Historys Greatest Event:
- Thread starter Asian.Century
- Start date
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
anything wrong in that? after US withdrawal starts!
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Took long time ......... so much billions of dollars, blood and time to accept it was a mistake to send in first place!!!
Obama Cuts US 'Surge' Troops in Afghanistan
June 22, 2011
U.S. President Barack Obama has announced the beginning of the end of the country's 10-year war in Afghanistan, ordering the withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by the end of 2012.
In a White House address Wednesday, President Obama told the American people "the tide of war is receding." He said the first 10,000 American troops will pull out by the end of this year.
Obama Cuts US 'Surge' Troops in Afghanistan
June 22, 2011
U.S. President Barack Obama has announced the beginning of the end of the country's 10-year war in Afghanistan, ordering the withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by the end of 2012.
In a White House address Wednesday, President Obama told the American people "the tide of war is receding." He said the first 10,000 American troops will pull out by the end of this year.
siegecrossbow
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Obama finally fullfilled two of his many promises... it just took him years to achieve them.
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
The next victim in Graveyard of Empires:
Last edited by a moderator:
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Afghanistan: France follows US in troop withdrawal........
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Counting Blood and Treasure
Jun. 23 2011 - 7:45 am | 2 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comment
Kabul:
Last night U.S. President Barak Obama announced the beginning of the end of his Afghan surge. Ten thousand U.S. troops will be home by the end of the year, with the remaining 20,000 surge troops returning stateside by next summer. That will leave approximately 70,000 to focus on Afghanistan’s restive borders to the south and east. Some of those will trickle back by 2014, when full security of the country is to be handed over to Afghan forces. Others are likely to be stationed at semi-permanent bases across the country into the near future.
The drawdown is seen as deeper and faster than anticipated by the Pentagon and, rather than signaling overwhelming success, reflects the heightened fiscal pressures that have descended on Washington along with the uncertainties surrounding the broad nation-building mission in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death.
The U.S. military is on track to spend $113 billion on its operation in Afghanistan this fiscal year, and is seeking $107 billion for the next. This breaks down to roughly $1 million per year for each deployed service member in Afghanistan and represents a higher per-capita cost than in Iraq because fuel and other supplies that must be trucked into landlocked Afghanistan.
However, a 30 percent reduction in troop strength will only yield a 15 percent savings in total costs due to the need to sustain bases and other infrastructure.
The largest single line item in next year’s Defense Department budget request is $12.8 billion to stand-up the Afghan National Army, a mission that has already consumed more than $28 billion. Maintaining Afghan military and police forces, once they are at fighting strength, is expected to cost between $6 and $8 billion a year. With a budget of only $1.5 billion, the Afghan government is incapable of even attempting to fund its own security. This leaves the U.S. with little choice but to foot the bill.
But taking the knife to the Defense Department’s top line item would prove shortsighted. An Afghan officer requires $22,000 in funding a year, much less the million dollar price tag required to send his American counterpart back to Afghanistan.
These billions of dollars being spent on a benighted country halfway around the world might seem significant at a time when America is busy grappling with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. But the $444 billion spent on the ten-year war, on track to rival the costs of U.S. wars in Korea and Iraq but not there yet , pales in comparison to the $14 trillion national debt.
Judge the surge on its merits of security gained over lives lost, not on 3.5 percent of the national debt.
Counting Blood and Treasure - Alim Remtulla - Kabul Capital - Forbes
Jun. 23 2011 - 7:45 am | 2 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comment
Kabul:
Last night U.S. President Barak Obama announced the beginning of the end of his Afghan surge. Ten thousand U.S. troops will be home by the end of the year, with the remaining 20,000 surge troops returning stateside by next summer. That will leave approximately 70,000 to focus on Afghanistan’s restive borders to the south and east. Some of those will trickle back by 2014, when full security of the country is to be handed over to Afghan forces. Others are likely to be stationed at semi-permanent bases across the country into the near future.
The drawdown is seen as deeper and faster than anticipated by the Pentagon and, rather than signaling overwhelming success, reflects the heightened fiscal pressures that have descended on Washington along with the uncertainties surrounding the broad nation-building mission in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death.
The U.S. military is on track to spend $113 billion on its operation in Afghanistan this fiscal year, and is seeking $107 billion for the next. This breaks down to roughly $1 million per year for each deployed service member in Afghanistan and represents a higher per-capita cost than in Iraq because fuel and other supplies that must be trucked into landlocked Afghanistan.
However, a 30 percent reduction in troop strength will only yield a 15 percent savings in total costs due to the need to sustain bases and other infrastructure.
