Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atmar & Saleh Call for Long-term US Military Presence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Atmar & Saleh Call for Long-term US Military Presence

    Atmar & Saleh Call for Long-term US Military Presence
    Former Interior Minister Hanif Atmar and intelligence Chief Amrullah Saleh have voiced supported for long-term US military bases in Afghanistan. In a joint press conference in Kabul on Friday, the former influential and key Government officials said American bases are necessary for stability of the country. They called on the national leaders and politicians to support establishment of permanent US bases saying it would avoid interference of our neighboring countries, help end the conflict and continue the existential pace of current political system. The Friday’s joint press conference by the two most important and efficient high officials related to the affairs of our national security emphasizes that the leaders, MPs and politicians should listen to the calls of support for long-term US bases. It’s not about American interests; the continuity of the current system depends on presence of foreign troops. Much of our bleeding in the past 30 years is because of the regional proxy wars and interferences. Regional countries, particularly our two immediate neighbors, do not want presence of American troops in Afghanistan. They eye their interests and have been dreaming “strategic depth” and influence drafting their plans of post-American Afghanistan. The opposition leaders, tribal politicians, MPs, opinion makers and religious scholars should do what Atmar and Saleh did, come to public and call the Government to be clear in its strategy for our national security and support long-term US military presence in Afghanistan to keep the ten years of stability go and avoid our neighbors launch their proxy wars and influence rivalries. The Karzai Administration is heading towards self-prioritized narrow-sighted plans that are only for the sake of the continuity of ruling, not worrying about the future of the country. The current efforts of reconciliation with Taliban are so ambiguous that the Government itself is not confident about the outcome. They are pursuing it with the mind of just giving a try. That’s not how our decision makers should be worrying about our national security and the continuity of the political system. We believe even if important leaders from Kandahari faction of Taliban agree to negotiate with the Government, the so-called peace and reconciliation program without a clear strategy and principles will end to nowhere, and finally it will bring an embarrassment not more different the previous story of Taliban imposter. The international community should avoid a repeat of history by a hasty and premature withdrawal. A similar withdrawal was that of the Soviet Union which brought Afghanistan into civil war and the rise of Taliban. With the changing interest of the western world, it seems that the 2014 withdrawal will be a complete departure, which can make Afghanistan a battle ground for the interferences of our neighbors. We cannot afford a cowardly reconciliation with the perception of defeat at the hands of the enemies of this country, the Taliban. Hanif Atmar was saying we must win the war against them. Amrullah Saleh said that the US will reduce its troops to about 20,000 after 2014 withdrawal. He added “we need them”. The Government is pursuing the talks with Taliban, which we strongly believe will end up with nothing, in secret from public. The people of Afghanistan have the right to know what their rulers are playing with their future.

    New Page 1
    Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

    A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

    For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


    The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

    -Ferishta, 1560–1620

  • #2
    Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post

    the former influential and key Government officials .. The Friday’s joint press conference by the two most important and efficient high officials related to the affairs of our national security




    Bias in media isn't a good thing, it means the person had to resort to bias to get their point across since otherwise it didnt carry much weight

    Anyways permanent US bases in Afghanistan isn't an agenda, it is already permanent..Lot of people confuse US withdrawal as complete withdrawal of US forces, that is highly unlikely..They will maintain their presence in limited numbers enough to sway kabul's opinion in their favor and to keep a check on Russia and China.
    It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Talal View Post
      [/LEFT]


      Bias in media isn't a good thing, it means the person had to resort to bias to get their point across since otherwise it didnt carry much weight

      Anyways permanent US bases in Afghanistan isn't an agenda, it is already permanent..Lot of people confuse US withdrawal as complete withdrawal of US forces, that is highly unlikely..They will maintain their presence in limited numbers enough to sway kabul's opinion in their favor and to keep a check on Russia and China.
      I think the minorities might slightly approve of the military bases. Simply because they are running the show, and they don't want this honey moon to be over. Almost every ruler of Afghanistan has been a Pashtun, and now the largest ethnic group[Pashtuns]feel marginalized. Since Pashtuns are marginalized, the minorities are having a blast.
      Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

      A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

      For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


      The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

      -Ferishta, 1560–1620

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post
        I think the minorities might slightly approve of the military bases. Simply because they are running the show, and they don't want this honey moon to be over. Almost every ruler of Afghanistan has been a Pashtun, and now the largest ethnic group[Pashtuns]feel marginalized. Since Pashtuns are marginalized, the minorities are having a blast.
        I doubt it will be that way, these negotiations with taliban aren't to put an end to this war its more likely to gain enough support among pashtuns to cement their position at the centre.

        To the americans a pashtun government even if it doesn't carry overwhelming pashtun majority is a MUCH more stable equation than lets say having all the minorities singing the american anthem. And the reason is simple, without pashtuns at the helm there is no way they can control Afghanistan in a stable way. The minorities aren't capable of putting up a fight despite carrying nearly 40% of the population weight, so if they can manage to sway 'just' a few more pashtun tribes to their way it will go a long way in establishing a pashtun dominated government.

        But for pashtuns that is the worse case scenario..why ? because it will mean division among them and the pashtun strength lies in standing united..that unity must absolutely not break for Afghanistan to stay afloat
        It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Talal View Post
          [/LEFT]


          Bias in media isn't a good thing, it means the person had to resort to bias to get their point across since otherwise it didnt carry much weight

          Anyways permanent US bases in Afghanistan isn't an agenda, it is already permanent..Lot of people confuse US withdrawal as complete withdrawal of US forces, that is highly unlikely..They will maintain their presence in limited numbers enough to sway kabul's opinion in their favor and to keep a check on Russia and China.
          LOL
          and you are complaining about bias.
          your own comment is a total bias.

          Comment


          • #6
            On a general note, you Unknown talk so much fruf. Get a life man you are killing this forum with your spam flooding and ignoramus views. You either known Taliban too well and like to vulanteer for a spokes person or you are simply of the kind mentioned earlier. Jirga can be manipulated and politicised by some if they want. Karzai, in any case, is merely flirting with the idea for now - and by saying that - he is only politically correct. What is significant is these two coming forward and first to be the champions. lol They either feel isolated, or something is cooking up. The idea is floated and there is ample time for the final verdict - and that might well be some time after 2015. Karzai is due to sign a strategic and 'Status of Force' accord some time soon with NATO, and one wonders what will fall withing the ambit of that. It certainly involves long-term strategic issues.

            Agree with Talal.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ComradePashtun View Post
              On a general note, you Unknown talk so much fruf. Get a life man you are killing this forum with your spam flooding and ignoramus views. You either known Taliban too well and like to vulanteer for a spokes person or you are simply of the kind mentioned earlier. Jirga can be manipulated and politicised by some if they want. Karzai, in any case, is merely flirting with the idea for now - and by saying that - he is only politically correct. What is significant is these two coming forward and first to be the champions. lol They either feel isolated, or something is cooking up. The idea is floated and there is ample time for the final verdict - and that might well be some time after 2015. Karzai is due to sign a strategic and 'Status of Force' accord some time soon with NATO, and one wonders what will fall withing the ambit of that. It certainly involves long-term strategic issues.

              Agree with Talal.
              you agree with talal cuz you as well are biased.

              congrates

              Comment


              • #8
                yara ya kho pass around judgements as if you are the judiciary of the forum. I agree with Talal on his comments about the comments he made about Pashtuns and the polity in Afghanistan in general ... not in relation with this permanent base thing. Wakhanda oos!

                Comment


                • #9
                  i dont judge on a personal level just the authencity of his info.

                  by agreeing with him you enforce his pakistani biased view of Pukhtane which is margenalising.
                  i have seen how these individuals are trying to project their bias on people here.
                  there views are based on reading reports from the same people who are out to justify their presence in AFG.

                  i can go in details refuting his points but such people feel they are somehow higher authority and in position of knowing and will not listen.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by unknownprince
                    no I think you actually do not know what you are talking about at all.

