Officials say that President Trump is growing increasing impatient with the lack of progress in Afghanistan. Trump grudgingly authorized a substantial escalation in August, and officials say they believe another policy review could be ordered in the next few months.
17 years into the US occupation of Afghanistan, new strategies have been implemented countless times, and “reviews” are almost always either ongoing or seen as imminent. This review would focus on negotiations with the Taliban, as well as whether the US would further alter their relationship with Pakistan, which US officials have blamed for the Taliban’s success.
Already, there are signs of changes on the talks, with Trump having previously ruled out peace talks, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo encouraging such talks just days ago. This is a substantial change, and came with a statement encouraging the Afghan government to take the lead.
While political officials seem to be willing to admit the war is going poorly, the Pentagon is going to have problems facing such a review. As they have through almost the entire war, Pentagon officials have been loudly insisting that they believe progress is being made, and that they have almost turned the corner.
Since the August 2017 policy announcement was a massive escalation of the war, it’s not clear what the new policy will be, or at least how it will differ in any way. Though Trump has said before his instinct is to withdraw from Afghanistan, many policy reviews end with the US just doubling down on the existing strategy and pretending it’s an alteration.
Declare victory and leave. His base is so stupid they will believe it, the rest of us will be so relieved we won’t mention his deception. That is except for some Democratic dead enders who will be pro war simply cause Trump is getting us out of it. That BTW won’t play well.
“Democratic dead enders” guess you’re not familiar with the Congressional attempt to end the war in 2011. See amendmentso 55, and 50 to the defense appropriations which didn’t pass( like every other antiwar bill) because of near unanimous GOP opposition. If it weren’t for the radical militants GOP, we wouldn’t be there now.
No, if Trump were serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the same suspects would slag the attempt ‘# hate it because Trump’.
Just like Trump’s North Korean peace initiative.
Aww, poor spanky can’t get it done cause someone didn’t adore him on tv.
Well if Obama couldn’t do it, arguably no-one could. Your tendency to dumb down the discussion kind of makes me wonder whose side you’re on, antiwar-wise.
Afghanistan is the darkest, richest jewel in the Neo-Raj that is the Deep State military-criminal empire. A point few antiwar writers care to keep current in discussion.
The Taliban had issued an edict banning opium cultivation, and crippling Deep State financial ops reliant on the drug trade. Those losses have surely since been recovered since 2001 to over a trillion $US.
If the U.S. ever leaves Afghanistan, it will be because Afghanistan became unsustainable for the white collar economy the way the Golden Triangle’s black money couldn’t make up for white economy losses during the Vietnam war.
Did you read those amendments from 2011 ? Then check the votes ?
All I need to know, is that they obviously didn’t pass, as embeds in an omnibus NDAA or standalone proposals, nor were they regularly re-introduced.
The annoying details of how tweedle dee and tweedle dum might play me with some token antiwar stunt is trivia this long after the fact.
Results matter more than good intentions over time.
Could just said “no, didn’t read em, can’t make me” congress cut off funding and ended US involvement in Vietnam.
Vietnam resulted in a lasting mechanism for forever war – U.S. petrodollar recycling. Everything that matters, is priced in the U.S. dollar, and, the U.S. dollar is locked in as the indispensable world reserve currency. Everyone else’s need for $U.S. means its plugged into everyone else’s GDP.
The U.S. didn’t have access to the dollar recycling system for Vietnam. It was introduced in 1973, but not until the late 1970s that the system began to prove workable.
In Vietnam, Congress cut a program that hit a real wall of blood and treasure as the U.S. abandoned the gold standard and faced mass social unrest from its labour force.
Petrodollar recycling and the end of the draft and offshored labour make blood, treasure and social unrest far less real obstacles to Afghan warmaking.
There is no reason to read beyond the headline of your Amendment 55. Its like someone bragging about what a great athlete they were in high school, but with participation ribbons, not a championship trophy.
