Just days after US officials started claiming that because of their frustration with Afghan President Hamid Karzai the Obama Administration is giving serious consideration to ending the Afghan occupation, officials are quickly downplaying that prospect.
State Department official James Dobbins dismissed the prospect out of hand, bragging about the “remarkable outcomes” of the occupation and insisting that “the Afghans actually need us to stay,” adding “we have promised to stay.”
Sen. Robert Menendez (D – NJ) also suggested the “zero option” of leaving wasn’t serious, insisting the US is committed to a “long-term partnership” with Afghanistan.
The deal to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 hasn’t been finalized, and Karzai suspended talks to protest being sidelined in the US-Taliban talks. Karzai’s term in office ends in early 2014, however, and some have suggested his successor may be easier to make a deal with.
In contemplation of 2014, one cannot but wonder if official Washington contemplates, respects or even reads history. As Afghan history affords, the Afghan have a low tolerance for the presence of invaders. Genghis Khan, the British, the Russians and now the U.S. as prime examples. While Washington and their media cohorts refer to the Taliban and other Afghans who resist and detest economic and or strategic colonialism as "terrorists", in a nutshell, the Afghans want the U.S. to just go home and leave them to their own devices.