The largest single line item in next year’s Defense Department budget request is $12.8 billion to stand-up the Afghan National Army, a mission that has already consumed more than $28 billion. Maintaining Afghan military and police forces, once they are at fighting strength, is expected to cost between $6 and $8 billion a year. With a budget of only $1.5 billion, the Afghan government is incapable of even attempting to fund its own security. This leaves the U.S. with little choice but to foot the bill.
But taking the knife to the Defense Department’s top line item would prove shortsighted. An Afghan officer requires $22,000 in funding a year, much less the million dollar price tag required to send his American counterpart back to Afghanistan.
These billions of dollars being spent on a benighted country halfway around the world might seem significant at a time when America is busy grappling with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. But the $444 billion spent on the ten-year war, on track to rival the costs of U.S. wars in Korea and Iraq but not there yet , pales in comparison to the $14 trillion national debt.
Judge the surge on its merits of security gained over lives lost, not on 3.5 percent of the national debt.
Counting Blood and Treasure - Alim Remtulla - Kabul Capital - Forbes
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Best to stay calm and silent about it , America is Pakistan's ally...it is more with Afghan Freedom than anything else.
Taliban and Afghan need to stay in peace unlike western countries who celebrate victories may it be Sadam Hussain, or OBL or so many otherss.....
Taliban and Afghan need to stay in peace unlike western countries who celebrate victories may it be Sadam Hussain, or OBL or so many otherss.....
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Americas and British surge was not a success for Afghans
Afghans always believed US efforts must focus on development, not war. Our democratic institutions still need international help
Finally, after 10 years of direct military intervention, the US has announced the withdrawal of thousands of troops from Afghanistan. In his live speech to the nation Barack Obama stated:
"Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security."
When, in early 2009, discussions in Washington were taking place about the military surge, Afghans raised concerns that more troops and an escalation would mean more civilian casualties, more fighting, more hate and anger – and if our aim was to finish this war, the best way would be to seek political solutions and focus on development rather than war. Three years on, the evidence from implementing the military surge shows how the reality differs from the president's narrative that the surge was a success.
The way progress is measured in Afghanistan is very problematic. Look beyond the cliched statements about how many girls are going to school or women are now engaged in the public sphere – good news to an uninformed audience – and you can see a drop off in the number of school and university students, particularly outside the capital, and suspension of significant development projects in all parts of the country.
The escalation in the war not only caused casualties on both sides, but it also resulted in the further militarisation of communities, either through the government's initiative of arming local militias or via criminal gangs and anti-government forces. This is undoubtedly affecting provision of very basic services such as health, education, agricultural and various socioeconomic development programs.
Furthermore, the military surge certainly resulted in an increase in recruitment to anti-government forces. This was partly due to civilian casualties, but also to the reaction of those forces loyal to the Taliban to the increased military presence.
It is interesting that the people of Afghanistan, the ones directly affected by escalation or cessation of military action, are the last to be consulted on these matters. The Afghan government, despite all the resources and tremendous opportunities of the past decade, has failed to fulfil the most basic need of the Afghan population: security – and the surge has not helped this. The so-called political opposition, instead of trying to further unify the nation and strengthen the country, is now using networks from the civil war period to regroup and in some cases openly declare war against the government.
The de-escalation is a positive move, but the desire of the majority of Afghans is a much stronger commitment from the international community not to abandon Afghanistan and to keep its promise to support democratic institutions in the country, though not by military means. It is critical that the US and its allies realise that the conflict in Afghanistan is not an internal battle. Tackling the sources of war beyond Afghanistan's borders is going to be the key to ending our miseries.
Today I spoke with Ahmad, a friend from Kunar province. He told me: "The greatest concern for people in this region is the increase in rocket attacks from the Pakistani border side, which continues to take the lives of ordinary villagers over the past months. This is more scary to me than thinking of US military drawdown. We are worried about a direct invasion by Pakistani forces, even as the world is watching."
Afghanistan as a sovereign state must be protected and the country's progress driven forward by its own women and men. However, as the war and violence of the past three decades involved outside intervention, it is critical that the country is not now abandoned in the task of taking steps towards strengthening its institutions. The issue of corruption and lack of accountability has been a challenge that played an important role in destabilising the country. In the views of many Afghans it is more of a threat than the Taliban, and we would like to see what the world and the US can do to help tackle it.
Only by putting effort into overcoming these challenges can the US president's narrative come closer to that of the Afghan people. In between now and then he must realise that what he calls success might not sound quite the same to us.
