Afghanistan

[piercehawkeye45]

It was more than two guys on a telephone apparently:

The continued closure of embassies and the travel alerts across the Middle East was apparently prompted not by a simple conversation between two top al-Qaeda leaders, but by an intercepted conference call between top leadership and affiliates across the region. That's been followed by a noticeable uptick in drone strikes over the past few days.

The U.S. and Britain evacuated their embassies in Yemen yesterday and urged nationals to leave the country as soon as possible over their fears of an imminent al-Qaeda attack. It had previously been reported that U.S. intelligence picked up a conversation between al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, his top counterpart in Yemen, discussing Zawahiri's wish to see a terrorist attack launched from the region.

But apparently the intelligence that was intercepted was much more than that. "This was like a meeting of the Legion of Doom," an intelligence source told The Daily Beast's Josh Rogin and Eli Lake. U.S. intelligence intercepted a major conference call between up to 20 al-Qaeda affiliates across the Middle East during which Zawahiri promoted Wuhayushi to a "general manager" position, giving him control over most of the group's smaller operations in the region. The top al-Qaeda leaders said teams were already in place for an attack, though they were vague when discussing the target, which prompted the swift and wide-ranging response from the U.S.

In the wake of the attacks, the drone operation in Yemen has also been taken up a notch. There have been five drone strikes over the last five days targeting suspected al-Qaeda operatives, breaking a seven week stretch of drone silence in the area. The BBC also reports that Yemeni officials claim to have broken up an al-Qaeda plot to take over the country's oil pipelines. Whether or not that was the attack U.S. officials have been planning against is unclear.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...ce-call/68065/

[piercehawkeye45]

Also, I imagine the main reason for the large amount of embassy closures is a forced overreaction due to Benghazi. Why would Obama risk it?

With regards to the NSA, it cannot be viewed as black and white. Yes, the NSA surveillance will stop some terrorist attacks. No, that does not automatically justify the extent of the program.



Edit: Also, Obama didn't mention if this was NSA doings or not.

He didn't specify which countries posed the greatest threat. He also wouldn't say whether the U.S. learned of the threat through National Security Agency Surveillance programs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...?utm_hp_ref=tw

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... Yo, there's stuff in the sky that talks to places on the ground without pigeons. ...

Originally Posted by Griff

Did you see where we cancelled Obama's one-to-one talks with Putin so we're having talks with Russia instead? ...

Pigeon diplomacy.

[piercehawkeye45]

I would say our foreign policy is shaped by a wide variety of individuals, each with their own philosophy and self-interests. Some are neo-conservative, some are realists, some are liberal internationalists, some have business interests. Also, many people shaping our foreign policy probably have multiple interests and can convince themselves that our foreign policy and their business interests are compatible *cough* Iraq *cough*.

George W. Bush surrounded himself with neo-conservatives so his foreign policy was highly influenced by that. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that the US could effectively spread western democracy. This was a failure so the neo-conservatives have pretty much been marginalized ever since. This shift from neo-conservativism has seemed to lead to a rise in realism and non-interventionists (Ron and Rand Paul).

Obama's foreign policy seems to be more realist - but not cold war realist - since he does not believe the US can or should spread democracy via military but he strongly believes in fighting terrorist threats, hence the large amount of drone strikes and surveillance. I think Obama is split between liberal motives and realist calculation, somewhat explaining his lack of consistency on particular issues. With Syria, his actions are open to interpretation depending on motive. There is reason to believe he has followed a realist path and there is also reason to believe he has no idea what he is doing.

To his defense, trying to keep influence in the Middle East right now is essentially gambling. We have no idea who will be on top in 10 years so we don't want to throw all our chips on one group, but evenly distributing our chips among all groups is currently pissing everyone off.

[Big Sarge]

Afghanistan would make a great air base that would project a military presence in the area, especially Iran

[Adak]

We invaded Afghanistan solely because they supported Al-Qaeda, after the attack on 9/11/01.

Iraq was a completely different criteria. WMD and terrorism were used to justify it to us, which was a horrible, bald-faced lie, by all involved in telling it. The real reason was probably that Saddam was a PITA to deal with, and viewed as a repressive dictator (gas attacks, etc.), with a repressive regime that would be able to stay in power for decades longer, at least (through his sons).

So for Iraq, I would say it was more about helping to reshape the Middle East, by replacing a PITA dictator, with a democracy.

[Lamplighter]

The real reason was probably that Saddam was a PITA to deal with,
and viewed as a repressive dictator...

The real US reason was that Saddam was giving $25,000 to families
whose sons were a suicide bombers, and he was being praised as a hero
in the Palestinian press. This pissed off Rumsfeld and Cheney.

They easily convinced GWB to get the a victory in a war they felt his father had not finished.
The rest was propaganda fed to the US public.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Afghanistan would make a great air base that would project a military presence in the area, especially Iran

Air bases need supply lines. Afghanistan is landlocked by the countries you would use your air base to attack. Afghanistan is a classic example of a Diem Bien Phu once costs of supporting it have bled the home country financially dry.

The problem is a need to find solutions in military deployments, with little respect for allies, and with no grasp of a third requirement always necessary to justify a war - an exit strategy.

[Undertoad]

It's been five minutes so let's go over the Iraq war again.



tired tired tired why don't we revisit the war of 1812 instead

[busterb]

How To End A War
America’s exit from Vietnam should not be our template in Afghanistan.
From American Legion mag. The last couple of paragraphs might be relevant. Here.

[Lamplighter]

The last couple of paragraphs...

???

which say...

[busterb]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

???

which say...

It say click the link and read.

[Lamplighter]

Here is an accounting of the recent diplomates' meeting regarding the US proposal
for 10,000 US military personnel to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years... (heavily edited by me)

NY Times
ROD NORDLAND
November 25, 2013

Obama’s Visiting Security Adviser Tells Karzai to Sign Agreement

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice,
told President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Monday to stop his delay in signing
a security agreement or potentially face the complete and final pullout of American troops
by the end of 2014, according to American and Afghan officials.

But while Mr. Karzai was said to have assured her he would sign the deal at some point,
he gave no time frame for it. And he insisted on difficult new conditions as well,
including the release of all inmates at the American prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,
adding to the perception of crisis between the two nations, officials from both countries said.<snip>

American ambassador, James B. Cunningham <snip> voiced objection
to an extra demand by the loya jirga: the release of all Guantánamo inmates.
He insisted that United States law governs the release of the prisoners and
that the issue had no bearing on the bilateral security agreement, or B.S.A. [Bilateral Security Agreement]

“That made the president very angry; his reaction was very strong and intense,” Mr. Faizi said.
“The president said we cannot separate the recommendations of the loya jirga from the B.S.A. now
— we cannot pick and choose. All those recommendations have to be taken seriously.”<snip>

Mr. Karzai’s strongest language was again said to be over American counterterrorism raids on private Afghan homes
<snip> Such raids are the main combat activity remaining to American forces in Afghanistan now,
and have been identified by American commanders as a crucial, continuing mission.<snip>

The only point of agreement from the talks, according to Mr. Faizi’s account,
was on another demand that Mr. Karzai made during the security negotiations: transparency in elections.
Mr. Karzai was referring to what he has called American interference in the 2009 presidential vote,
when pressure by American officials in response to allegations of election irregularities
led Mr. Karzai to agree to a second round of elections.