I thought they’d made friends again but turns out not so much -
- But they both hate the gov -
Is the US taxpayer funding the ISIS and taliban in Afghanistan? These people need money for bribes and weapons. i have a sneaking suspicion that WE are paying for this.
Is this only when the outsiders try and make themselves insiders ?
I fear this is a large part of Obama’s decision. It’s politically driven.
Afghanistan, like Iraq, are broken irreparably. Another year or 10 or 20 is unlikely to make much of a difference. This decision is simply another finger in the dyke.
Obama is kicking the can down the road.
It’s a dilemma between meddling more, when past meddling has only screwed things up, and not taking responsibility for the mess you’ve made. The point can be reached where it’s hard to know which is the worse thing to do.
^ that threw me until I checked and found d-y-k-e to be an accepted alternate spelling.
Because Obama is a Muslim? Connect the dot for me.
Unlike Iraq, we went into Afghanistan with a true coalition. We even had France with us. Now, every single one of those partners has decided it’s not worth it to continue. It could be that all the countries in the world are wrong about this and we’re right, but I somehow think the odds are against that.
very simple-the USA has given billions to the Afghan government-for weapons 9for the corrupt Afghan army). The lower level officers sell these weapons to the Taliban.
Case closed.
An excellent application of Occam’s razor. That is the most straightforward explanation for what’s going on.
In Obama’s defense, there are legit reasons for Obama to care about the outcome of the 2016 election beyond mere partisanship. For example, some of the GOP candidates have expressed a desire to dismantle the Iran nuclear deal. I’m willing for Obama to do some minor stupid shit in Afghanistan to deprive a GOP successor the opportunity to do some major stupid shit elsewhere.
Perhaps, but first off, the Republican Party is not limited by facts or the lack thereof for their talking points. Second, I sincerely doubt they can sell an expanded war in Afghanistan, or even a loud armed argument. We went there to get bin Laden, we got into a fight with the Taliban because they would not turn him over. Whether or not they could have done so even had they wanted to is another question. Frankly, I doubt it.
We went to war in Afghanistan because 9/11 drove us nuts. When the most powerful nation in human history loses its shit, people suffer on a global scale.
This, frankly, is the only way to “win” this conflict.
To think otherwise is foolish.
Those countries long ago decided they would largely not do heavy lifting militarily. We can follow suit I guess, but I wouldn’t say a reason to do so is because France does it.
Genghis Khan didn’t really do that, he never defined victory as “100% stability”, much of the area he conquered he just exacted and expected tribute from the local leadership. If they thought otherwise that’s when he killed everyone. But he wasn’t interest in how well his tributaries managed internal security for themselves.
It’s not smart to identify success in Afghanistan as Afghanistan being 100% stable with no terrorists. Pakistan is a much richer and more powerful country and it has not been able to create such a condition in its own country. A successful Afghanistan looks like Pakistan, not Germany.
Neither would I. Nor did I.
You certainly suggested we should consider our engagement in Afghanistan based on France’s participation.
I certainly did not intend to, so if you read it that way, then maybe I should have left France out completely. But I mentioned them as [one of many] partners getting in, saying nothing specific about them getting out.
To be clear: No other country on earth is willing to help us with this task, so maybe we’re the only country that’s got the correct vision, but I think that’s unlikely.
I don’t want to be that guy saying, “You forgot about Poland,” but…
You forgot about quite a few countries. Non-US countries are going to be roughly 20% of the total foreign military presence in Afghanistan. (This link is a little dated, but it illustrates the point.)
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_02/20150227_1502-RSM-Placemat.pdf
How’s this for denouncement? Its impossible to fix Afghanistan. The US public does not want to expend more capital and time to fix it any more than we have now. Therefore he’s going to manage a bad situation by doing his best to ensure it doesn’t get worse. What he’s doing is pragmatic, realistic, and the only thing the American public will allow him to do. Too bad he’s unwilling to lie to the American people to extricate them in a bad war, huh? If only Bush was still in charge!
I suppose what planners in Washington want is to somehow return Afghanistan to the status quo that existed in the 1960’s: if not peaceful, at least off the radar.
War is peace.