2016 Departure Date

[Kushan Prince]

Kushan Prince,

It does not matter what I or you think. What matters are the facts. Obama's decision for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan is an executive decision that can not be undone by Congress or Senate (unlike a treaty which needs to be voted on).

I never disputed the SPA when it was signed by Obama in 2012 with puppet Karzai, something Bengal_Tiger used as evidence US is never leaving. Yet, now this same Bengal_Tiger (like you) is saying Obama is just a figure head, and his decision for a full US withdrawal means nothing LOL. He then further states that it is because Obama is black, that is why we should suddenly not place authority in his decisions. Classic cherry picking which is quite entertaining!!!

You should ask Senator John McCain and Senator Graham why they are so upset with Obama's decision for a US withdrawal. For us to find credibility in your belief that the US is not leaving Afghanistan requires that we disregard the beliefs and grievances of two major Republican, neocon War Hawk Senators who are opposed to Obama's decision on a full US withdrawal, and that is something I am unwilling to do.

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

Senators' McCain, Graham, and Ayotte's statement opposing the President's decision of US withdrawal

“The president’s decision to set an arbitrary date for the full withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a monumental mistake and a triumph of politics over strategy,” the senators said. “This is a short-sighted decision that will make it harder to end the war in Afghanistan responsibly.”
Withdrawing from Afghanistan could also hurt U.S. credibility on the global stage, according to the senators:

The president came into office wanting to end the wars he inherited. But wars do not end just because politicians say so. The president appears to have learned nothing from the damage done by his previous withdrawal announcements in Afghanistan and his disastrous decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq. Today’s announcement will embolden our enemies and discourage our partners in Afghanistan and the region. And regardless of anything the president says tomorrow at West Point, his decision on Afghanistan will fuel the growing perception worldwide that America is unreliable, distracted, and unwilling to lead.

If it is really that easy that the US will pull out, then why is there talks among different senators to keep an army base there after the supposed pull out? Surly that is not the definition of leaving and these talks have been in measure ever since 2012. General Campbell has said the same thing in how NATO is in talks of leaving a few bases once they are gone. Obama is indeed just a figure head, this loon also promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay but that never happened. Probably congress pressuring him not to or he will be seen as a "traitor" to his country.

Give this a read;

he leaders of the United States and other NATO nations are intensifying discussions about future support for Afghanistan, probably meaning at least some American troops will remain here well after President Obama leaves office, a U.S. Army general said

"Train Afghan security forces" yeah right!

Gen. John F. Campbell, commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said that NATO military commanders plan to establish a base in Kabul to help distribute aid, facilitate weapons sales and continue efforts to train Afghan security forces.

They plan this with leaving troops behind to occupy it;

Although Campbell stressed that NATO civilian officials probably will be in charge of the new mission, a contingent of troops also would be needed to secure the base. Campbell said that NATO forces also could be used to help bolster the Afghan air force and intelligence service

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-hopes-to-keep-a-long-term-base-in-afghanistan-us-general-says/2015/05/23/d4f6a25c-0157-11e5-8c77-bf274685e1df_story.html

Obama wants to leave with his legacy intact being the first president to end this war, otherwise Obama will be known as a failure in the eyes of republicans with a tarnished leagacy. Besides, Afg is sitting on a supposed 6 trillions worth of minerals, it would be stupid for the yanks to leave all that future wealth behind in the hands of a bunch of tribals and fanatics.

[tilla_jogian]

If it is really that easy that the US will pull out, then why is there talks among different senators to keep an army base there after the supposed pull out? Surly that is not the definition of leaving and these talks have been in measure ever since 2012. General Campbell has said the same thing in how NATO is in talks of leaving a few bases once they are gone. Obama is indeed just a figure head, this loon also promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay but that never happened. Probably congress pressuring him not to or he will be seen as a "traitor" to his country.

Give this a read;



"Train Afghan security forces" yeah right!


They plan this with leaving troops behind to occupy it;



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...1df_story.html

Obama wants to leave with his legacy intact being the first president to end this war, otherwise Obama will be known as a failure in the eyes of republicans with a tarnished leagacy. Besides, Afg is sitting on a supposed 6 trillions worth of minerals, it would be stupid for the yanks to leave all that future wealth behind in the hands of a bunch of tribals and fanatics.

