US negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad has reported that the US and Taliban have a peace deal “in principle” now, and that it is just pending approval from President Trump. The Afghan government has confirmed being given a copy of the draft deal.
The specifics are not all public knowledge yet, but negotiators say that the deal would remove some 5,000 US ground troops from Afghanistan in the first five months, in return for the Taliban agreeing to keep ISIS and al-Qaeda out, and reduce violence.
All previous indications were that the deal was meant to see a full withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. This raises questions since Trump promised last week that he would “always” have a presence in Afghanistan.
With only mentions of 5,000 leaving, it leaves questions of what will happen to the other 8,000 or so troops. It is unthinkable for the Taliban to have not covered this matter, but so far those facts are not known.
What is known is that some in the White House want to expand the number of CIA on the ground in Afghanistan even as troops leave. Both the CIA and military are expressing concerns about this, since the CIA has embedded with troops in the past. The in-administration debate is further adding to resistance to leaving Afghanistan at all.
Would the CIA allow an end to Afghan opium production?
…..Or weapons sales ?
Good job team trump, you just negotiated your way back to where levels were before you came in ! Hey, here’s a thought, maybe you could do the same with the Iran agreement, and Syria.
The negotiating approach does look like a circular firing squad.
I am one of those that approved the need for restructuring US-China trade deals.
But the process at present, like anything neocons touch, has turned into a geopolitical confrontation. So imperceptibly, and under the guise of “we mean well, just screw up”, the negotiations floated into the territory of past grievances, pointless as trade negotiation tools, but effective at stymieing constructive negotiations.
As a result, we screwed up, lost agricultural trade, and are mudding though on telecom — more concerned with fake pride of protecting technology we do not have, but loosing the large market for products we do have. This level of incompetence is amazing. We cannot win this one, as our market is only a small percentage of Chinese GDP.
But now, we have elevated the mess to geopolitics, we are talking military, Chinese global financing, Silk Road . We just recently expressed our irritation at Balkan states getting some Chinese infrastructure projects. We bit mire then we can chew — and endangered what we already had in hand.
Politicians are constantly treating public as children. For everyone who was in workforce back in the nineties and all the way up to financial crisis — will remember clearly the massive propaganda about the benefits of globalism. Everyone who questioned the wisdom of moving production to China and depraving US future generations of participating in the technological advances in manufacturing and educational opportunities in science and technology. Nobody wanted to talk about the gutting of education system, research and innovation that comes with manufacturing. Not to mention loss of jobs not just the low wage jobs, but engineers, manufacturing management, science.
Today , the same individuals are still pontificating what is best for us — now s piously blame China, as if China forced our manufacturers at gun point to go to China. We caused the mess, and should be adults enough to rectify the situation. China would not have “taken advantage” of us if we were not stupid and gave everything away on a silver platter.
Things need to change — but we should have approached this professionally. Set priorities, create incentive for businesses to come back, and restructure tariffs to deal with American corporations that in fact are not American but take advantage of American laws. We mix up all the time Chinese imports, conflating Chinese manufacturing with foreign corporations exporting from China.
But now, we have allowed the same mess makers who created he problem to be the solution makers.
And in a blink of an eye — we are slinging geopolitical mud at China — dealing with its “rise”. Instead of focusing on our rise.
Excellent point here, by you:
“Nobody wanted to talk about the gutting of education system, research and innovation that comes with manufacturing.”
–
This next point isn’t quite right:
“Set priorities, create incentive for businesses to come back, and restructure tariffs to deal with American corporations that in fact are not American but take advantage of American laws.”
The US should simply encourage production in the US, via trade protections. Whether foreign companies or American build here shouldn’t matter. What’s important is where goods are made.
—
The transformation of the US economy into that of an agricultural and mining colony of China is concerning. Losing agricultural sales isn’t a big deal, relatively speaking. The primary concern there is the loss of Trump’s farm voters.
The US is “winning” the trade dispute. The problem is the US isn’t aiming to win for US workers; it’s wanting to help the rest of Asia at the expense of China, for the sake of the US empire. So, for example, the US would prefer jobs move from China to Vietnam rather than to the US.
