "strategic partnership agreement" of 10 years which turned over the control of all military prisoners and prisons to the Afghan "government" as well made the Afghan special forces the lead fighters while relegating US forces to support roles and increased the NATO training of Afghan security forces.

The Agreement calls for a new SOFA in 2022 or within a year of that point,

but I seriously do not think either of the two current governments vying for power in Afghanistan will exist

after we pull out and the Taliban initiate this year's spring offensive against them.

The current SOFA still calls for all US military and civilians working for them to be treated as if they were Embassy employees, something that the Taliban cannot stand and will not abide by.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5  Freedom Warrior    one month ago

I've never seen anything that looked like it made sense when it comes to Afghanistan. If the principal goal is to exit and avoid the country from becoming a staging ground then you give something like this a try and then see if works and why it doesn't and work on incremental approaches from there.   One thing for sure, you're not going to import sanity to the ME.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    one month ago

Sanity?   How can we import sanity there when we don't even have it here?

Wackadoodles, are going to be wackadoodles, no matter what you try.

That is the way of the world.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.2  bbl-1  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    one month ago

Or the US could have armed, trained and supported brigades of Afghan women to take the fight directly to the Taliban.  Even offering bounty on Taliban.  This could have had a resounding effect on the rest of the Mid East nations concerning religious extremism.  Of course, the Saudi Regime would have not liked that at all.  Then again, it is the Saudi Regime that builds, finances and supports the Madrassas and from these is where the religious extremism is bred.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @5.2    one month ago

Women there are due for some serious payback.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2.1    one month ago

Paula, and you know this, but there is entirely too much cultural/traditional supporting the lack of women's rights in the ME - hell, even the Crusaders commented on how harshly the women were treated and kept.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.2    one month ago

I know, but I can wish.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2.4  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2.3    one month ago

And I'm right there wichya :-)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6  Vic Eldred    one month ago

"To date, according to The Associated Press, the United States has spent nearly $1 trillion in Afghanistan and more than 3,500 U.S. and coalition soldiers have died there. More than 2,400 of them were Americans. Saturday's agreement sets the stage for March 10 intra-Afghan talks in Oslo, with the aim of forming a power-sharing agreement between rival Afghan groups."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/lindsey-graham-taliban-peace-deal-obama-iraq


So, we don't completely pull the plug this time?  We gradually withdraw, but keep military options in play.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.1  WallyW  replied to  Split Personality @7    one month ago

In fact, as written, they appear to give Mr. Trump, or his successor, enormous latitude to simply declare that the war is over and leave. But many of Mr. Trump’s aides suggest that American counterterrorism forces and a significant C.I.A. presence should remain in the country.

Probably the best option. might as well do it now and gain the political advantage. Then the Dems will likely assert that we're deserting an ally. The use of special ops, drones, and targeted missile attacks might be considered.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  WallyW @7.1    one month ago
Then the Dems will likely assert that we're deserting an ally.

Yes, but which one? As I previously linked, this place is so effed up, they can't decide which candidate won the recent election, So they are both being sworn in.  This country is doomed to fall to the Taliban.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-begins-troop-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-official-says/ar-BB10X5AJ?ocid=spartanntp

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @7    one month ago

The Taliban has already stated that they will not abide by the accord - 

U.S. has persuasive intel Taliban do not intend to abide by terms of peace deal, officials say

"They have no intention of abiding by their agreement," one official said.

The Taliban sources say the group will continue to train fighters but plans to wait for the outcome of the intra-Afghan dialogue before officially announcing a spring offensive.

"Presently we are training around 15,000 fighters in our dozens of training centers across Afghanistan," one commander said. "As per our agreement with the U.S., we will not carry out attacks in the cities and district headquarters in Afghanistan . But we will continue our attacks in the rural areas of the country."

That's a peace deal?????

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @7.2    one month ago
That's a peace deal?????

According to Pompeo, yes. Trillions of dollars, 2,500 deaths, 21,000 service men and women injured.

Opium production which was supposed to be reduced, actually increased four fold.

We will capitulate, leaving behind billions of dollars worth of equipment which will eventually be used by the Taliban

against other Afghans or new invaders should China be the next super power foolish enough to try to rein in these people.

 
 
 
Comrade Cameron
8  Comrade Cameron    one month ago

Time to end the war that Joe Biden voted for.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








WallyW
Just Jim NC TttH


71 visitors