$3 trillion $6 trillion? Make up your mind first. And USA is not interested in minerals, China and India are. Problem with mineral is they need years and billions of $ of investment. Some say $58 billion, which mean Afghanistan will need peace and security before anyone invest that amount of money.

This is possible if ANA can defeat Taliban, don't wish for USA to stay. Let them leave, ANA should defend it self. Time to take responsiblity and not depend on others just for basic defence.

[Insight]

If it is really that easy that the US will pull out, then why is there talks among different senators to keep an army base there after the supposed pull out? Surly that is not the definition of leaving and these talks have been in measure ever since 2012. General Campbell has said the same thing in how NATO is in talks of leaving a few bases once they are gone. Obama is indeed just a figure head, this loon also promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay but that never happened. Probably congress pressuring him not to or he will be seen as a "traitor" to his country.

Give this a read;



"Train Afghan security forces" yeah right!


They plan this with leaving troops behind to occupy it;



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...1df_story.html

Obama wants to leave with his legacy intact being the first president to end this war, otherwise Obama will be known as a failure in the eyes of republicans with a tarnished leagacy. Besides, Afg is sitting on a supposed 6 trillions worth of minerals, it would be stupid for the yanks to leave all that future wealth behind in the hands of a bunch of tribals and fanatics.

In short, what you are saying is that Obama's decision for a full US withdrawal means nothing, but a lower US general Campbells hopes for a base mean something? Thats basically your position. Obama again reaffirmed the US exit days after that General cried about his hopes.

Senate and Congress can not do anything about Obama's decision. It is not a treaty. I explained this already LOL.

[Insight]

If it is really that easy that the US will pull out, then why is there talks among different senators to keep an army base there after the supposed pull out? Surly that is not the definition of leaving and these talks have been in measure ever since 2012. General Campbell has said the same thing in how NATO is in talks of leaving a few bases once they are gone. Obama is indeed just a figure head, this loon also promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay but that never happened. Probably congress pressuring him not to or he will be seen as a "traitor" to his country.

Give this a read;



"Train Afghan security forces" yeah right!


They plan this with leaving troops behind to occupy it;



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...1df_story.html

Obama wants to leave with his legacy intact being the first president to end this war, otherwise Obama will be known as a failure in the eyes of republicans with a tarnished leagacy. Besides, Afg is sitting on a supposed 6 trillions worth of minerals, it would be stupid for the yanks to leave all that future wealth behind in the hands of a bunch of tribals and fanatics.

Perhaps you should try to calm down the Kabul puppet regime (Ghani and Abdullah) since they got their request for US to stay rejected by Obama.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...4ff_story.html

President Obama said Tuesday that he would freeze U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan at 9,800 through the end of the year but vowed to end the American war by the end of his presidency.
Obama announced that he would slow the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops after a White House meeting with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The decision to keep more U.S. forces in Afghanistan this year was driven by the administration’s confidence in Ghani, whom Obama praised repeatedly. Relations between Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, and the U.S. government had been steadily deteriorating for years. Obama lauded Ghani, who took office in September, for taking on “the mantle of commander in chief in a way that we have not seen in the past from an Afghan president.”
But Obama also made it clear that he wouldn’t depart from his current plan to close the remaining U.S. bases in Afghanistan and consolidate the remaining U.S. forces in Kabul by the end of 2016.
“Afghanistan is still a dangerous place,” Obama said. “The way it’s going to become less dangerous is by Afghan security forces* being capable of keeping law and order and security in the country, and that is not going to happen if foreign forces* are continually relied upon.”

[Bengal_Tiger]

For the past few years UnknownPrince a.ka. "Insight" has been hysterically screaming and gloating over a supposed US withdrawal in Afghanistan.

2014 became 2016.

2016 has now become 2017.

This thread highlights the severe stupidity of this troll.

