NATO fine-tunes Afghan exit strategy at summit

mlurp · #1 (**permalink**) 11-18-2010, 06:38 PM

This one time I hope the great leader listens to his base and others and does the right thing and withdrawl in the next 2 years completely.

Quote:

NATO fine-tunes Afghan exit strategy at summit

By ALAN CLENDENNING and ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Alan Clendenning And Robert Burns, Associated Press – 48 mins ago

LISBON, Portugal – NATO is expected to set a 2014 target for handing over security to Afghans at a summit that starts here Friday, as the alliance's appetite for the conflict dwindles after nine years of fighting, growing European war angst, and renewed criticism by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The allies appear to agree the target year is realistic, but that hardly means the war is ending. The U.S. is wary of giving the impression that the original aim of invading Afghanistan in 2001 — to deny al-Qaida a base to launch more terrorist attacks on the West — will be achieved by then.

So NATO plans to pledge an enduring partnership with Afghanistan at the two-day Lisbon summit, while admitting past mistakes.

"I think that, seen retrospectively, we underestimated the challenge and our operation in Afghanistan didn't have sufficient resources, and yes, that was a mistake," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Portugal's Renascenca in comments broadcast Thursday as leaders of the 28 NATO member nations headed to Lisbon.

He added: "We'll make a positive announcement in Lisbon — that the handover is about to begin."

In an opinion column posted on the New York Times website Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama described the 2014 target date as Karzai's goal, to be adopted by NATO. And he said the objective of NATO combat operations is to "break the Taliban's momentum," deprive insurgents of their strongholds and train more Afghan forces. He did not say the goal was to defeat the Taliban.

Which was done once and was going to happen if Bush didn't start up in Iraq.
But I spoke to a guy from my platoon in Nam who put in 26 years in the Army and was in the first 100 hour war in Iraq.
He told me there were WMD along with Chemical weapons, with most going to Syria, I believe him.

The escalating war has given the alliance its biggest challenge since it was formed 61 years ago. But victory is far from assured, and a hasty pullout would seriously undermine confidence in the alliance on both sides of the Atlantic.

Already, some key allies worry that military force is not the best way to put Afghanistan on a track to stability.

France's new defense minister, Alain Juppe, said this week that Afghanistan is a "trap" for allied troops, adding that French forces will not withdraw fully until "Afghan authorities have the situation in hand."

Some analysts see a grimmer scenario.

"Success in Afghanistan is almost impossible," said Shmuel Bar, a director at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel. "If NATO is making its future contingent on victory in Afghanistan, they are not living in the real world. All they can expect to achieve are some limited aims, such as preventing the war from spilling over into Pakistan."

Karzai, scheduled to address Saturday's session, caused an international stir by demanding in a Washington Post interview last weekend that NATO reduce its military operations and stop what the military believes is a highly successful tactic — night raids conducted jointly with Afghan troops against suspected Taliban leaders.

If this idiot Karzai, wants to mess with all of our achievements then let's go home the sooner the better.

The Lisbon meeting unfolds against the backdrop of Obama's internal review of the war strategy announced in December 2009, which included sending 30,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Obama is expected to finish his review by year's end and face a new Congress in January that may scrutinize his war strategy more closely following the Democrats' loss of the House and setbacks in the Senate.

The NATO leaders are expected to endorse Karzai's proposal that Afghanistan take lead responsibility for security — and for the development of its government institutions and economic development — by the end of 2014. That would begin next year with an unspecified but small number of areas transferred to Afghan control.

Thats a lot of hoping.

The plan would allow NATO members to begin reducing their troop contingent of about 140,000, but the full timeline has yet to be determined. Obama has said he will start pulling out some of the approximately 100,000 U.S. troops there next July, but U.S. officials have said the number going home is likely to be small. Others are leaving sooner.

Canada said this week its 3,000 troops will end their combat mission next year, with 950 remaining to train Afghan troops, and Germany announced it will begin withdrawing in 2012. The Netherlands also is winding down its combat presence.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Thursday that 2014 is an "aspirational goal," not a deadline either for Afghan forces to take full control or for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Every time the Pentagon talks about our presents in Afghan another year is added to our commitment.

The goal is to have Afghan security forces in the lead over the preponderance of the country" by the end of 2014, but not necessarily throughout the country, Morrell said. "That would be the hope, that's what we would shoot for. It does not mean that all U.S. or coalition forces would necessarily be gone by that date. There may very well be the need for forces to remain in country albeit hopefully in smaller numbers."

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron insisted Thursday that British troops would quit their combat role in Afghanistan by 2015, whatever the security conditions or progress made in tackling insurgents.

