2016 is almost half way over, and the war in Afghanistan is going as bad as ever. Though it’s not as high-profile a topic of discussion at NATO meetings 15 years into the failing occupation, the alliance once again agreed to extend the military operation, which was scheduled to end at the end of 2016.
This wasn’t the first “end of the war” date, and indeed to hear NATO talk, the war officially “ended” years ago, even if their military involvement didn’t significantly change on that date. Rather, the increasingly unpopular war was rebranded as a “training mission.”
No one had any realistic expectation that the 2016 date would be the actual end to the mission, but rather it was just the latest in a series of dates set down the road as the alliance continued to not achieve its goals and continued to try to present those goals as coming soon.
The US, of course, had no intention of withdrawing at the end of 2016 at any rate, and has already punted their end date to the end of 2017, and later extending it to an indefinite point in the future. The NATO announcement just means they’ll have company from the other nations, at least the ones still willing to throw troops at the war.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also confirmed that the alliance is separately debating a plan to extend the subsidy of Afghanistan’s military beyond the present end date of 2020. After 15 years of occupation, NATO has created a huge Afghan military, but the nation has virtually no economy, no tax base, and no chance of paying for it on their own. Most analysts agree this subsidy is going to continue for decades to come.
Fifteen years into this war…what does it take to see we are failing. Or maybe we never intended to win…just perpetual war to feed the damn MIC…American taxpayers getting scammed.
What war? Afghanistan? Is the US fighting against the people of Afghanistan? LOL
The answer to that is as intangible as the answer to who you were fighting in your war.
Not sure what you are saying? We are supposed to be fighting the Taliban. In Vietnam we fought the communists (NVA and VC). The problems in both complex…but let me try..both governments are failed governments…Vietnam was never a threat to the US to waste 58,000 lives…Neither is Afganistan…9 years for Nam…15 for Afganistan…while WWII was less than 4 against 3 major military powers. We are supposed to have the most powerful military in the world…we spend $600 billion a year on war…and don’t win. Its not only afgan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. You have to begin to question that the hell is going on and why we don’t win against the stated enemies. My answer is its to feed the MIC….
I’m not at all surprised you don’t.
And fwiw, I would also like to say to you that my priorities are not centered around money or the MIC. My priorities are the victims. I’m sure that’s the same with you?
Victims…US military serving there or the Afgans…not sure what you mean.
I’m not surprised at all you don’t know what I mean. Your post that follows puts the almighty buck above the lives of your victims. And then after you make that clear, the fact that your country is slaughtering millions doesn’t even deserve mention.
Is this what antiwar.com represents? Is this what the antiwar movement in America represents and is the reason it exists?
Does anybody on these boards consider what their wars are doing to the people who are under their country’s bombs? Maybe even if you aren’t, you could pretend to care?
“Is this what antiwar.com represents?”
Of course it isn’t. And of course you know it isn’t. As time goes on I’m finding your timing and motives here more and more suspect. Are you here to oppose war, or to oppose Antiwar.com?
My posts have nothing to do with the almighty buck so stop making things up. The reason many of us oppose our wars is we know of the many victims…that goes without saying…Thats the underlying reason for being anti-war. Your comments indicate are not a US citizen and live outside the US..so you fail to understand the anti-war movement. This movement is weak now days for sure co-opted by powers you have no concept of. All I can say is stop judging since you have a total lack of understanding.
It’s not about the money. That’s just Trump’s phony play on it to attract the dogs with his whistle. And besides, Nato benefits only the US so why should other countries have to pay for it. It’s a benefit the US should provide free of charge. If in fact it can be called a benefit?
Concentrate more on your military, it’s a cost that far exceeds the Nato cost and it’s of no benefit to your country as a defense against a non-existent threat.