U.S. Army 1st Lt. David T. Broyles watches as his men leave Observation Post Rocky with Afghan National Army Soldiers in Kunar province, Afghanistan, July 19, 2010. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Gary A. WitteMax Bearak, Washington Post: What would happen if the United States totally disengaged from Afghanistan?
KABUL — The United States' longest war doesn't look like it will end anytime soon.
Sixteen years have passed. Nearly 2,400 U.S. troops have died. More than $700 billion has been spent. But talk of “winning” is scarce.
The goal now seems more akin to “not losing.”
A resurgent Taliban now controls 40 percent of the country's districts. A fledgling Islamic State affiliate is proving hard to eliminate in the mountainous east. The popularity of the American mission here has eroded into cynicism as the war grinds on. Afghan civilians and security forces are dying in record numbers — and more than 600 civilians were killed by NATO or government-aligned forces last year. Casualties among Afghan security forces soared by 35 percent in 2016, with 6,800 soldiers and police killed, according to U.S. government watchdog SIGAR.
Perpetual conflict and lack of opportunity are driving thousands of Afghan youths to either flee the country or join militant groups. Discontent with the government and the revival of ethnic rivalries are threatening to plunge the country into political chaos, or worse. Regional powers such as Iran, Pakistan and Russia advance their own strategic interests in Afghanistan, often at the cost of American objectives.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: We already have a very good idea on what would happen if the U.S. totally disengaged from Afghanistan .... and that is because we all saw what happened when the U.S. left Iraq ..... within a short period of time the army collapsed and radical groups like ISIS seized almost 40% of the country and a number of major cities. I would even say that the success of ISIS in Iraq is probably the main reason why President Obama did not remove US forces in Afghanistan as he had promised that he would .... he knew too well what would have happened if the U.S. disengaged.
The big questions is .... what to do next? And while many are calling for a major re-engagement in Afghanistan .... $700 Billion and 16 Years at War Is a ‘Modest Amount,’ U.S. Officers Say (Aawin Suebsaeng and Spencer Ackerman, Daily Beast) .... President Trump has so far stayed away from making such a commitment. Other's have called for a diplomatic push .... U.S. needs a political strategy in Afghanistan, says Michèle Flournoy (CBS) .... but this has also not been a success, and in the case of Pakistan where their support is vital .... U.S. Can’t Win Afghan War Without Pakistan’s Support: Dunford (Tolo News) .... their support of the Taliban's Haqqani Network makes them unreliable at best. My prediction .... the war will grind on but the rules of engagement and military tactics will change. So expect the fighting to intensify, more air and artillery strikes, and civilian casualties going sky high (see below graph).
6 comments:
Nah. THIS IS THE REAL REASON WE WILL NOT LEAVE AFGHANISTAN
Chinese troops already have entered Afganistan and they're there beacause of rare earth minerals. That's the real reason US troops still have to stay there, to slow Chinese down. It would be sad to let China eat the cake while US soldiers have died baking it.
Fusion,
First off, the ANA, the US and Allies, are fighting Afghan's, so yup, "the enemy" is never going to leave, after all, it's their country too,
Second off, the War is paid for by taxpayers, so Cost doesn't matter,
http://warisboring.com/the-trillion-dollar-military-budget/
The leases, will be Corporate, and lot's of money can be made, by Corporations and PMC's off the taxpayer, and off the leases, with out a drill ever breaking ground, simply by looting "Development Funds", Aid money, stock sales, and even selling on unproven, undeveloped leases.
Mining, is barely profitable, but fortunes can be made on the stock sales.
"First off, the ANA, the US and Allies, are fighting Afghan's, so yup, "the enemy" is never going to leave, after all, it's their country too,"
So the Taliban had 100% support?
Maybe they have 49% support. More like they have 42% or less.
They certainly did not have 100% support. Ahmad Shah Massoud was fighting them as was Dostum.
The Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks certainly are not for the Taliban. That is 34% right there.
The Taliban were created by the Pakistani ISI and Jay is happy to 'LMAO' at the U.S. and extol the warrior virtues of the Taliban.
"Nah. THIS IS THE REAL REASON WE WILL NOT LEAVE AFGHANISTAN"
Let me state now with certainty that Fred Lapides several years ago posited that we invaded Iraq for oil.
"The single successful contract went to a joint venture of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field offered: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of more than 17 billion barrels." - NYT
nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/global/01iraqoil.html
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Fred was wrong then and he is wrong now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI
I'd rather mine rare earth metal from the abyssal plain than mine them in Afghanistan.
Post a Comment