LOL

Obama to keep 5,500 US troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016

WASHINGTON – President Obama announced Thursday he will keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016, in a stark reversal from earlier pledges to end the war on his watch -- though Republicans still questioned whether the residual force will be enough to support Afghan forces and U.S. allies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/obama-to-keep-5500-us-troops-in-afghanistan-beyond-2016/

All of us had told this moron that - *shock horror* - Obama could change his plans.

He refused to accept this and behaved as if the 2016 was a divine fact enscribed in marble.

This along with a lot of his other nonsensical "theories" and propaganda e.g. Russia abandoning Syria just shows what little he knows about geo-politics or reality in general.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Tandulkar, remind me again why you hate him. What did he do to you?

[Al-Afghani]

As per ISI orders, Taliban were supposed to wait until ALL American troops are gone, before taking over large cities. But this failed due to their impatience and resulted in Obama extending his stay in Afghanistan.

[Insight]

As per ISI orders, Taliban were supposed to wait until ALL American troops are gone, before taking over large cities. But this failed due to their impatience and resulted in Obama extending his stay in Afghanistan.

It went from 200,000 to 10,000 and assuming the plan does not change, to 5,500. This is also now an election issue, especially for the Democratic primary between Sanders and Clinton.

I don't know which is more tragic, the fact that the Kabul regime supporters are happy about US delaying their complete exit, or the fact that they are happy with only a meager 5,500. Is that all their aspirations are worth?

[Insight]

Tandulkar, remind me again why you hate him. What did he do to you?

Please don't feed the psycho lol. Ignoring him is better for the forum.

[ComradePashtun]

There is a long pattern of U.S presidents promising one thing during election trails especially on strategic and foreign policy matters, especially wars, and they ending up doing the opposite. There are quite a few research and academic papers on this issue. I will look it up and if i find it i will post/provide link in here.

Anyway, Afghanistan is a country of immense strategic importance for the U.S which it will not abandon.

On the other hand long as the U.S continue to provide air support as well as advise and train the ANSF, the Afghan security forces can look after Talibs.

[ComradePashtun]

Look up for Obama's speech at the centcom prior to the previous election where he promised to begin drawing down the U.S forces but after the election he went ahead with the surge. Of course he sought justifications. Americans tend to forget easily and hardly held Obama or his predecessors to account.

[Insight]

Look up for Obama's speech at the centcom prior to the previous election where he promised to begin drawing down the U.S forces but after the election he went ahead with the surge. Of course he sought justifications. Americans tend to forget easily and hardly held Obama or his predecessors to account.

Obama actually said he would focus on the Afghan war in the 2008 election. He called the Iraq war a mistake, but Afghan war necessary. The surge was something he discussed during the 2008 campaign.

He then said in 2010 that after the surge he would start withdrawing which he has done. From 200,000 US NATO troops down to 10,000- that is withdrawing. With this recent policy decision, the US military wanted 10,000 after 2017, but Obama cut it in half and gave them 5,500. Hence, elections do matter for foreign policy. This is now an election issue for 2016, especially with regards to the Democratic primary between Sanders and Clinton.

There has been immense US military pressure which Obama has been facing, and till now has withstood despite the gains by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

An informative book to read is Bob Woodward's "Obama's wars" and Robert Gates "Duty." It explains the dynamics.

[Insight]

Being happy about 5,500 US troops for the Kabul regime, down from 200,000 troops at it's height.

What will the 5,500 do if 10,000 could not even save Kunduz for the Kabul regime?

200,000 > 30,000 >10,000 > 5,500 >>> ? "They are not leaving?" - "strategic"

[randolph85]

Most of the remaining *******s will just be manning the bases while the airstrike campaign will be maintained. There is a reason there has been such a sharp reduction of NATO deaths in the country in the last couple of years, its because their troops have mostly been confined to their bases.

[Al-Afghani]

Being happy about 5,500 US troops for the Kabul regime, down from 200,000 troops at it's height.

What will the 5,500 do if 10,000 could not even save Kunduz for the Kabul regime?

200,000 > 30,000 >10,000 > 5,500 >>> ? "They are not leaving?" - "strategic"

Others can play the same rhetorical numbers game. May I remind you that only a few hunderd US troops defeated the entire Taliban army in 2001, during winter and when they had to be airdropped into Afghanistan. It took Pakistan years to recover their proxy forces.