Jump to content

Afghanistan.


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

"Don't forget, you're here forever"

The Obama administration has decided to walk away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the Afghanistan war in an effort to de-emphasize the president's pledge that he would begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials said Tuesday.

 

The new policy will be on display next week during a NATO conference in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, according to three senior officials and others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said Afghan troops could provide their security by then.

 

The Pentagon also has decided not to announce specific dates for handing security responsibility for several Afghan provinces to local officials and instead intends to work out a more vague definition of transition when it meets with its NATO allies, the officials said.

 

What a year ago had been touted as an extensive December review of the strategy now will be less expansive and will offer no major changes in strategy, the officials said. U.S. Central Command, the military division that oversees Afghanistan operations, hasn't submitted a withdrawal order for forces for the July deadline, two of those officials said.

 

The shift, begun privately, came in part because U.S. officials realized that conditions in Afghanistan were unlikely to allow a speedy withdrawal.

 

"During our assessments, we looked at if we continue to move forward at this pace, how long before we can fully transition to the Afghans? Of course, we are not going to fully transition to the Afghans by July 2011," one senior administration official said. "Right now, we think we can start in 2011 and fully transition sometime in 2014."

 

Another official said the administration also realized in contacts with Pakistani officials that the Pakistanis had concluded wrongly that July 2011 would mark the beginning of the end of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

 

That perception, one Pentagon adviser said, has persuaded Pakistan's military — key to preventing Taliban sympathizers from infiltrating Afghanistan — to continue to press for a political settlement instead of military action.

 

"This administration now understands that it cannot shift Pakistani approaches to safeguarding its interests in Afghanistan with this date being perceived as a walkaway date," the adviser said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Link

On Friday morning, he was taken to George Washington University Hospital after he became flushed and suffered chest pains during a meeting with Clinton.

 

He underwent a 21-hour operation that ended on Saturday to repair his aorta.

 

As Mr. Holbrooke was sedated for surgery, family members said, his final words were to his Pakistani surgeon: "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

A majority of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused by the Taliban.

 

Popular fury over the killing of civilians in botched US-led attacks in Afghanistan is unlikely to be assuaged by new figures showing the Taliban are responsible for a vast and growing proportion of innocent deaths.

 

The annual United Nations report on civilian casualties shows that more than two-thirds of the 2,777 civilians killed last year were the victims of insurgents – a 28% increase on 2009. By contrast Nato and Afghan government forces were responsible for killing 440, a 25% decrease.

 

More than half of the deaths caused by the Taliban were the result of homemade bombs and suicide attacks.

 

The report's authors said the "most alarming" trend was a 105% increase in the number of civilians assassinated by insurgents as part of the Taliban's campaign against government officials.

 

Overall, it was the worst year since the war began more than nine years ago, with the number of civilian deaths up 15% compared with 2009.

 

Also in Science:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256.full

 

As the war in Afghanistan—the longest in U.S. history—grinds toward the decade mark, a special News Focus examines the contentious issue of civilian casualties incurred during battle. A military data set of civilian casualties, provided exclusively to Science, shows that the war has become more lethal to the Afghan population. But while the total number of civilian casualties is increasing, the data indicate that the military has adapted, causing a shrinking share of the death and injuries in spite of last year’s surge in troops and combat operations. Improvised explosive devices continue to be the number one killer in the country.

 

These and other data related to civilian casualties in Afghanistan are now available for researchers. They provide the clearest picture yet of the human cost of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Petraeus grilled on ‘mixed messages’ on Afghanistan pullout

 

“We’re talking about leaving and staying at the same time,” complained Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing at which Petraeus testified on the war effort.

 

Graham and other Republicans argued these mixed messages are hurting the war effort, and they suggested it could also be to blame for a lack of support from the public. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday found that 64 percent of those surveyed said they believed the Afghan conflict is no longer worth fighting.

 

“The problem is not that this is not worth fighting — because I believe it is,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). The bigger problem is “mixed messages” from senior administration officials about withdrawal timelines and operational strategies, he added.

 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also expressed concerns “that we’re sending mixed messages to the American people and the Afghanis.”

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/149791-...-on-afghanistan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 10:23 AM)
So, why isn't Obama getting reamed for the whole "Kill Team" fiasco? Wasn't Bush directly responsible for Abu Grhaib?

 

 

Because he's made of teflon, of course. And, of course, if it wasn't for George Bush, we wouldn't be there anyway, right? So, of course, it's all his fault anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just find it hilarious that there were people everywhere, the media, this board, etc., who actually thought Bush was responsible for that. And drove that point home repeatedly, for weeks. Yet I have not heard a single thing from anyone about this new story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What a cluster****.

For the second time in three days, a night raid in eastern Afghanistan by NATO forces resulted in the death of a child, setting off protests on Saturday that turned violent and ended in the death of a second boy.

 

...

At the same time, there was a raid, he said. “American forces did an operation and mistakenly killed a fourth-grade student; he had gone to sleep in his field and had a shotgun next to him,” he said.

 

“People keep shotguns with them for hunting, not for any other purposes,” Mr. Khalid said.

 

The boy was the son of an Afghan National Army soldier, according to Noor Alam, the headmaster of the school the student attended. Although the boy was 15, like many rural Afghans, he was in a lower grade because he had not been able to go to school regularly, local residents said.

 

When morning came, an angry crowd gathered in Narra, the boy’s village, and more than 200 people marched with his body to the district center. Some of the men were armed and confronted the police, shouting anti-American slogans and throwing rocks at police vehicles and the Hesarek government center, according to the district governor and the headmaster.

 

The police opened fire in an effort to push back the crowd to stop its advance to the district center. A 14-year-old boy was killed, and at least one other person was wounded, Mr. Khalid said.

 

“The police had to defend themselves; therefore, they fired some warning shots,” he said.

 

On Thursday, a night raid by international forces in Nangahar Province resulted in the death of a 12-year-old girl and her uncle, who was a member of the Afghan National Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The former U.S. Citizen turned Al Qaeda public face/spokesperson Adam Gadahn released this statement on America.

Muslims in the West have to remember that they are perfectly placed to play an important and decisive part in the jihad against the Zionists and crusaders and to do major damage to the enemies of Islam, waging war on their religion, sacred places and things and bretheren.

 

This is a golden opportunity and a blessing from, Allah, subhanahu wa ta’ala, and a way to show one’s appreciation and thanks for this blessing is to rush to discharge one’s duty to his ummah and fight on its behalf with everything at his desposal. And in the West, you’ve got a lot at your disposal. Let’s take America as an example.

 

America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:14 PM)
It's been almost 10 years since 9/11. This is a new revelation?

No, I'm just pointing out that AQ is now officially encouraging people to take advantage of the gun show loophole to commit terrorist attacks. That is actually new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:18 PM)
No, I'm just pointing out that AQ is now officially encouraging people to take advantage of the gun show loophole to commit terrorist attacks. That is actually new.

 

This is a dream come true for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 03:18 PM)
No, I'm just pointing out that AQ is now officially encouraging people to take advantage of the gun show loophole to commit terrorist attacks. That is actually new.

 

When some democratic congressman submits a proposed bill to ban guns, citing the threat of AQ, I'll expect you to pounce on his use of fear mongering tactics to promote legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 04:39 PM)
When some democratic congressman submits a proposed bill to ban guns, citing the threat of AQ, I'll expect you to pounce on his use of fear mongering tactics to promote legislation.

How about we just close the gun show loophole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2011 -> 05:06 PM)
I'm ok with that, assuming it actually exists.

You feel qualified to tell me that there's nothing new in his statement and yet you haven't taken the time to even know what the gun show loophole is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...