While publicly US strategy in the Afghan War has been based around the conceit that the conflict is in a “stalemate,” despite mounting losses by the Afghan government. Advisers have offered a classified assessment on the conflict recently, however, conceding that the Ghani government’s survival is at risk, and that the war is being “slowly” lost.
Their solution, as with everyone else, is even bigger escalation, with reports from those familiar with the plan saying that the US needs “more than 50,000” ground troops in Afghanistan to ensure Ghani’s survival, with an eye toward eventually defeating the Taliban.
That’s a big escalation, and a much bigger one than has been suggested in previous reports, which initially presented the proposed escalation as 3,000 to 5,000, and most recently made it a choice between 3,000 or keeping troop levels flat. The Pentagon is evasive about troop levels in recent months, but around 8,400 troops are believed to presently be in Afghanistan.
So 50,000 would be a massive escalation, resembling the one President Obama tried when he took office, and for mostly the same reason, that they think it might conceivably turn a long struggling war around. That it didn’t lead to victory last time appears to be totally ignored in the latest assessment.
WTF….. Don’t theez morons read history…..?????
Afghanistan is Paustune country… For the last few THOUSAND YEARS… They have prevailed…. Work with them MORONS… Those against THEM always LOSE… No 50 thousand troops will alter this reality.. I have lived THERE…. Know the place.. Know THEM. GTFOT should be the plan…
All the U.S. Govt lies don’t change $hit… They NEVER attacked US… But WE attacked THEM.. Time to GO….. Leave them alone..
Didn’t anyone tell you guys.. It’s where EMPIRES go to DIE…?.. Get out B4 its too late…..
Don’t fool yourself. With today’s weaponry, 50 thousand American troops and all that’s going to be accompanied by is certainly capable of taking over Afghanistan if Trump gives the Pentagon carte blanche.
Speaking about sea, Afghanistan does not have a seaport. The needs of the 50,000 soldiers will have to come through Karachi and the Khyber Pass.
I meant ground strikes fired from sea.
They could wander around Afghanistan killing people and blowing things up, but they could never conquer the place without killing every one of the 24 million or so Afghans. So what you would accomplish would be to spend trillions, kill millions,with tens of thousands of US soldiers killed and hundreds of thousands wounded. The impracticality of this Pyrrhic plan is clear, but I suspect you’re a young, red, white, and blue, rah-rah-usa “patriot” with testosterone-induced GI Joe fantasies. All young men go there. Most survive to become older and wiser.
Where the f**k you’ve been? US took over and invaded Afghanistan over 15 years ago but staying there is a BH. US could not even safeguard their bases under Bush or Obama. Afghan National Army is the one that fighting the insurgency. US just happened to take the prisoner and torture them in Bagram Air field.
You’re absolutely right .. Don’t these idiots read history .. ??? As you said, Afghanistan’s Pashtun country, has been for centuries. They’ve prevailed in every war that’s been fought, starting with Alexander the Great and his Macedonian forces, all the way to the present. Those fighting THEM always LOSE .. No 50,000 more troops will change this reality .. You’ve lived there, know the place, know THEM. I agree completely .. GTFOT must be the plan.
Yes, indeed, all the USG lies don’t change anything .. They NEVER attacked the US, but WE attacked THEM .. Time to LEAVE .. Leave them alone. As you further said, didn’t anyone tell you guys? It’s where EMPIRES go to DIE? Don’t be stupid .. Get out before it’s too late.
“Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. ~ Georges Santayana, Spanish writer/historian
The Military Industrial Complex won’t let it happens.
Afghanistan is the best place to be in to make money.
The neocons hijacked US and slammed it onto multiple countries and have no relation with humanity let alone America or Afghanistan.
So who are this Whiz Kidz?
One Lt. Gen. was cited along with Gen. Jack Keane but only tepidly saying that such resources would be needed, not that they approve of it. Don’t they have the courage of their convictions to thunderously approve this or are they going to walk away when this fizzles out.
So who are this Whiz Kidz?
One Lt. Gen. was cited along with Gen. Jack Keane but only tepidly saying that such resources would be needed, not that they approve of it. Don’t they have the courage of their convictions to thunderously approve this or are they going to walk away when this fizzles out.
This will be the test of Trump’s commitment to backing off on stupid wars. Some say the Syria strike shows that Trump wasn’t serious about “non-intervention”. But I hold that event to have been a political and strategic masterstroke, Kabuki that turned the tide — briefly — of deep state opposition.
As in:
DT: “Yo, Mr. President [Vladimir P.], I’m gonna make a big fireworks show aimed at shutting down those annoying war-mongers, and “make my bones” as warrior in chief. Best clear your people out, and give the Syrians a heads-up, will ya, we don’t want anyone to get hurt.”
VP: “Damn but that’s a smart move Mr. President. And let me say what a relief it is to have someone with brains, spine, and strong leadership skills in the White House. We can build on this. And you can count on me to play my part, you know, make just the right amount of fuss. Look forward to working with you. Talk to you later, right now I have some phone calls to make.”
He’s intervening in Syria whether it’s against Assad or ISIS or al Qaeda, er I mean the rebels. Or for the Kurds. The missile attack, whether brilliant or reckless, was just adding to our already existing hostilities. He’s visiting the murdering Saudis soon after agreeing to sell them more weaponry for their continued onslaught of Yemen. He can hardly claim to be a non interventionist.
He said he would destroy ISIS, so there’s no contradiction there.
Afghanistan and Iran will be the test. As to the Saudi weapons sale and Yemen war: the latter is a war crime, and we shouldn’t be selling the Saudis weapons, ***AND*** Saudi Arabia, not Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism — after the US and Israel. That said, the war crimes of others, even using US weapons, don’t count as Trumpian interventions. And even Trump can’t fix everything that’s broken in the US system by snapping his fingers, so we’re all going to have to live with this shjt as he fixes it bit by bit. (If he fixes it.)
When Trump sits down with the Saudis he should tell them that they need to put an end to their Wahhabi cult before it puts an end to the Saudi Royal family.
It’s complicated.
Destroying ISIS couldn’t be done without intervening. Whether it’s a contradiction of what he said doesn’t really matter. It’s intervening. I agree Trump didn’t start the Yemen slaughter but he doesn’t seem to be doing anything to slow it down. More like enabling/assisting escalation. We will see how his Saudi visit turns out but he has seriously changed his tune towards them compared to candidate Trump. I can’t imagine him demanding anything but I hope I’m wrong.
We know all about the (((advisers))).
As I understand, it costs a million dollars to keep one troop for one year in Afghanistan. So, they want to blow about $50 Billion more per year in Afghanistan. Should cheer up a lot of Afghanis selling us gasoline for $100 a gallon. Pay the poor widow of some G I idiot who manages to get himself killed a million dollars. Buy a load of shrimp cocktail for Martin Marietta’s next Board of Director’s meeting. Investing in America. What utter bullshit.
I heard $400 a gallon.
Since Alexander the great every invader failed in Afghanistan.
What makes you think, US will win – be it with 500,000 soldiers.
Could you imagine this country was not devastated and divided by sector of religious, and ethnic lines. US could not have held for 10 months let alone over 15 years now.