Afghanistan

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

I need to stop reading the news.

No, you need to stop understanding the news.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

The government tells the world it had significant information that warranted the closing of 19+ embassies over the past weekend.

Some reporter needs to ask what significant information they have today that warranted the opening of 18 of those embassies ? (The 19th is staying closed due to yet another threat.)

The end of Ramadan was cited as one part of their evaluations. Was just the end of Ramadan sufficient to believe that the terrorists would have to cancel their intentions on 18 of these embassies ?

Methinks "Snowden October Surprise" better describes the situation,
or was it a "Tail Wagging the Dog"

There may be multiple intentions but the official reasoning usually (but not always) makes more sense than conspiracy theories. We intercepted a teleconference of top-ranking Al Qaeda members discussing an attack within a certain time frame. After Benghazi, Obama does not want to risk losing lives overseas when they could be prevented. The Right would crush him for it. Therefore, due to the non-specific nature of the threat, Obama (over)reacted with a non-specific closure of 18 embassies for those span of days.

Originally Posted by Griff

We do need to turn down our overseas operations. Our government is fully corrupted and we have to figure out how to reclaim it. Our fascist foreign policy is a big part of the problem, but Mussolini's influence goes far beyond that... If you are what you eat of late we've eaten fascists, communists, religious nutters, drug cartels, terrorists... We're all those things and more.

We are not fascist. Foreign policy is always more pragmatic than domestic policy, meaning that national interests come before morals and ethics. There are definitely areas that can be improved - I do agree with scaling back our oversea presence - but shutting down our entire overseas operation would result in a massive backlash. Vacuums of power never end well. Just look at the Middle East.

[Griff]

You're obviously right but what exactly are we? I wouldn't call our foreign policy pragmatic as that implies a sensible balance.

[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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

I wouldn't call our foreign policy pragmatic as that implies a sensible balance.

We are not the world's policemen. Only extremist rhetoric has a long history of making America the world's policemen - often with negative consequences. Syria, for example, is a problem for nations in that region. And the Arab Council. We have no dog in that fight. It could not be more pragmatic.

No true American would want to impose democracy on other nations. Only extremists believe in forcing democracy down other's throats. It also does not work. Democracy must be earned by the people of that nation. And if it means 10% casualties, well, that is what it takes.

People themselves must want the political solution. Outsiders cannot impose it. In Syria, not enough have yet died. They are not yet ready for that war to end. If outside support is required, it must come from nations that can justify such interest - Turkey, Saudis, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, etc. It is their responsibility - not ours. That is quite pragmatic.

[Griff]

Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Mike Lee, Rand Paul: Senate odd bedfellows join on Afghanistan measure
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley has formed another left-right coalition aimed at keeping the pressure on the Obama administration to continue winding down U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.


The Long Goodbye in Afghanistan
Yet last week the Obama administration announced that it had reached an agreement with Afghanistan on a long-term bilateral security arrangement that, officials say, would allow up to 12,000 mostly American troops to be in that country until 2024 and perhaps beyond — without Mr. Obama offering any serious accounting to the American people for maintaining a sizable military commitment there or offering a clue to when, if ever, it might conclude.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.