Top NATO Commanders Signal Support For Keeping Troops In Afghanistan

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Post

BRUSSELS — The U.S. military’s new top officer in the war in Afghanistan met with military chiefs from NATO nations Wednesday, offering in a closed-door meeting his assessment of a conflict that is nearly 15 years old.

Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr.’s presented his assessment behind closed doors to dozens of senior military officers, including Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Army Gen. Curtis “Mike” Scaparrotti, the new supreme allied commander of NATO. Nicholson did not appear at a news conference afterward, but Scaparrotti said that after hearing the war commander’s plan, Scaparrotti is in favor of an approach that would remove additional forces only as conditions on the ground allow.

“It’s a means to realize our objective of a stable and secure Afghanistan that is not a haven for terrorists any longer,” Scaparrotti said. “I think that’s what I take away from General Nicholson’s report, and I think it’s important that the [military chiefs] also heard it today.”

(The U.S. was supposed to leave Afghanistan by 2017. Now it might take decades.)

Scaparrotti declined to characterize Nicholson’s plan. But his comments, coupled with troubles by the Afghan government in quelling a bloody uprising in which the Taliban has seized territory in numerous parts of the country, appear to signal support for leaving U.S. troops in Afghanistan longer than planned. President Obama has been grappling with whether to deviate from his plan to cut the number of American troops there again before he leaves office.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/18/top-nato-commanders-signal-support-for-keeping-troops-in-afghanistan/

[arcane1]

1. I'm glad I was sitting down for that completely unexpected revelation!

Only a Democrat could keep Bush's war going and get praise from other Dems.

[Purveyor]

2. Ain't seen nothing yet if the clinton clan occupies the WH... eom

[arcane1]

3. That's the damn truth. Sad, but true n/t

[EdwardBernays]

4. Lol

We sure are stupid.

[RiverNoord]

5. How about a full exit timeline of 2116?

I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a beatnik pacifist, and it's possible that I'm asking for too much, but people who set really low goals seem to be the the ones who are least likely to achieve even the modest goals they've set.

OK, 2166 might be a necessary fallback point, depending on the circumstances on the ground.

It's possible that global warming would render most of Afghanistan uninhabitable before then, so it really is a very reasonable target.