The war is increasingly unpopular with voters in NATO nations, and alliance leaders worry about the political fallout unless they agree on a credible withdrawal timeline. As a result, they are expected to unanimously approve the transition plan.

Allied casualties in Afghanistan have reached record levels of about 650 dead so far this year, and the Taliban have spread into parts of the country where they were not active before. They retain sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan.

Marko Papic, a senior analyst at Stratfor, a global intelligence analysis firm, argues that the best the allies can now hope for is to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

"With terrorist groups such as the al-Qaida shifting to other locales, it is not even clear if the original goal of the war — to disable a transnational network of terrorists — still has any bearing on the U.S. and NATO presence in Afghanistan," he said.

___

Barry Hatton, Slobodan Lekic and Ana Paiva contributed to this report from Lisbon. Anne Gearan contributed from Washington.

NATO fine-tunes Afghan exit strategy at summit - Yahoo! News

More on the European Union
Stonehenge gets millions for major makeover AP
Research of Danish astronomer's remains completed AP
Germany: Namibians find suspicious bag in airport AP

...........................More................... ..........

Video: Hamid Karzai Criticizes U.S. Strategy FOX News
Video: Iowa soldier to receive Medal of Honor AP
Video: Hamid Karzai Challenges U.S. Strategy FOX News

137 Comments and video's at the site.

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 11-19-2010, 04:38 AM

You beat me to it again, lurpy.

U.S., NATO troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014 handover

MrLiberty · #3 (**permalink**) 11-19-2010, 10:18 AM

I agree lurpy, Karzi has been one big cluster**** since he became afghanistans president. He has screwed us time and again. We need to walk away from this one. We'll meet the taliban on another front. The only provision I would make is we keep bombing the crap out of the areas where we know al-queda and the taliban are.

mlurp · #4 (**permalink**) 11-19-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

You beat me to it again, lurpy.

U.S., NATO troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014 handover

Is that from today? This is.

Quote:

NATO to turn Afghan security control over by 2014

NATO to turn Afghan security control over by 2014 - Yahoo! News

Related

NATO Summit in Lisbon: Can the Alliance Modernize? Time.com
Obama in Europe: Back among friends or another 'shellacking' ahead? The Christian Science Monitor
Obama in Portugal; meets with EU, NATO partners AP
Obama commits to working on financial markets AP

..........................More.................... ......

Video: Christian Convert Faces Persecution in Afghanistan FOX News
Video: Looking Forward in Afghanistan FOX News
Video: Obama in Portugal for NATO Summit FOX News

828 Comments with video's

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

I agree lurpy, Karzi has been one big cluster**** since he became afghanistans president. He has screwed us time and again. We need to walk away from this one. We'll meet the taliban on another front. The only provision I would make is we keep bombing the crap out of the areas where we know al-queda and the taliban are.

Well one problem with the bombing we unlike Al-Qaida and the Taliban ( and all other terrorist) try not to damge civilians.

And if you read it closely very few think we can win outright. That I do believe is the truth unless we put another 450,000 boots on the ground. In which case the number of dead and wounded will rise quickly like it did in the Nam.

Al-Qaida and the Taliban besides being an armed force are an ideology that captures a lot of Muslims minds. You CAN'T stop an ideology nor end it.

It is like

and won't end unless they settle for something. Which the Taliban might do, but Al-Qaida I believe won't settle as they demand our complete departure from the M.E. which would rock this world if we didn't support the major countries in the M.E.

And the ones we do besides Israel have many different groups that Al-Qaida and then are like minded. And even thought these countries have military forces these groups will fight forever if need be to win control over each M.E. country.
Then they have the west by the ____'s big time. Right now without oil and the many base products from it that would mean economic ruin.

All food based grown items heavily depend on oil by products, from fertilizer

(which the topsoil about dead because of our overuse of fertilizer's) to the vehicles that plow, harvest and ship each item around the world.

I believe this is Al-Qaida's real goal. As it would bring the West to it's knee's without much of a fight.

And in the meantime while this is starting the little oil producing Western countries would have to cut back on shipping oil to other Western countries and the infighting would begin and might lead to wars between some Western countries.
While Al-Qaida and other groups look and laugh as we kill each other.

Now thats just my take on this. There might be plans to avoid this I kown nothing about. But the thought is chilling to say the least.

bfd · #5 (**permalink**) 11-20-2010, 01:27 AM

Did they serve escargot and some fine german sausage? I seriously doubt there was a freedom fry to be found on the menu.

Did someone forget about sorties and daisycutters?

mlurp · #6 (**permalink**) 11-20-2010, 01:09 PM

Update: Much like before.. Plenty of video's at the site.

