2024

[MadHound]

That is now the new target date when every single American soldier will return home from Afghanistan. Not 2014, the much touted "end date", but 2024. Sad, but not surprising. After all, it is the primary job of our two party/same corporate master system of government to keep the MIC well fed and cared for.

I don't care what you call it, training, counter-terrorism, what have you, keeping 20-30,000 troops in a war zone means that you are still engaging in that war. And we will continue to see our country, our society, go to hell as more and more resources are spent on this war, while the rest of us will see less and less.

A secret deal, signed during the midnight hour. How apropos for a deal that is consigning us to continue down the same destructive path we're on now.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/02-6

[BlueIris]

1. Get them home now.

Continuing this travesty is inexcusable for any reason.

[ProSense]

2. Good grief

US veteran Sgt. Jacob George, who served in Afghanistan but now speaks out against the war, argued the agreement speaks to the futility of US military efforts in Afghanistan that began with the US invasion in 2001. “The agreement actually allows for sustaining a ‘post-conflict’ force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops for a continued training of indigenous forces. They are pretending this is something new, but it’s not. That’s what I was doing in 2001 — and 2002, 2003 and 2004. This is just disastrous, for ten years, with the greatest military the world has ever seen, we’ve been unable to defeat people with RPGs. And a year after Bin Laden was killed, we’re still planning to keep tens of thousands of troops there.”

What nonsense. How the hell does this person know what's in the deal beyond what the President stated? I mean, no official announcement has been made.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002633818

[MadHound]

3. Because the pitch has been telegraphed early in the wind up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8712701/US-troops-may-stay-in-Afghanistan-until-2024.html

And the news has a way of getting out
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/05/02/151854753/about-25-000-troops-may-be-needed-in-afghanistan-after-2014-planners-say

[ProSense]

4. While I'm

One U.S. officer says that not only can many Afghan soldiers not read or write, but many can't even count. The U.S. tries to get around that in some novel ways. In some cases trainers draw a rectangle in the dirt for Afghan commanders who can't tell how many soldiers they should have. The Americans say that if the soldiers standing at attention fill the rectangle, that's a full complement.

...sure some people will believe anything, some out of desperation, the above is utter bullshit, and no reason for continuing a war.

[MadHound]

5. I agree, that is no reason for continuing a war,

But sadly, it looks like the war will be continued anyway.

I suspect that the real reason we're going to be going into extra innings in Afghanistan is the TAPI pipeline and the New Silk Road that Clinton promised. Another war for empire and wealth.

[ProSense]

7. If the

justification is that Aghan soldiers can't count, fund some teachers. They don't need outside troops, they need an education.

The entire speculation is preposterous, especially because it involves a decision related to a situation nearly two years out.

[MadHound]

8. That is the official justification, part of the public smokescreen,

Don't fall for it. Like I said, the real reason probably involves TAPI, the New Silk Road, and let's not forget the trillions in mineral resources recently found in the region.

And why should it be preposterous that the MIC is thinking two years out, ten years out and more. After all, they've kept milking that cash cow of war for over sixty years now, and they didn't have that kind of track record without some serious long term planning(planning which actually started at the end of WWI, but was temporarily derailed by Wilson).

[ProSense]

10. Seems, like

Don't fall for it. Like I said, the real reason probably involves TAPI, the New Silk Road, and let's not forget the trillions in mineral resources recently found in the region.

...you're searching for a reason to justify the rumor. Why?

President Obama announces that all troops will be out at the end of 2014. The doubters make up a reason why that isn't going to be the case.

Weird.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/03/numbers-23000

[MadHound]

12. Not dealing in rumors, but rather fact.

Sadly, you won't admit that, even when it does turn out to be true in a few years. All we will hear from you is the sound of silence.

[joshcryer]

13. It's only 2 short years.

We'll see who's right.

People here were saying Obama was planning to keep troops in Iraq.

He didn't.

The paid mercenaries worked out just fine, thanks.

And they will do just fine in Afghanistan.

[white_wolf]

16. Whether they have the U.S. flag on their uniform or not an occupation is an occupation.

I don't think it makes any real difference whether the government uses its own troops or mercenaries.

[joshcryer]

17. I don't disagree. But the question is US troops.

I think Obama will draw them back significantly if not remove them completely as Iraq.

There will still be paid mercenaries (ie, blackwater-type contractors).

Afghanistan is not different from Iraq in that regard.

[ProSense]

14. Here's what's

"Sadly, you won't admit that, even when it does turn out to be true in a few years. All we will hear from you is the sound of silence. "

...even more weird: Some will spend their time pushing the rumor rather than advocating that the withdrawal date be moved up.

Priorities, I guess.

[MadHound]

19. Gee, I guess you haven't seen my other threads,

Advocating that we get the hell out of Afghanistan NOW!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002625737

That is just one of several going back to the Bush years.

Priorities indeed.

[EOTE]

24. Yes, some certainly will believe anything.

Such as the number of easily fooled people who thought that Obama would actually have an exit plan for Afghanistan. Suckers.

[Logical]

22. LOL, so you now are defending the 2024 date?

[Romulox]

6. US involvement in WWII--12-7-1941 to 9-2-1945. Not 4 full years. nt

[MineralMan]

27. And, we still have troops in both Germany and Japan.

Interesting, huh?