Obfuscation. People vote, games are played, but the votes are counted. Congress makes policy, funds it. Congressional votes are counted, policy is enacted. Occams’ razor. The GOP has been voting near unanimously for militarism since the passing of true conservatism, this, the voting record shows. If you don’t believe this is how it works, why would you, or anyone who believes the same, bother to try to convince others voting is pointless ? You are in the majority, most Americans believe votes don’t matter, and democracy chokes alone in cynicism. Here’s how easy the math is, if you vote in a way that allows the GOP to hold office, you are supporting war. The only way not to know that is true, is by ignoring congressional records.
Voting matters; the record informs how well one’s causes are doing.
To that end I’ve promoted the importance of voting in elections, argued not voting is a vote for whomever does win, and promoted proportional representation systems so as to better empower the popular vote and diversity of competent political perspectives alive and … doing so-so in the United States.
fairvote. org
The bipartisan war machine was not affected in the least by antiwar Democrats. During Hilary’s coronation, disaffected Bernites chanting “No more war” were soundly drowned out by counter-chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A”.
Trump, on the other hand, met with North Korean and Russian leaders, the most dangerous potential U.S. rivals, in search of peace. Obama did say he was willing to do the same, but only on the election circuit, and never acted on the impulse.
Obama met with Putin, many times, 8 I think. After bush put North Korea on the evil list, and preemptive war was the order of the US day, NK went with full on “get the bomb”, and, who in their right mind wouldnt. But, here’s the question Brock…you seem to be more rational than the garden variety trump worshiper, my agenda is simple, congressional votes, not executive juggling. Congress, despite all the anti-government bs, does have the power to change our national direction, the war powers that be, would like us to think otherwise. Despite my posting of actual congressional war votes, no one on this site, will look, count, the actual votes of our representatives. I have considered writing a paper displaying the discrepancy of D and R votes on war, but, this information is already abundant online, fact is, people learn more when they do their own research. So, screw Obama, and screw trump, show me Brock, the Congressional votes that determine who guarantees war for America
I’d like to see the Democrats competing with the Party of Trump as to who can deliver peace better and faster. The real question is, where is the Democratic peace plan that’s going to top Trump’s?
A Democratic peace plan, that’s what’s missing, hidden in all that partisan rage.
Support for the war machine is a tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum bipartisan affair. Congressional votes mean nothing if they don’t end wars, bottom line. The President handles foreign policy, including wars. Obama had his chance. Now its Trump’s turn.
Trump tried to end Cold War 2.0 and people like yourself seem to be doing everything you can to stop Trump, peace be damned.
Your only answer is to point to the failures of the past, not the few successes of the here and now, and never how to build a future with those small steps toward peace.
You won’t see democratic peace efforts, if you don’t examine congressional votes. That is where it happens. How, exactly, am I stopping trumps “peace effort” ?
There you go again, Congressional participation ribbons, no meaningful trophies. No antiwar platform plank, nor personality to front it.
You know, so what? I’m not seeing any Democratic peace efforts that win bigly.
Where were the bipartisan endorsements of Trump in Helsinki? How many Democrats broke ranks to endorse Trump at Helsinki?
Anti-Trumpists want Trump out without offering any reassurances their chosen or haphazard successor would do as well or better than Trump on the antiwar front. So, the Democratic peace efforts only happen with Congressional votes? Trump’s President, not running for Congress.
Do you really think anyone’s forgotten Russiagate (as much as they would like to…)? Or that faux progressives frothing at the mouth not only to get back into power but get Russia could be in any way antiwar?
Yeah, the latest grand strategy seems to have been to try to close the loop on Afghan indigenous resistance and insert an Islamic State one in its place.
The U.S. Deep State would then own both the white and black economies in Afghanistan with no niggling losses of opium wealth and turn its focus to consolidating its criminal empire based in Afghanistan beyond Afghanistan.
That seems to have fallen flat.