                    You see, there is no peace in Afghanistan, and the only talks that will ever happen will be when these people like the Soviets leave.

                    Now, onto the Afghan 'government' in general. It has no standing whatsoever. the only way Karzai will gain credibility with the people is when he separates himself completely from the government. If he does not, he will simply fade out.

                    You seem to forget that Americans do not want to pay, and have refused to pay for this failing war. More than 70% want a quick withdrawal, and Democratic National Committee has passed a resolution unanimously demaning fast and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. American tax payers unwillingly pay $12 billion a month for this failing war, and it is coming to and end.

                    Many politicians are now asking for an end.

                    COmbine all the anti-war politics in America with a failing war, and an Afghan populations that is opposed to the US, and you can see that the war will be coming to an end with complete withdrawal.

                    Im not saying anything.

                    Taliban have made it pretty clear to the world that there will be no talks until US-NATO leaves. Seeing as US-NATo is losing, and in facts pays Taliban for peace, you can see where it is going.

                    Don't get your hopes up. History repeats itself all the times.
                    No your talks stech boy. Most of what you lay here your rabid views, and merely that. One the politics in U.S. your dim-witted analyses should take in to consideration that there is a bi-partisan support for the war - and there is still alot at stake for the U.S (I like to digress, most of us have an idea of that).

                    When did U.S. make initiatives for talks with the Taliban? Perhaps last year! Before the U.S. you, you may your highness, know that the Afghan government first and foremost is a direct party to the conflict.

                    I am not saying whether Taliban will come to the table or for that matter when. But what I'm saying is that the policy has been simply to weaken them and create the necessary condition for eventual political resolution and that is clearly discernable from policies. In today's world such a war cannot be won in decissive manner. As for as Taliban they have no coherent political agenda and nor do they appear to be a politically united group. What do they offer the Afghans? Their demented model has long been thrown in to the bin and is a history. Take care.
                    Last edited by ComradePashtun; 03-05-2011, 08:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by unknownprince
                      but you have always been pro-US NATO, you supported the war? Do you still?
                      You are clown and that is what they do. When did I?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree with UnknownPrince etc. here that Talal is expressing his own Punjabized views ... a weak Afghanistan where ethnic tensions could be manipulated is a far more favorable scenario for Punjabis than the unleashing of Pashtun and other nationalisms threatening the very existance of Pakistan...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by graveyardofempires View Post
                          i dont judge on a personal level just the authencity of his info.

                          by agreeing with him you enforce his pakistani biased view of Pukhtane which is margenalising.
                          i have seen how these individuals are trying to project their bias on people here.
                          there views are based on reading reports from the same people who are out to justify their presence in AFG.

                          i can go in details refuting his points but such people feel they are somehow higher authority and in position of knowing and will not listen.
                          He is spot on the ethnic politics. Go ahead and refuting him. I like to learn bro. I am sensing there might be some confussion as to you not knowing which part of idea I agree with. I gotta go now, we'll speak another time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by unknownprince
                            well when I was against the war, you spoke about the US-NATO presense being a nightmare for me. You siad, paki, nightmare for you , something along those lines.
                            Bro the only thing about you is your overzeal and ill-informed views which you like to rub on people's face. You don't know nothing about Afghanistan and its politics. Sorry. I try to be objective. I am for no U.S./NATO. Afghanistan is what I live for.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by unknownprince
                              I know you probably don't read my posts (and I don't care), but I post news articles by the WESTERN/US media. These articles show that the US has been asking for talks over and over again so much so that they made a fool of themselves with an imposter back in the fall.

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/wo...a/23kabul.html

                              Us policy is decided by what the people want at the end of the day. Congressman want to stay in power. $12 billion a month for a failing war.

                              Yes, Americans have no moral concern, but they have economic concern. 70% opposition to the war will only go up more.

                              You can think want you want to think.

                              You will see
                              Give it a break. 'You will see' that is what you post once in while when you feel the urge to post,a dn we will know what you are talking about.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X