Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By greysfang
  • 1 Post By witchcurlgirl
  • 1 Post By witchcurlgirl

Thread: Next Afghanistan commander supports troops there past 2014

  1. #1
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default Next Afghanistan commander supports troops there past 2014

    The next commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is prepared to testify that he wants to see a robust U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after the end of 2014, as U.S. and Afghan negotiators began formal work on that troop presence Thursday in Kabul.


    Gen. Joe Dunford will be the sole nominee appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning. President Barack Obama has chosen Dunford to succeed Gen. John Allen to lead the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Allen, who was nominated to be the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), will not testify today because he is under investigation for engaging in a potentially inappropriate e-mail relationship with Tampa socialite (and "honorary consul" of South Korea) Jill Kelley.


    According to his written answers to questions posed in advance by senators, obtained by The Cable, Dunford is ready to tell Congress that he supports U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan for a host of missions in 2015 and beyond, which matches the Obama administration's plans, despite some high-level administration statements to the contrary.


    "In my view our overall objective in Afghanistan after 2014 will be to sustain our hard-won security gains after 2014 so that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists," Dunford wrote to the senators. "To accomplish this objective, the primary missions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan should be to (1) train, advise, and assist the ANSF; (2) provide support to civilian agencies, and (3) conduct counter-terrorism operations. This mission set will include force protection for our brave young men and women and, as available, the provision of in extremis support for our Afghan forces."


    During his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Vice President Joe Biden said that U.S. forces would leave Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

    "[Ryan] and the governor say it's based on conditions, which means ‘it depends.' It does not depend for us. It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security," Biden said. "We are leaving in 2014. Period."

    Only days later, State Department officials explained that the U.S. and Afghan governments were preparing to start negotiations on a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that would establish the size and role of the U.S. troop mission in 2015.

    The BSA is a follow-up agreement based on the Strategic Partnership Agreement Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed in May, which promised an ongoing U.S. commitment to Afghanistan through 2024.


    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Oct. 3 that James Warlick, the deputy to Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, will be the lead U.S. negotiator, while Karzai's Ambassador to Washington Eklil Hakimi leads the negotiations for the Afghan side. Those negotiations began Thursday must be completed within one year.


    "The Strategic Partnership Agreement negotiated last spring included the provisions for: continued U.S. access to, and use of, Afghan facilities for the purposes of countering terrorism; continuing to train the Afghan National Security Forces; and other mutually agreed activities to advance shared security interests," Dunford wrote to the senators. "The BSA should provide a foundation for enduring defense cooperation between our two countries. The key issues that need to be addressed in the conclusion of the BSA should include the nature and scope of the future presence and operational authorities of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; access to and use of Afghan facilities by U.S. forces beyond 2014; and, securing adequate status protections for U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan."


    Dunford also wrote that he believes that the surge of U.S. forces to Afghanistan was a success and that the withdrawal of those surge forces by Obama this year was appropriate. His overall take on the Afghanistan war is that the trend lines are positive and that the insurgency is weakened.

    "I support the President's decision and the reasoning behind that decision to recover 33,000 U.S. surge forces by October 2012. The purpose of the surge was to reverse the Taliban's momentum and increase the size and capability of the ANSF. The surge accomplished these objectives and created the conditions to initiate the process of Transition," he wrote.


    "Although the insurgency remains resilient and determined, Coalition and ANSF operations have degraded insurgent capabilities and freedom of movement in much of the country. The insurgency failed to meet its established goals for the 2012 fighting season and enemy initiated attacks have largely been driven out of key population centers, a central aim of the Campaign. Additionally, security conditions remain relatively stable in areas that have transitioned and, on average, show a decrease in violence."


    Dunford wrote that he also supports the current NATO-approved plan to shift over lead responsibility for all of Afghanistan's territories to the Afghan National Security Forces by mid-2013, at which point international forces will shift to a role of training, assisting, and advising the Afghans. That interim milestone was set at the Lisbon summit of 2010 as followed up in the NATO Chicago summit earlier this year.


    But he also believes that until the end of 2014, the Afghan security forces will not be able to operate completely on their own and will need American "enablers" to help them fly planes and helicopters, do engineering, counter roadside bombs, and to help them with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, known as ISR.


    The pace at which U.S. forces withdraw between now and the end of 2014 should be determined by the conditions on the ground and several other factors, according to Dunford.


    "I agree that there will be further troop reductions through 2014 but the pace of withdrawal over the next 25 months will depend on several variables, including progress of the campaign, the state of the insurgency, and the readiness of the ANSF to assume full security leadership and responsibility to the Afghan government by the end of 2014," he wrote.


    Next Afghanistan commander supports troops there past 2014 | The Cable



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #2
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    56,284

    Default

    Fuck off jackass. I will not tolerate any more broken promises from this administration.
    Mel1973 likes this.
    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  3. #3
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    58,131

    Default

    the US really fucked itself over by starting that war, and now you're stuck there. i get that people want to get the troops out of there but you can't just pull out of a country you invaded because the war's not popular anymore.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  4. #4
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default

    Gee, it's sure a good thing the US didn't elect Romney, 'cause he'd want to keep the war going on in Afghanistan, and er, um, er.


    Just keep telling the public you're leaving in 2014, when you are making commitments to stay for ages. They're dumb enough to believe it. Hell, they want to believe the lie.
    Mel1973 likes this.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  5. #5
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    59,811

    Default

    So who's this one sleeping with and how does it fit into the Petraeus tangle?
    "But I am very poorly today & very stupid & I hate everybody & everything." -- Charles Darwin

  6. #6
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    58,131

    Default

    i get that. and you're right, people don't want to hear the truth, which is that they're fucked and have to stay because they got into that war to begin with. not exactly a great campaign slogan.
    i still think the lesser of two evils won. not so much because of foreign policy but for everything else.
    my views on american foreign policy is that it sucks regardless of who's in power, and that america has always had an extremely myopic and damaging worldview, but because i work in the field and i see american diplomats firsthand, i can tell you that there is at least a difference of tone between the two parties and a bigger willingness to engage in multilateralism when democrats are in power. american diplomacy, much like israeli diplomacy, has the subtlety and finesse of a bull in a china shop but when democrats are in power the US at least comes to the table.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  7. #7
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    my views on american foreign policy is that it sucks regardless of who's in power, and that america has always had an extremely myopic and damaging worldview, but because i work in the field and i see american diplomats firsthand, i can tell you that there is at least a difference of tone between the two parties and a bigger willingness to engage in multilateralism when democrats are in power. american diplomacy, much like israeli diplomacy, has the subtlety and finesse of a bull in a china shop but when democrats are in power the US at least comes to the table.
    but we have such poor manners when we get to that table. like bumpkin relatives that get invited for the holiday

    I'm fucking around of course, but I agree. My views on US foreign policy were formed in an era where so many of our horrible overseas adventures and idiotic interference were coming to light and coming home to roost, and it definitely shaped how I look at 'us'. I think the american public were more aware years ago of how truly terrible much of our foreign policy is, now they seem much less so.
    sputnik likes this.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  8. #8
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    You can't fix Afghanistan from the outside. Not with all the trillions of wasted dollars at your disposal. It's an endless meatgrinder.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #9
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    955

    Default

    Something has to give...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. NATO- The Real Afghanistan Withdrawl Date: 2014
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 4th, 2010, 10:11 PM
  2. 14 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in past 3 days
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 30th, 2010, 09:39 PM
  3. 30,000 more troops set to go to Afghanistan
    By NicoleWasHere in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2009, 09:57 AM
  4. US to send 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 11th, 2008, 03:14 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2007, 05:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •