Afghanistan Cut 'N' Run

[Admiral Yi]

Surprised no thread yet.

Anyhoo, Obama has announced 10,000 out by the end of this year and 23,000 more next year.

[mongers]

Surprised no thread yet.

Anyhoo, Obama has announced 10,000 out by the end of this year and 23,000 more next year.

Is it that significant ?

What matters is negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, where they're brought into a coalition Afghan government; that would be the bigger influence on the long term success or failure of the US intervention in the country.

[Admiral Yi]

Is it that significant ?

Is it how significant?  Significant enough to warrant a thread?

My main motivation was to crow to Shelf and his ilk that it was not really a deadline when originally announced.

[mongers]

Is it that significant ?

Is it how significant?  Significant enough to warrant a thread?

My main motivation was to crow to Shelf and his ilk that it was not really a deadline when originally announced.

It would have been very significant if Obama had gone with the big rapid draw-down after the mini-surge, but I think the recent announcement of talks with the taliban if far more important, did we have a thread on it ? 

I think there can only really be a political 'solution' to the Afghan problem, wars in that country seem all but unwinable.

[Slargos]

Surprised no thread yet.

Anyhoo, Obama has announced 10,000 out by the end of this year and 23,000 more next year.

Is it that significant ?

What matters is negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, where they're brought into a coalition Afghan government; that would be the bigger influence on the long term success or failure of the US intervention in the country.

As significant as 99% of the other thread starts, I'd say.

I will admit I was a bit surprised by this. Or, well, I guess that's the wrong word. They obviously weren't going to stay forever. I doubt the Afghans are ready to fend for themselves though.

Vietnam all over again.

[jimmy olsen]

The thread title is ridiculous. There will still be 68,000 troops in Afghanistan after this drawdown, twice as many as there was in 2008.

[Admiral Yi]

The thread title is ridiculous. There will still be 68,000 troops in Afghanistan after this drawdown, twice as many as there was in 2008.

Where'd you get those numbers from Timmy?

[jimmy olsen]

The thread title is ridiculous. There will still be 68,000 troops in Afghanistan after this drawdown, twice as many as there was in 2008.

Where'd you get those numbers from Timmy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43509129/ns/politics-white_house/

there's still some fighting to be done, and then we're still going to have 68,000 and, frankly, the 10th Mountain Division is still going to be represented there until we've fully transferred to the Afghan military and security forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_combat_operations_in_Afghanistan_in_2008#United_States

The United States had 32,500 military personnel (of which 23,550 were with ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2008.

[Neil]

What matters is negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, where they're brought into a coalition Afghan government; that would be the bigger influence on the long term success or failure of the US intervention in the country.

By peace deal, do you mean surrender?  Because that's how those things tend to go.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah Timmy, that 68 number seems to be all troops, not just US.  Notice in the same sentence he talks about surging 33,000.  You can't surge 33,000, withdraw 33,000, then end up with twice the troops you started with.

[MadImmortalMan]

What matters is negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, where they're brought into a coalition Afghan government; that would be the bigger influence on the long term success or failure of the US intervention in the country.

We don't want those assholes running anything.

[alfred russel]

Wouldn't it be easier to support the Afghan government from a distance, and if the Taliban starts to take over to intervene again? It has been 10 years.

[alfred russel]

As significant as 99% of the other thread starts, I'd say.

I will admit I was a bit surprised by this. Or, well, I guess that's the wrong word. They obviously weren't going to stay forever. I doubt the Afghans are ready to fend for themselves though.

Vietnam all over again.

I disagree, in Vietnam the country last the appetite for the fight, but here the fight has just become pointless. There aren't reasonable ways to eliminate every taliban, or make a country like Afghanistan a western style democracy. This is as good as we can reasonably expect to do. If the Taliban starts a comeback, we won't send helicopters to evacuate Kabul--we will send ground units beat the Taliban back.

[derspiess]

What matters is negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, where they're brought into a coalition Afghan government; that would be the bigger influence on the long term success or failure of the US intervention in the country.

We don't want those assholes running anything.

Nobody does.  But I'm getting so tired of supporting assholes like Karzai.

As long as the Taliban understands that we will glass them if they harbor al Qaeda, they can have that shitty country.

[mongers]

What matters is negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban, where they're brought into a coalition Afghan government; that would be the bigger influence on the long term success or failure of the US intervention in the country.

We don't want those assholes running anything.

Nobody does.  But I'm getting so tired of supporting assholes like Karzai.

As long as the Taliban understands that we will glass them if they harbor al Qaeda, they can have that shitty country.

He and his kleptomaniac inner circle have a disaster for the country and process of recovery.