America isn't listening is what I read.

Quote:

NATO and US differ over Afghan combat exit in 2014

By JULIE PACE and ALAN CLENDENNING, Associated Press Julie Pace And Alan Clendenning, Associated Press – 51 mins ago

LISBON, Portugal – NATO nations formally agreed Saturday to start turning over Afghanistan's security to its military next year and give local forces full control by 2014. The U.S. and its allies appeared to disagree on when NATO combat operations would end.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he did not expect NATO troops to stay in the fight against the Taliban after 2014.

"I don't foresee ISAF troops in a combat role beyond 2014, provided of course that the security situation allows us to move into a more supportive role," Fogh Rasmussen told reporters, using the acronym for the International Security Assistance Force that is led by NATO.

Later, a senior Obama administration official said the U.S. had not committed to ending its combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions.

The U.S. official said a decision on changing the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is not imminent because it is still unclear what the security needs and resources will be as the 2014 transition proceeds. Each NATO member country will make an individual decision on when their combat mission will change, the official said.

Humm how likely will anything change?

The U.S. view may reflect a reluctance to forecast when combat will end, in order not to give the Taliban a sense of hope for outlasting their adversary. It may also indicate less certainty by the U.S. that Afghans will be able to take full control by 2014, and perhaps a greater eagerness among the Europeans to be done with a nine-year combat operation.

Seeking to discount the apparent difference in views on combat beyond 2014, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that just because the U.S. hasn't decided to end its combat mission in 2014 doesn't mean it couldn't eventually do so.

Asked about the matter while visiting Chile, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested to reporters that a combat role for U.S. forces in Afghanistan was unlikely beyond 2014, but he did not rule it out.

"I anticipate that the international forces, some fraction of them, will remain to do training and to provide support for the Afghans," Gates said. "But I think anything that remains after 2014 will be very modest and very much focused on the kind of training and advise and assist role that we are now taking on in Iraq."

The U.S. officially ended its combat role in Iraq on Aug. 31, 2010.

And yet we still spend millions and have around 50,000 troops there with no exit date.

On Friday, Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, told reporters that the 2014 goal and the end of NATO's combat role in Afghanistan "are not one and the same." But many NATO nations have insisted they will remove all their troops by 2014, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague reiterated that his country will end its combat role in Afghanistan by 2015.

"Make no mistake about it, that is an absolute commitment and deadline for us," the British news agency Press Association quoted him as saying.

He added: "This remains a phenomenal challenge. There is a huge amount of work to do in Afghanistan, and I wouldn't want anyone to think we can relax in any way about Afghanistan."

Many NATO nations are discussing reducing the number of troops they have in Afghanistan before 2014, but the NATO agreement did not specify when troop reductions could begin.

...........................................Skipped Some..............................................

Karzai predicted the effort will succeed "because I found today a strong commitment by the international community. This will be matched by the people of Afghanistan."

NATO also reached agreement with Russia on Saturday to expand an overland supply route to Afghanistan to allow for the transport of heavy vehicles and for the return of NATO equipment to Europe.

Fogh Rasmussen says the agreement showed determination to establish stronger ties with Moscow, the alliance's historical Cold War enemy.

The route from Europe to Afghanistan via Russia and Central Asia serves as an alternative to the ambush-prone logistics link through Pakistan. The new accord enhances that by allowing for heavy equipment such as armored vehicles to be hauled, as well as goods and materials to go in both directions.

Rasmussen and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev — who is attending the NATO summit in Lisbon — are also expected to sign agreements on establishing a new training center in Russia for Afghan counter-narcotics agents and for the training of Afghan helicopter crews

NATO and US differ over Afghan combat exit in 2014 - Yahoo! News

Related

Obama tells GOP not to hold up Russia arms treaty AP
Obama says NATO agrees to missile defense system AP
Obama's 'Beast' of a limo stands out at green NATO summit AFP
Rangel ‘trial’ spotlights flaws in House ethics process The Ticket
Dems ready to take page from GOP playbook The Washington Post

..........................More.................... .............

Video: NATO's future in Afghanistan CBC.ca
Video: Afghanistan War: Inside the Battle ABC News
Video: NATO's Afghan plan CBC.ca

3,314 Comments and plenty of video's.

bfd · #7 (**permalink**) 11-20-2010, 02:03 PM

Sometimes a picture speaks for itself.

mlurp · #8 (**permalink**) 11-20-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfd

Sometimes a picture speaks for itself.

And what is that picture saying? See I have teeth..

Obama got little of what he wanted so I don't see how this picture says much,
myself...

Except as a joke.... Was that what you meant?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to mlurp For This Useful Post:
MrLiberty