US surge was not a success for Afghans | Orzala Ashraf Nemat | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Afghans always believed US efforts must focus on development, not war. Our democratic institutions still need international help
Finally, after 10 years of direct military intervention, the US has announced the withdrawal of thousands of troops from Afghanistan. In his live speech to the nation Barack Obama stated:
"Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security."
When, in early 2009, discussions in Washington were taking place about the military surge, Afghans raised concerns that more troops and an escalation would mean more civilian casualties, more fighting, more hate and anger – and if our aim was to finish this war, the best way would be to seek political solutions and focus on development rather than war. Three years on, the evidence from implementing the military surge shows how the reality differs from the president's narrative that the surge was a success.
The way progress is measured in Afghanistan is very problematic. Look beyond the cliched statements about how many girls are going to school or women are now engaged in the public sphere – good news to an uninformed audience – and you can see a drop off in the number of school and university students, particularly outside the capital, and suspension of significant development projects in all parts of the country.
The escalation in the war not only caused casualties on both sides, but it also resulted in the further militarisation of communities, either through the government's initiative of arming local militias or via criminal gangs and anti-government forces. This is undoubtedly affecting provision of very basic services such as health, education, agricultural and various socioeconomic development programs.
Furthermore, the military surge certainly resulted in an increase in recruitment to anti-government forces. This was partly due to civilian casualties, but also to the reaction of those forces loyal to the Taliban to the increased military presence.
It is interesting that the people of Afghanistan, the ones directly affected by escalation or cessation of military action, are the last to be consulted on these matters. The Afghan government, despite all the resources and tremendous opportunities of the past decade, has failed to fulfil the most basic need of the Afghan population: security – and the surge has not helped this. The so-called political opposition, instead of trying to further unify the nation and strengthen the country, is now using networks from the civil war period to regroup and in some cases openly declare war against the government.
The de-escalation is a positive move, but the desire of the majority of Afghans is a much stronger commitment from the international community not to abandon Afghanistan and to keep its promise to support democratic institutions in the country, though not by military means. It is critical that the US and its allies realise that the conflict in Afghanistan is not an internal battle. Tackling the sources of war beyond Afghanistan's borders is going to be the key to ending our miseries.
Today I spoke with Ahmad, a friend from Kunar province. He told me: "The greatest concern for people in this region is the increase in rocket attacks from the Pakistani border side, which continues to take the lives of ordinary villagers over the past months. This is more scary to me than thinking of US military drawdown. We are worried about a direct invasion by Pakistani forces, even as the world is watching."
Afghanistan as a sovereign state must be protected and the country's progress driven forward by its own women and men. However, as the war and violence of the past three decades involved outside intervention, it is critical that the country is not now abandoned in the task of taking steps towards strengthening its institutions. The issue of corruption and lack of accountability has been a challenge that played an important role in destabilising the country. In the views of many Afghans it is more of a threat than the Taliban, and we would like to see what the world and the US can do to help tackle it.
Only by putting effort into overcoming these challenges can the US president's narrative come closer to that of the Afghan people. In between now and then he must realise that what he calls success might not sound quite the same to us.
US surge was not a success for Afghans | Orzala Ashraf Nemat | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Gen Patreaus, Senator Liberman, Bush, British, Neocons and Zionists are to be blamed for this disasater.
Analysis: Why talking to Mullah Omar is in everyone's best interests - including Taleban's
Published Date: 23 June 2011
By Jerome Starkey
THE United States is leaving Afghanistan. The real questions are how fast, at what cost, and what will they leave behind?
The Afghan government is corrupt and predatory, and riven with ethnic fissures. The Afghan army is expensive, and recruited overwhelmingly from the north, to fight an insurgency in the south. They are held together under the umbrella of international pressure and bankrolled on US dollars.
But so long as those dollars keep flowing long after their soldiers leave, the chances are Afghanistan's forces could hold off a Taleban advance, in Kabul at least, indefinitely - even if the Taleban have Pakistani support.
The same was true of the communist government when Soviet troops left more than 20 years ago. Kabul fell only when the roubles dried up, and rival factions of the anti-Soviet resistance - some still bankrolled by Islamabad - then shelled the city to ruins as they fought each other for control.
The Taleban know this, and unless they want a repeat of the civil war, peace talks now offer them their best chance of sharing power.
The alternative is even uglier. The ethnically Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan, where the Taleban are strongest, could secede from Kabul. A re-made version of the Northern Alliance, which is already opposing negotiations afraid they will lose out in such discussions with the insurgents, would hold Kabul and the north. This is a particularly nightmarish scenario for Pakistan, because the Pashtuns in Afghanistan would look across the Durrand line - the arbitrary border that divides Afghanistan and Pakistan - to their fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan, to form Greater Pashtunistan, which could then threaten Pakistan's survival.