While China deserves praise for its protectionist trade (it learned from Japan), it merits criticism for its theft of intellectual property.
“What’s important is where goods are made.”
No, what’s important is THAT goods are made. Trying to forcibly dictate where or by whom they’re made is an attack on both prosperity in general and the specific prosperity of those you pretend you’re “protecting.”
No Thomas, he’s right, but not for the reasons he gave. It’s important for goods to be made somewhat close to where they are needed, or the environmental impact of that total consumption will continue disrupting the climate until it will soon become increasingly impossible for us to survive, much less make a buck. I’m all for markets being free to the extent it allows people to be free and live. I doubt fossil fuel use will be adequately limited until the real costs to society in health care and lost potential are factored into the bottom-line cost.
What’s it worth to you to have clean enough air that you feel vigorous enough to consider bicycling or walking to nearby destinations? Would you pay a little more in taxes to have infrastructure that safely and efficiently accommodates not just cars but also bicyclists and pedestrians? Right now the only way to feel safer while traveling is to get a huger vehicle.
“It’s important for goods to be made somewhat close to where they are needed, or the environmental impact of that total consumption will continue disrupting the climate”
If that’s true — and I don’t entirely disagree — which is the better way to achieve it:
1) Have the state decree it; or
2) Have the state stop subsidizing distant distribution options and let the market sort out the optimal networks for manufacturing/distribution distances?
A combination of the two. All else being equal, it should cost less to avoid sending goods tremendous distances. Gas subsidies in every form including gas taxes not being enough to pay for road maintenance should be ended. Fossil fuel use should be taxed to compensate the government for its public health impact. As dysfunctional as the state can be, I don’t think this can be solved without it playing role. Right now the state decrees plenty of things that move us in the wrong direction, I’d be satisfied if we started with just ending that.
You put your finger on one huge subsidy right there. If gas taxes are supposed to pay for the roads (they don’t cover the entire expense), the vehicles that put the most wear and tear on the roads (18.-wheelers, etc.) should be paying more than the ones that don’t (passenger cars).
Large shippers like Walmart get their shipping partially subsidized by an Interstate highway system that everyone else pays to keep in shape for them.
In fact, that’s how Walmart exploded in the first place: When the Interstate Highway System (supposedly for “defense” purposes) started construction in the midwest, Sam Walton (owner of a few Ben Franklin franchise dime stores) rented a plane, flew over its routes, and picked property to buy for stores and warehouses near major exits.
Not a bad business plan, and presumably he wasn’t the one behind the idea for that road system in the first place, but now his company uses those roads for its sprawling distribution network, and gets us to make it cheaper for him with our gas taxes.
As far as carbon taxes go, I’m not sure why the government — the single biggest polluter — should get paid for damage done to the rest of us.
Sounds like we’re mostly on the same page. On the last bit where we differ, yes the govt in the form of the US military often waives for itself any reasonable standard of environmentally responsible conduct: burning “bunker oil” in its warships, and nuclear reactors powering many of the others, as leading examples. Yet there are a lot of people on this planet, so the ecological footprint of typical practices has a tremendous effect. I guess it all comes down to how you count the beans.
Goods that people actually need or beads and trinkets?
We have a world full of plastic sh*t no one actually needs that is destroying our future while it distracts us from solving our actual problems as a species.
Refusing to choose is still a choice.
It only leads us back to the most sociopathic among us leading the way into pointless busy work that doesn’t help us out of the hole we’re in.
If you’re that concerned about consumers, then give them a tax rebate or even UBI from the proceeds.
Yes, because what we really want is the state as direct source of most people’s income. That wouldn’t be abused as a control/influence mechanism or anything.
I’m concerned about freedom, for several reasons. In this context, my main concern is that I support general prosperity while you call for general impoverishment.
It’s not ideal, but it’s better-than-alternatives. The ideal would be to encourage small businesses, somehow preventing large from arising except in the form of coopts or some such. Regulations could encourage small businesses in some manner, without undermining efficiency overmuch.
There’s no way to sell that in the US because Democratic-leaning voters just assume pro-business means poverty. Unless removing their right to vote, the options are UBI and social services.
In theory, voters will choose UBI at the expense of most other government spending. As a result, you might could greatly reduce pork.
