Results 1 to 2 of 2
#1 Turmoil threatens Obama's Afghan endgame03-18-2012, 11:07 PM
AFP - Deadly setbacks, an Afghan leader at the "end of the rope" and pressure from a public weary of sacrifice are threatening to upend President Barack Obama's endgame for America's longest war.
The central premise of US war policy -- leaving behind a stable nation that Afghans can secure and thwart an Al-Qaeda rennaissance -- appears in question.
Relations with President Hamid Karzai are plumbing new lows after an American soldier launched a rampage against civilians, then was airlifted out of the country to face US military justice.
Deadly riots that followed the burning of Korans by Americans, a spate of incidents in which Afghan soldiers turned their guns on NATO tutors and regular combat deaths have posed the question: is the war still worth it?
US-backed reconciliation talks with the Taliban meanwhile have collapsed, dampening hopes of a political settlement to guarantee stability after NATO-led forces leave in 2014.
A furious Karzai this week called for a withdrawal of US forces from villages after the massacre of 16 civilians and demanded an accelerated transfer of security control.
His outbursts have deepened the feeling among some in Washington that Karzai, once seen as a hero, is an unreliable ally unworthy of US sacrifices.
Obama was forced to call Karzai twice in a week, as the Afghan leader admitted that he was at "the end of the rope" with US missteps.
Moeed Yusuf of the US Institute for Peace warned that such incidents could undermine efforts to keep Obama and Karzai "on the same page."
"If this continues, I don't see how one can hold on to the strategy, which is in large parts dependent on having the goodwill of the average Afghan."
US ambassador to Kabul Ryan Crocker, however, hinted that Washington believed Karzai was venting for domestic political reasons, telling "PBS Newshour" he was right to be "pretty upset" over the massacre.
But the latest setbacks, as NATO plans to scale down to a support role in 2013, focused attention on the compromised nation foreign troops will leave behind.
"What we hand off, when we hand off, at best is going to be a stalemate," said Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I don't personally think there's any reasonable expectation the Afghan National Security Forces are going to be able to substantially expand the zone of control that they receive from us."
Given such a pessimistic outlook, some analysts say it may be time to limit the exposure of NATO trainers.
Charles Dunlap of Duke University Law School suggested Afghan soldiers might be given intensive training outside the country, to contain the aggravation posed by a large foreign force.
"What I am suggesting is a much smaller footprint with Afghans in the lead. We are moving that way, but I think we need to accelerate it."
Obama said Wednesday he planned no "sudden" changes to a plan that will complete the pullout of 33,000 surge forces this summer, though a larger drawdown is almost certain next year.
But could increasing the pace of departures squander gains made in the blood of 3,000 dead coalition troops?
It quit being fought like a war a long time ago.The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
03-19-2012, 02:17 AM
When Obama took office, Afghanistan was winnable. He dithered for months before reviewing the plan submitted by GEN McChristol, but acted decisively to fire him when a scurrilous leftwing music rag published less than complimentary quotes about Obama attributed to the General's staff. No competent leader would have arbitrarily cut the number of troops requested, or given a timetable for withdrawal to our enemies.
Let's see the media weasel him out of this one.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|