Tweet
I doubt this will happen, because the deep state will be aggressively releasing articles into the mainstream press to try and force Trump's hand.
However, it is rather promising that US News is leading the way with this editorial:
Access Denied
He said some promising things in the recent NY Times interview:
If he accomplishes cutting the welfare checks to American Afghans who arrived in the Reagan era and created "Translator businesses" and other sorts of shady NGOs in the last 15 years, bilking the country of 500,000 to $ 1million a year to enrich themselves and self-assuring themselves that they were contributing to "rebuilding the watan." he may be worthy of Nobel peace prize for cutting the umbilical cord of these parasites.
These same parasites found their way out of public housing not through hard work, earning degrees, starting businesses, etc but through becoming a part of the warfare-welfare economy and buying homes in the posh neighborhoods.
This approach will likely also extend to Pakistan:
However, it is rather promising that US News is leading the way with this editorial:
Access Denied
A timely exit is made necessary by the sheer futility and expense by which this intervention is marked. Right now, U.S. taxpayers cover 100 percent of Afghanistan's security expenses and roughly 80 to 90 percent of its overall governing budget. On top of that, we still maintain about 10,000 U.S. soldiers in the "graveyard of empires" – each and every one costing around $4 million per year – as well as three times as many contractors, a source of cost and manpower Washington conveniently ignores when providing troop total updates to the general public.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the Washington foreign policy establishment, the United States can leave Afghanistan, as veteran and military historian Andrew Bacevich persuasively argues because "[p]rotecting Americans from the relatively modest threat posed by the Taliban or Al Qaeda or Islamic State or all three combined for that matter – does not require the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in the Islamic world." Our military can deploy anywhere in the world, if needed and authorized by Congress
Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the Washington foreign policy establishment, the United States can leave Afghanistan, as veteran and military historian Andrew Bacevich persuasively argues because "[p]rotecting Americans from the relatively modest threat posed by the Taliban or Al Qaeda or Islamic State or all three combined for that matter – does not require the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in the Islamic world." Our military can deploy anywhere in the world, if needed and authorized by Congress
Mr. Trump spoke only in general terms about foreign policy. He said the United States should not “be a nation builder,” repeated his line from the campaign that fighting the war in Iraq was “one of the great mistakes in the history of our country,” and said he has some “very definitive” and “strong ideas” about how to deal with the violent civil war raging in Syria. He declined to say what those ideas are despite several requests to do so.
These same parasites found their way out of public housing not through hard work, earning degrees, starting businesses, etc but through becoming a part of the warfare-welfare economy and buying homes in the posh neighborhoods.
This approach will likely also extend to Pakistan:
Since 2001, U.S. taxpayers have accounted for more than $33 billion funneled to Pakistan in direct aid and in reimbursements for counterterrorism efforts (“coalition support funds”), according to the Congressional Research Service. That includes $3.8 billion in “foreign military financing” (FMF) funds. Pakistan consistently has been one of the biggest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, and this year stands at number five...
Comment