10k US troops to remain in Afghanistan
Earlier today, Afghanistan’s new government signed a deal with the US to leave ten thousand troops in that country after the “withdrawal” of US forces later this year According to Stars & Stripes;
In a ceremony attended by Afghanistan’s new president, Ashraf Ghani, and other officials, Ambassador James Cunningham inked the accord on behalf of the United States. Hanif Atmar, Afghanistan’s national security adviser and former interior minister, signed for the Kabul government.
“We have signed this looking to the needs of Afghanistan, and the needs of the international community,” Ghani said during the ceremony. “It is a very balanced agreement.”
NATO representatives signed a separate Status of Forces agreement to allow a contingent of several thousand more allied soldiers to train and assist the Afghan army in 2015.
It probably would have been a little tougher to get the deal signed if the example of the alternative hadn’t existed in the form of Iraq.
Category: Terror War
Shades of The Last Centurion by John Ringo. Leaving troops behind while their own country goes to shit.
Great foreign policy…making our troops foreigners.
I suppose some ISAF is better than none…
But I doubt Afghanistan is going to go in any positive direction. I’ll bet that ISIS will spread to Afghanistan by 2015, if not earlier.
“It probably would have been a little tougher to get the deal signed if the example of the alternative hadn’t existed in the form of Iraq.”
Over the past year, there have been comments (learned and otherwise) about the ratio of “mission people” versus logistics and security. “Mission people” here means people doing the mission and not involved in logistics or security. Did I read that the ratio of mission people to others is maybe 1 to 7 so, maybe 1,400 mission guys and 8,600 logistics and security people?
How many of those 10k people will be mission people and what missions will they be engaged in? is that number enough to make a difference?
Do they plan to keep most of the FOBs open or will they withdraw back to the major population areas? Kabul, Kandahar, etc?
Will there be Special Forces for HVT, raids, and ambushes? Does the 10k include those guys?
Is all of this still being run out of the Persian Gulf?
Would anyone care to comment on the “condition” of the Afghan forces – police, militia, and military – compared to Iraq?
Has anyone noticed Pakistan and their famous football star? What is happening there? I note that the head of the Indian government was in the US for a state visit, what about the Pakis?
I also noticed that Mr. Netanyahu was in New York speaking to the UN Security Council. I didn’t see anything about a visit to Washington. Apparently the “close engagement” continues. Why the hell would Mr. Obama dislike Mr. Netanyahu enough to sacrifice the value of close coordination in the Middle East?
What in the hell is the WH thinking?
Richard, we’ve been wondering that for almost six years now.
‘Thinking’? In the White House?
Richard, that’s an oxymoron.
Will they be wearing boots?
The real headline:
“ILOVEBAGRAM.COM cheats death!”
Its fun watching the Libs heads explode over this stuff. As recently as a couple months ago they were touting that all of the troops were out of Iraq, the troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year and unlike the last administration, this President has the wisdom and maturity to not get us into endless un-winnable wars in the ME.
Of course its still all Bush’s fault and 9/11 is but a distant memory for most of them but I am noticing a change in the tone of a lot of the comments. Each morning I get up at about 0600 and feed the livestock, then sit down and look at FoxNews, NBC News, Drudge,Huffpo, BBC News, and Al Jazeera America to get a feel for things and its very enlightening to read the comments on the articles. Even some of the Obama zealots are starting to become disillusioned.
So you feed the critters an wade through bullshit, in that order?
Ha pretty much! I dont get cable so my only news outlets are the Interwebs and a weekly newspaper that is quite adept at regaling us with tales of Eunice’s luncheon after last Sunday’s church service of the fact that the mad mail box basher was at it again.
Let me see if I have this straight. We are grateful to Afghanistan for agreeing to allow 10,000 of our people to remain in that place beyond the asses and elbows date? I guess maybe I’m missing something. Unless the rules have also changed, or the sole purpose is intel gathering, what’s in it for the USA? This half-assed approach to warring is, well, half assed. I’d rather theat we pull the hell out and when the bad guys (changes by the month, it seems) are at the gates, let them scream help and let us have at it wholesale.
There is actually a precedent for leaving US troops there simply to give us ‘skin in the game’ and that would be the current US military presence in the ROK.
The ROKs have a first rate military and unlike the Germans and Japanese have not simply “outsourced” their defense to the US taxpayers, so from a strictly military standpoint, there hasn’t been a need for US troops on the Korean peninsula since at least 1990. Nevertheless, we remain there primarily to reassure that ROKs that any attack on them will also be an attack on us.
Continuing my thought…
So, if preventing Afghanistan from suffering the fate of Iraq requires a US presence, then it’s probably cheaper than pulling out and letting it go to hell because when it does, it will be more expensive (in both money and blood) to fix what’s broken.
It also gives us an operational base right smack in the middle of “Indian Country” which we would not have without a US presence there.