Thus, while Pakistan was slow to support negotiations last year, and even arrested senior Taleban officials rumoured to be courting the West, western officials are now cautiously optimistic they see peace in Afghanistan is in their interests.
All wars end with negotiations, and negotiations in Afghanistan must include the Taleban. Mullah Mohammad Omar is not the only leader, and his men are not the only insurgents, but they are the largest group.
Many western diplomats now admit it was a mistake not to invite the Taleban to the first Bonn Conference in 2001, when they installed Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's interim president. With a second Bonn conference looming at the end of this year, it is almost unthinkable they will make the same mistake again.
Analysis: Why talking to Mullah Omar is in everyone's best interests - including Taleban's
Published Date: 23 June 2011
By Jerome Starkey
THE United States is leaving Afghanistan. The real questions are how fast, at what cost, and what will they leave behind?
The Afghan government is corrupt and predatory, and riven with ethnic fissures. The Afghan army is expensive, and recruited overwhelmingly from the north, to fight an insurgency in the south. They are held together under the umbrella of international pressure and bankrolled on US dollars.
But so long as those dollars keep flowing long after their soldiers leave, the chances are Afghanistan's forces could hold off a Taleban advance, in Kabul at least, indefinitely - even if the Taleban have Pakistani support.
The same was true of the communist government when Soviet troops left more than 20 years ago. Kabul fell only when the roubles dried up, and rival factions of the anti-Soviet resistance - some still bankrolled by Islamabad - then shelled the city to ruins as they fought each other for control.
The Taleban know this, and unless they want a repeat of the civil war, peace talks now offer them their best chance of sharing power.
The alternative is even uglier. The ethnically Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan, where the Taleban are strongest, could secede from Kabul. A re-made version of the Northern Alliance, which is already opposing negotiations afraid they will lose out in such discussions with the insurgents, would hold Kabul and the north. This is a particularly nightmarish scenario for Pakistan, because the Pashtuns in Afghanistan would look across the Durrand line - the arbitrary border that divides Afghanistan and Pakistan - to their fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan, to form Greater Pashtunistan, which could then threaten Pakistan's survival.
Thus, while Pakistan was slow to support negotiations last year, and even arrested senior Taleban officials rumoured to be courting the West, western officials are now cautiously optimistic they see peace in Afghanistan is in their interests.
All wars end with negotiations, and negotiations in Afghanistan must include the Taleban. Mullah Mohammad Omar is not the only leader, and his men are not the only insurgents, but they are the largest group.
Many western diplomats now admit it was a mistake not to invite the Taleban to the first Bonn Conference in 2001, when they installed Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's interim president. With a second Bonn conference looming at the end of this year, it is almost unthinkable they will make the same mistake again.
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Taliban would come in to power once again, InshAllah !
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
We achieved our aims, now we leave, so hard to understand? Afghanis can spend the next 100 years eating each other as far as most Americans are concerned. No more OBL training camps, the Talibs live in caves and only come out to kill other muslims. Smells like vctory to me. Just wish we hadn't given them all that money. For what? Like they were going to build schools and infrastructure. Never happen, they will live like apes for the next 1000 years.
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Smells like victory to you but it is NOT victory...you donot do a speech like what Obama did, and then fights/blames among Military leaders and Civilian leaders over withdrawals plans. No one in your media or government is fully claiming VICTORY or a Mission Successful.
I guess, your points were still there even before the surge of 30,000 arrived, in my opinion, the surge was unsuccessful since it lost so much blood, money and time over it. US is bankrupt and weak. Gen Patreaus surge Failed and now he is being transferred so soon to CIA, Shocking ????
i feel your leadership let you down, there was no need for waiting 10 years if what you said holds true, infact it was not needed to send 100,000 troops and another 147, 000 civilian contractors. Furtther british let you down.
Its a dismal defeat in all sense, and it would take time to realise that!!!!!
Afghan taliban were just a ragtag militia mate after all.
Chogy
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, the world perception is that if the pesky Americans would just stay home, all of the world would be a joyful place of kittens and cotton candy for all.
After all, everything wrong is because of the Americans... we all know that peace prevailed before their arrival.
Afghanistan after the U.S. withdraws:
After all, everything wrong is because of the Americans... we all know that peace prevailed before their arrival.
Afghanistan after the U.S. withdraws:
TruthSeeker
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
History's greatest event was the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. This thread is, therefore, blasphemy.
Similar threads