[MadHound]

28. Big difference

Troops in Germany and Japan aren't in an active war zone.

That said, we need to bring troops home from a lot of places, close a lot of bases, and stop feeding the MIC.

[MineralMan]

30. Not my point, actually.

We have troops in lots of countries. I'd like to see them brought back from those countries. Yes, the situations are different, but much, much time has passed, and they're still there. Just because American personnel will remain past a certain date does not mean they'll be fighting a war. We have personnel, both military and otherwise scattered all over the world.

I'm not in any position to predict conditions in Afghanistan after 2014, when almost all military personnel will be out of that country. I doubt that anyone can actually make much of a prediction.

[Romulox]

29. I know--all those horrific IED attacks in Germany and Japan!

What a joke!

[MineralMan]

31. You misunderstand my reference.

After 1945, there was some considerable danger to US forces in Germany and Japan. That went away, eventually, but not the forces. They should all be removed, in my opinion. However, it's often the practice to keep some military personnel in a country, even after hostilities have ended. Maybe you can predict what will be happening in Afghanistan after 2014, but I wouldn't venture to do that.

[sad sally]

9. Throwing this thought out that I know I'll be blasted for:

The Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement signed on May 2 (which by the way has the 2024 date in it) talks about "encouraging US private sector activity in Afghanistan," and the "desire" that the Afghan people be the beneficiaries of Afghanistan's mineral wealth. Hmm, remember this story in 2010?

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials."

Wow! Talk about a game changer. The story goes on to outline Afghanistan's apparently vast underground resources, which include large copper and iron reserves as well as hitherto undiscovered reserves lithium and other rare minerals.

Read a little more carefully, though, and you realize that there's less to this scoop than meets the eye. For one thing, the findings on which the story was based are online and have been since 2007, courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. More information is available on the Afghan mining ministry's website, including a report by the British Geological Survey (and there's more here). You can also take a look at the USGS's documentation of the airborne part of the survey here, including the full set of aerial photographs.
-----
But I'm (a) skeptical of that $1 trillion figure; (b) skeptical of the timing of this story, given the bad news cycle, and (c) skeptical that Afghanistan can really figure out a way to develop these resources in a useful way. It's also worth noting, as Risen does, that it will take years to get any of this stuff out of the ground, not to mention enormous capital investment.


http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/say_what_afghanistan_has_1_trillion_in_untapped_mineral_resources

any correlation why the US says we have to stay until 2024?

[MadHound]

11. Well, given that we're apparently now going to be there for years

I'm sure that such resource development will be cranked into high gear.

But the real driving force at this point is still the same as when Bush started this war, gas and pipelines. Go look up the "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" statement that was made shortly before we invaded.

The TAPI pipeline is the main driver, along with the New Silk Road promised by Clinton. But hey, having a nice chunk of minerals for future development is a bonus as well.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

15. +1 I think the pipeling is why we invaded. Even if troops come home

can private mercenaries hold the resource extraction for the global corporations?

[sad sally]

25. China will be happy for the US to provide security for the oil and gas supplies.

Dec 29, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) spoke out on the deal settled Wednesday between the Afghan government and China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) which allows China to be the first foreign country to access Afghanistan’s oil and natural gas reserves. In a letter to President Obama, Jones demanded an accounting of how many U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent directly and indirectly providing security to Chinese mineral extraction activities in Afghanistan, as well as an accounting of American servicemen killed and wounded providing security to those same operations.

"I would like to request that you provide an accounting of dollars spent directly and indirectly providing security to Chinese mineral extraction activities in Afghanistan, as well as an accounting of Americans killed and wounded providing security to those same operations."

Bet we'll never know how much has been or will be spent (in either lives or dollars) on this.

[MadHound]

26. Not only in Afghanistan,

But that happened in Iraq as well. All that money that could be better used here at home.

[sad sally]

32. Our so-called transparent of-the-people government will make sure we never know the truth.

[HiPointDem]

18. Plus unknown numbers of contractors, paid for by the US government, part of our new

privatized military.

To my mind if the government's paying, same difference.

[KG]

20. DURec

[Motown_Johnny]

21. We still have troops in Germany and Japan

and how exactly is this a secret deal when the President goes on TV that very same day to announce that very same deal?

[MadHound]

23. So that somehow makes it all okey-dokey?

At least the troops in Germany and Japan aren't involved in an active conflict. But the fact of the matter is we need to close a lot of bases, both abroad and at home. We spend far too much money on the military, while the rest of us here suffer.

[bvar22]

33. Every single hour we stay in Afghanistan is,....

...[font size=4]" in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."[/font]
---President Dwight Eisenhower[/font]

Thanks, Ike.

Tonight, an American child will go to bed hungry,
and a tax paying American citizen will die due to lack of Health Care.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[WillyT]

34. The Question Still Stands...

Now It's Just About The Location...

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

John Kerry in testimony before subcommittees of the U.S. Senate, April, 1971

Link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Kerry

[bluestate10]

35. American troops in Germany, Japan are not at war.

It could be argued that troops in South Korea and Kuwait are at war, but that would be a dramatic stretch. Basing troops in the region is no problem as long as the society around them is stable. I have doubts that Afghanistan will be stable, but it could in fact become stable and stay that way.

[malthaussen]

36. In other news, free sweets tomorrow!

n/t