Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Contrary To White House Pledges U.S. Military Involvement In Afghanistan Continues To Expand

An American Special Forces soldier prepared for a patrol last year in Parwan Province, Afghanistan. Rather than ending the American war in Afghanistan, the military is transforming it into a continuing campaign of airstrikes and raids that have in practice stretched or broken the parameters publicly described by the White House. Credit Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times

New York Times: U.S. Attacks in Afghanistan Go Beyond White House’s Pledges

KABUL, Afghanistan — Months after President Obama formally declared that the United States’ long war against the Taliban was over in Afghanistan, the American military is regularly conducting airstrikes against low-level insurgent forces and sending Special Operations troops directly into harm’s way under the guise of “training and advising.”

In justifying the continued presence of the American forces in Afghanistan, administration officials have insisted that the troops’ role is relegated to counterterrorism, defined as tracking down the remnants of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and training and advising the Afghan security forces who have assumed the bulk of the fight.

In public, officials have emphasized that the Taliban are not being targeted unless it is for “force protection” — where the insurgents were immediately threatening American forces.

Update: U.S. still has fighting role in Afghanistan -- UPI

WNU Editor: When I read reports of U.S. jets bombing Afghan cities .... U.S. military sends jets to northern Afghan city under siege (Reuters) .... more here .... that is when I cannot help but feel that the U.S. is never going to leave that country. And while the White House will put guidelines and make pledges .... bottom line .... as long as the U.S. military remains in the country any major Taliban attack will be met by deadly U.S. force. 

4 comments:

Jay Farquharson said...

It's tricky.

The US is looking for the Vietnam era " decent pause", so they can claim not to have "lost",

While at the same time, looking for an Administrative timing so that "Their" Party won't be blamed for Losing Afghanistan.

It's not like the old days, when Nixon could cut side deals with Diem, then later with North Vietnam, or Reagan with the Iranian Mullahs.

James said...

Jay,
I had not realized Nixon had side deals with Diem.

James said...

I bet red in the photo above is real happy his face is splashed all over.

Jay Farquharson said...

My mistake,

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668

Thieu, not Diem.