US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers remarks on the Trump administration's Iran policy at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Stephen Green, PJ Media: Mike Pompeo Won't Put His John Hancock on Afghan Peace Deal
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo won't sign his name to the pact he and his team negotiated with the so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, better known as the Taliban -- but not for the reason Time magazine wants you to believe.
The agreement is supposed to bring something akin to peace to Afghanistan, after nearly 18 years of war involving the U.S. and NATO, which removed the Taliban from power in the weeks after the 9/11/2001 terror attacks. Under the "tightly held" terms of the agreement, the U.S. would reduce its presence to fewer than 9,000, down about 5,400 from the current figure.
Read more ....
Previous Post: Secretary of State Pompeo Declines To Sign Onto Afghan Peace Deal (September 5, 2019).
WNU Editor: In my opinion this U.S. withdrawal is going to take place. President Trump ran on the promise to end the direct U.S. involvement in this war, and it looks like he is going to deliver. This is a position that I also believe the mass majority of Americans want to see happen. As for Afghanistan, in the end it is the people of Afghanistan who are the ones who have to accept the kind of future they want.
8 comments:
Their future will no doubt be as it was before the US invasion, and of course during the decades of occupation, clan vs clan and a continuation, albeit a return for some to twelth century life. Like the Russians the whole US effort was a waste of money, life and prestige.
"We've done all we can (to) Afghanistan."
Bob the linear, one factor thinker.
Pakistan will have the greatest say followed by Iran. China and Russia will try to have influence.
India will try to have influence to counter Pakistan, but I cannot imagine how effective they will be.
Uzbekistan will look out for ethnic Uzbeks in Afghanistan, but I do not know how effective it would be. Perhaps they would side with Iran to carve up Afghanistan and get a piece of it.
Abdul Rashid Dostum would accept covert or overt aid from Uzbekistan IMO.
In other words, Afghanistan will continue as it has for a thousand years.
In other words you cannot read a map, think conventionally about maps, never had Central Asian history in school and have not read-up on it yourself.
Outgas some more Bob from both orifices.
Some of the invader's failed attempts in the history of Afghanistan include the Maurya Empire of ancient India, Alexander the Great of Macedon, an Arab Caliphate, Genghis Khan of Mongolia, Timur of Persia and Central Asia, the Mughal Empire of India, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Sikh Empire, the Soviet Union, and soon to be, the USA.
Now I do admit that the discovery of Rare Earth Elements may provide additional incentive to invade, but history seems destined to repeat itself as regards Afghanistan.
Non linear thinking also accepts blatant truth when it is presented and of course when past events support Afghanistan remaining basically 100% as it was and is, it is not unreasonable to disregard the possible envious desires of potential invaders perhaps seeking to be the first in the history of mankind to conquer that country, in the process earning a Nobel Prize as some kind of award for doing what no other has done in history.
You might think that that you can predict the future, maybe you can, but if so, you would get a job and save some money to be able to take advantage of the future dramatic upward spiral in real estate located on higher ground.
"Some of the invader's failed attempts in the history of Afghanistan ... Alexander the Great ..."
The Greeks who ruled Afghanistan from 323 BC to about 10 AD. That is over 300 years.
Alexander, who founded Kandahar, which is still there?
Everything turns to dust. So when you say fail give a time period in terms of 'x' years. Less than 'x' years, it is a failure. More than 'x' years it is not. Give some sort of definition
But you don't want to, because you are slippery troll.
The Mughal empire arose from a descendant of Timur. At the time it was as dazzling and rich as China.
At least in science such thermodynamics we define things like boundary of a system or a mesh. In defining a mesh would help settle things such as whether one comparable region is more violent than another. Maybe historians can up their game and get more qualitative and
then impart that knowledge to someone as benighted as yourself.
"Now I do admit that the discovery of Rare Earth Elements"
Still as stupid as the writes of The Guardian I see. Gulf War II was suppose to be an oil grab. The US auctioned off the production rights to the highest bidder (in this case the Chinese) for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Yet an unscrupulous liar such as yourself will never acknowledge that fact. So here you go again.
Pro Tip Bob the boy with no skills and no degree. The US will buy rare earth metals form Australia in fair trade. China or Russia, Pakistan or Iran will buy the mineral rights in Afghanistan and you will not say nary a peep if the Afghans are ripped off, because you are a hypocrite
Dear Fredo,
I would talk that way to Bob, whether or not Trump had ever existed.
Your reference to the criminal and illegal Iraq II war to support an argument means you are abysmal.
Your reference to X, means ...
I referenced the conspiracy theories of Leftist kooks that said it was a war for oil. Actual facts refuted the those theories.
I referenced those oil auctions, because you going down the same Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole in regards to rare earth metals in Afghanistan.
"Most of our petroleum imports come from non-OPEC countries; 56% of it, in fact. Of that 56%, the majority is from Canada and Mexico, who are about as far removed from the Middle East as can be. The rest of it is from other random places like Angola, Russia, the Virgin Islands, and Brazil, all of whom are friends of ours. "
"Almost none of US petroleum comes from hostile Middle East nations - less than 1%"
What was the liberal meme? "War for oil"?
Facts just do not bear you out. However, Saddam was bellicose and and broke the armistice.
Post a Comment