Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year

[unhappycamper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/afghanistan-war-panetta_n_1247910.html

Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year
ROBERT BURNS 02/ 1/12 09:31 PM ET AP

BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in Afghanistan expect to end their combat role in 2013 and continue a training and advisory role with Afghan forces through 2014.

Panetta's remarks to reporters traveling with him to a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels showed how the foreign military role in Afghanistan is expected to evolve from the current high-intensity fight against the Taliban to a support role with Afghans fully in the lead. The timeline fits neatly into the U.S. political calendar, enabling President Barack Obama to declare on the campaign trail this year that in addition to bringing all U.S. troops home from Iraq and beginning a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, he also has a target period for ending the U.S. combat role there.

~snip~

"Hopefully by the mid to latter part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role," he said. He added that this "doesn't mean we're not going to be combat-ready," but rather that the U.S. and other international forces will no longer be in "the formal combat role we're in now."

~snip~

"One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."




unhappycamper comment: "One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."

". . the funds that are going to be put on the table. ."

What does that mean? Currently the United States is paying 75% of NATO's cost of occupation and around 100% of the Afghan Army. We have to pay more to keep this charade going? Is Leon the new Henry the K?

Does this remind anyone of Vietnamization? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Do we have any adults in Congress with the balls to cut of the money spigot? I doubt it.