The way to prevent unduly large businesses from arising is to stop subsidizing them and protecting them from market competition. That means reducing, not increasing, state power.
“In theory, voters will choose UBI at the expense of most other government spending. As a result, you might could greatly reduce pork.”
1) What makes you think such a choice could plausibly be on offer. UBI would be a mechanism of control to make sure that voters choose whatever keeps that UBI check coming, which means giving the politicians whatever they want.
2) If I had to guess, I’d guess you don’t know what “pork” means.
You write: “2) If I had to guess, I’d guess you don’t know what “pork” means.”
Currently, politicians spend on various projects. Contracts go to the well-connected or to those who can perhaps provide a return based on reelection donations or the revolving door. This is unwanted.
You write: “UBI would be a mechanism of control to make sure that voters choose
whatever keeps that UBI check coming, which means giving the politicians
whatever they want.”
Not necessarily. Provided UBI is paid to all, there’s not much risk. The risk is just that there could be UBI fraud, similar to social security fraud. And politicians could funnel money to their supporters and away from opponents, like was done in Zimbabwe and other third world states.
In the ideal, there’s no big government redistribution. But this isn’t an ideal world. UBI spreads spending power rather than giving it to a small minority.
OK, so you don’t know what pork is, and you think that handing out a monthly check to every man, woman, and child in America wouldn’t have political consequences that could be manipulated by threatening that check.
Utopian fantasy is fun but shouldn’t be mistaken for realpolitik.
It’s not utopian, and I explained the primary concern of pork. Utopian would be believing there’s some “cut government spending” alternative when there’s not. Voters want free stuff.
“The primary concern of pork” is not the same thing as “what pork is.”
Pork is the “earmarking” of money appropriated for General Purpose X to Specific Project Y.
Can it be abused to reward campaign contributors or just to push money at a congresscritter’s district instead of somewhere else? Sure.
But having 535 competing politicians doing it is better than just handing a big pile of money to one president and letting him decide which campaign contributors and constituencies get rewarded. Hell, the current president can’t even be trusted to stick to General Purpose X. He’s unlawfully and unconstitutionally misappropriating billions for his border wall fetish even as we speak.
You’re probably correct that government spending won’t be cut until the government collapses. That’s not a reason to put every man, woman, and child in America on a UBI leash, with the politicians holding the other end of that leash, to keep the scam going.
“Set priorities, create incentive for businesses to come back, and
restructure tariffs to deal with American corporations that in fact are
not American but take advantage of American laws.”
You mean keep repeating the same mistakes and pretend we’ll get different results ?
This is the end of an epoch, just repeating our past mistakes will kill us all.
I can’t fathom what’s wrong with these “elites”, it’s like they cannot compromise when it comes to who calls the shots.
Another 18 years would produce the same result.
See Dave, he made it great again just like it was back when Citibank owned the white house.
Now Goldman just has to pay back all Trumps loans for him so he can be an actual billionaire and the 1950’s will magically repeat themselves !
Hooraaayy !!
Oh god, the CIA wants to keep meddling. Are there any US-aligned contract mercenaries (Blackwater, etc) in Afghanistan?
Even so, 10,000 “coalition troops” plus who knows how many mercenary contractors will continue to squat, like poisonous rodents, on Afghan soil.
That’s what is known as a “developing market” in the world of finance(final stage) capitalism.
I get the feeling we could have come to this deal a trillion or so dollars ago.
ok, so the Taliban officially won the war ? They are the surviving foreign party negotiated with, and that means they won.
Does the “deal” address the thousands of US “contractors” inside Afghanistan?
This sounds not so much as a “peace deal” as a negotiation to scale back hostilities – which isn’t remotely the same thing. As an example, look at the “deal” made in Syria’s Idlib last year. How did that work out for everyone?
This is just Trump trying to make points for the upcoming election: “Hey, look, I won the war in Afghanistan!” Yeah, right, Orange Mophead… Only the “deplorables” are gonna buy that one.
Fake News!?
American War Lords through American Generals’ don’t want to get out off Afghanistan, just for lust of money these members of American Deep State will sacrifice poor citizens and President trump will have very difficult time to face them.