Good question, I would have thought that May 1st was meant for all military personnel and not just the US troops, the NATO Secretary General should also spend a tour of duty there on the front lines before spouting his big mouth off.

Posted on April 11, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
A “win-win” for US, Turkey in Hindu Kush

It should be noted that even if (when) the US removes troops from AF, it will still remain as a priority ISR target for a long time.



We will just be admiring teh AF culture from afar. :03:

We fought 20 years to successfully find an exit and get out. Now, finally we are rewarded with success. Mission accomplished! :88)
Never more hear me say: "Trapped in the Afghan maze!"

Note the time of our exit, September 11th. Can't wait for the endless media hype and farce as both parties accuse each other of politicizing the event. :roll:

North Sea fishing rights?:k_confused:

Sounds a bit fishy to me :03:

Correction Jim. "smells a bit fishy" :oops:

I wish I had written this.

Pull out the troops, let them descend into savagery again. We tried.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9kbuAynSok



"I will not pass this responsibility to a fifth." :roll:

Yes on September 11th 2021 it seems Biden will bring back the remaining known 2,500 U.S. troops home. What he didn't say is we are privatizing the war using the tens of thousands remaining civilian contractors, mercenaries and CIA operatives. Our job is not done.


Also, lets face it there is TRILLIONS of dollars worth of known mineral wealth to secure in them thar hills too!

The Afghan pullout is yet another "no win" situation for yet another US President; back when Obama announced the pullout of troops for Iraq, the howls from GOP leaders over how he was 'compromising US security' were loud and long; what they seemed to avoid noting is that the decision to withdraw and the establishment of a deadline were both made by President GW Bush, just prior to leaving office; Obama was faced with either honoring the US commitment to withdraw imposed by Bush or to rescind the decision; if he honored, the GOP would howl about compromising us security; if he rescinded, the GOP would howl about Obama going back on a US commitment and that he was exercising overt Presidential authority; it was just damned if you do, damned if you don't...

The same applies now; if Biden pulls out the troops as T**** ordered, the GOP howls about compromised security; if Biden rescinds, the GOP howls about Biden keeping us in a no-win war, reneges on a stated US commitment, and is exercising overt Presidential powers; again damned if you do, and damned if you don't...

The GOP, in both cases, had the luxury of being able to criticize the actions of a new administration, sniping if you will, from the sidelines, while refusing to acknowledge the situation was the result of actions taken by their own standard bearers; in all of this, as in so many other areas where the GOP has been vociferous in criticism, the really nagging question is: Where are the viable GOP solutions, where are the viable GOP alternatives? Its one thing to stand by the side and criticize, but, in the end it is not real leadership, by any means; if you are going to forcefully criticize the actions or inaction of someone in a critical situation, you'd better have some sort of viable alternative(s); criticizing the firemen is a useless, needlessly distracting waste of time if you don't have another plan to stop the building from burning down...




<O>

The simple truth is, pulling out is the only intelligent option left. To base that decison on the security status or the state of things regarding pace, stability, human rights, is a guarantee that foreign troops will stay there until into the next century. Biden has correctly recognized this. There will never be a wanted Western model of society, and therefore these qualities will never be there.



And this could have been known from beginning on.

Biden said he is the fourth president now who has to deal with the pullout decision - and that he does not will to leave it to a fifth one. I miss the lacking applause for this statement - its shows class.

The US should have gone after Mullah Omar and Osama, and once they got them, get out. But no, that was not good enough, one had to talk about nation building and beacons of demoracy and all that ideals stuff disconnected from what could be acchieved in pragmatic reality.

The mission post-Mullah Omar and post-Osama never had a chance. I was based on lacking insight and knoweldge about the region - and megalomania.


Whats being done with the Afghans who worked as helpers and aides to the foreign troops? They are death candidates if they must stay.

They have rushed onto the scene without any plans on how to proceed.

Secondly-The biggest mistake USA and Soviet did was.....become friends with one part of the civilization/religious group

When you invade a country the entire population is your enemy and should be treated as such.

Third
If you do not have the nerve to what it takes to gain almost 100 % control of the country you want to invade-then stay out.

Fourth
Most important of all have a reason to why you want to invade a country.

Markus

You're right, we're back to the finger pointing right down party lines, again. But one thing is for certain we will never know if Trump would have followed through removing troops by May 1st. And we will never know what better relations with Russia could have been like or if it was even possible.

As for Biden's September 11th plan, that remains to be seen. He was pretty clear early on in his campaign he was against removing troops, so was the Pentagon, the CIA, the Generals and certain elected representatives invested in certain companies profiting from the conflict in Afghanistan.

September 11th is NOT written in stone. In fact it is a date conditional on several factors many of which gives Biden a lot of wiggle room and discretion. But we're only talking about 2,500 regular U.S. troops

Like I said a few posts above we may bring the 'known' regular troops back, but there will probably be as much as 10,000 or more civilian contractors that are there now will remain. Rumor control central said we will still be operating two bases there. Who's going to man them? I figure those contractors, which include the builders of cities and infrastructure and of course former vets, now guns for hire to continue to carry out our foreign policy goals.

As it stands now Russia has invested in Kabul with Arms, money, housing and cultural centers, China is trying hard to establish better trade with Afghanistan. There is oil, pipelines to India that need to be built, mining wealth to be excavated, and lots and lots lithium. We are not going to leave it too them.

Quite good analysis and summary.


https://translate.google.com/transla...re-sind-genug/


The author:
Oliver M. Haynold grew up in the Black Forest, Germany, and lives in Evanston, Illinois. He studied history and chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and received his doctorate from Northwestern University with a dissertation on the constitutional tradition of Württemberg. Since then he has worked as a management consultant, in the financial industry and as a freelance inventor.