2016 Departure Date

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-usa-afghanistan-obama-idUSKBN0E71WQ20140527

It appears that the residual presence will be 9800 for 2014 with a further draw down in 2015 and then finally an embassy contingent presence (less than 1000) by 2016.

He will still be President in 2016 meaning that now that he proposed this publicly in a speech to the nation, there will not be a chance for a republican president (e.g. Jeb Bush) to change the tempo.

This will be important for two reasons:

1) It indicates a loss as Pillar, Scheuer, Pape, and a host of editors for the major US newspapers have stated. They had stated previously that the land mass of Afghanistan was not amenable to even the surge numbers Obama had put in place initially for a clear decisive win with a low cost low technology guerilla enemy with safe havens.

The biggest news wave in military circles came recently from Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger who will submit the first AAR (After Action Report) entitled simply:

Why We Lost

http://time.com/109981/general-wars-afghanistan-iraq-why-we-lost/

2) The drawback may permit for some semblance of peace to ensue. It seems that after some initial upticks in violence that occur when ISAF leaves, these locales calm down when their presence is removed from the area.

[Shah-i-Kot]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0E71WQ20140527

It appears that the residual presence will be 9800 for 2014 with a further draw down in 2015 and then finally an embassy contingent presence (less than 1000) by 2016.

The embassy contingent presence of less than a 1000 is unlikely. I think it has just been stated to mitigate the Republican claims that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is a defeat.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/gop-sens-obamas-afghanistan-withdrawal-a-monumental-mistake/

[Rawanshenas]

That is in case the next president sign up the security agreement with US, something that Karzai refused to do.

Now that Russia and US are enemies again, soon Russia will supply weapons to Taliban.

[Kushan Prince]

Not according to this article.

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=43894

[Al-Afghani]

Peace and Afghanistan don't go together very well. We all know a civil war is bound to happen, generously fuelled by outsiders. That's solely due to the Taliban's insistence on continuing fighting against TajiksUzbeksHazaras, and not negotiating for peace.

[randolph85]

That is in case the next president sign up the security agreement with US, something that Karzai refused to do.

Now that Russia and US are enemies again, soon Russia will supply weapons to Taliban.

Russia's Afg policy has largely been in line with US interests, Russia does not want a chaotic wildcard on the south border of its backyard and is letting the US do all the heavy lifting while aiding in the war effort. Despite the recent Russia/US tensions, they are on the same page when it comes to Afg and Russia in fact recently delivered several Helicopters to the Afg government by way of contract with the US.

[randolph85]

Another thing to consider is the NATO presence in the country which will likely be several thousand and I haven't seen any indication that they will leave post 2016.

Sure the names might change like "combat troops" to "support troops" but its like the saying goes about putting lipstick on a pig.

[کیش]

Let me repost what I wrote on a similar thread about this,

The number of US soldiers killed should be much higher than what they put on paper. I read that 22 veterans commit suicide everyday, because of PTSD resulting in fighting in this war. So in-reality, the enemy combatants did kill those soldiers, rather slow and painfull.

The US should have stopped air strikes back in 2002. And primarily maintain a small number of special operations units scattered throughout the country. US signed their death certificate when they increased the number of troops and air strikes and the Afghan people felt the US was not just fighting "terrorist" but they were fighting the population. Which then started to join movements who were fighting the Americans. So they created enemies when they didn't have any with these moves

The US created the hostilities of the tribal areas. It doesn't take a smart person to figure out that increased surveillance and drone strikes will create your enemies that really didn't exist until you started to push people around.

When Bush said "Mission Accomplished" they should have left Iraq that day and leave trainers for a short time only. They got rid of Saddam and the Ba'ath party, everything after that was the US weakness in the art of war.

[randolph85]

Let me repost what I wrote on a similar thread about this,

The number of US soldiers killed should be much higher than what they put on paper. I read that 22 veterans commit suicide everyday, because of PTSD resulting in fighting in this war. So in-reality, the enemy combatants did kill those soldiers, rather slow and painfull.

The US should have stopped air strikes back in 2002. And primarily maintain a small number of special operations units scattered throughout the country. US signed their death certificate when they increased the number of troops and air strikes and the Afghan people felt the US was not just fighting "terrorist" but they were fighting the population. Which then started to join movements who were fighting the Americans. So they created enemies when they didn't have any with these moves

The US created the hostilities of the tribal areas. It doesn't take a smart person to figure out that increased surveillance and drone strikes will create your enemies that really didn't exist until you started to push people around.

When Bush said "Mission Accomplished" they should have left Iraq that day and leave trainers for a short time only. They got rid of Saddam and the Ba'ath party, everything after that was the US weakness in the art of war.

The US found that toppling regimes was the easy part, and so was fighting opposition for the most part. What they failed to do in Iraq was shape the country in the image that they wanted, in Afg they are finding it a little easier considering that corrupt Afghan elites don't have the oil wealth of Iraq to be independent. Unlike Iraq today, the Afghan elites livelihood depends on US support and ironically they want foreign occupation more than the foreigners do. It's a pathetic display, really.

[khushal]

The US found that toppling regimes was the easy part, and so was fighting opposition for the most part. What they failed to do in Iraq was shape the country in the image that they wanted, in Afg they are finding it a little easier considering that corrupt Afghan elites don't have the oil wealth of Iraq to be independent. Unlike Iraq today, the Afghan elites livelihood depends on US support and ironically they want foreign occupation more than the foreigners do. It's a pathetic display, really.

Actually the Iraqis were a more cooperative puppet than the afghan puppets. The Iraqi puppets had created some kind of stability and it was in their interests to create stability so the oil wealth can pour in their pockets much like the Saudi family has, while the afghan puppets main goal was to extract all the aid money while it is available because why create stability when there is no wealth after the aid money disappears.

So:
In Afghanistan: the longer the instability, the more money the elites make.
In Iraq: the quicker the stability comes, the elites can create a rich dynasty much like in Saudi's have.

[Toramana]

The withdrawal decision has been coordinated with Afghans and made in the light of Afghan National Army recent successes against the Islamist terrorists. Don't read much into it. And the decision can be revived should the two sides want. Obama's second term is ending in 2017, so he made the decision to leave a legacy.

[Toramana]

Those officials expressed confidence that Afghanistan's own army and police were sufficiently strong to hold off any major military challenge by the Taliban, and pointed to their performance during the first round of the presidential and provincial elections in April as evidence of major progress in US and NATO training efforts to date.

Continued training of Afghan forces, combined with preventing al-Qaeda from re-establishing a presence in Afghanistan, will remain the two main foci of US troops there once full responsibility for security is transferred to Afghan forces at the end of the year, they stressed.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/SOU-01-280514.html

[Rawanshenas]

Russia's Afg policy has largely been in line with US interests, Russia does not want a chaotic wildcard on the south border of its backyard and is letting the US do all the heavy lifting while aiding in the war effort. Despite the recent Russia/US tensions, they are on the same page when it comes to Afg and Russia in fact recently delivered several Helicopters to the Afg government by way of contract with the US.

You would be naive to think that Russia and US are on the same page when it comes to Afghanistan. Russia supports Ukrainian separatists, Afghanistan wants Pashtuns to rise up in Pakistan and do the same, Afghanistan also supports Ukrainian Russian separatists. Pakistan is a stooge of US and US won't let that happen, so?

[Toramana]

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/05/what-doesa-us-drawdown-mean-afghanistan-2014528145510379831.html

[Rawanshenas]

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...510379831.html

Aljazeera is pro-russian.