Panetta: U.S., NATO will seek to end Afghan combat mission next year

[Lasher]

16. 'Ending the combat mission' is a vague goal, open to definition.

It does not mean we're getting our soldiers out of Afghanistan. It does not mean we will stop paying mercenaries to be there. It does not mean we will stop hemorrhaging money there.

Remember Iraq? The mission was accomplished in May, 2003. But it wasn't.

Obama said he'd get all combat soldiers out in 16 months. But he didn't. By Aug. 31, 2010 he reduced the number there to 50,000. He called these remaining troops 'noncombat soldiers'. The rest of these soldiers didn't get out until December last year. The mercenaries are still there.

Then we quietly 'surged' 15,000 soldiers into Kuwait to make up for the soldiers we didn't want to withdraw from Iraq in December.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/12/MNR11MOPB2.DTL#ixzz1jaQNJVk2

The war in Afghanistan is already the longest in US history, having lasted over a decade now, and having cost $500 billion by conservative estimate. 1,893 US soldiers have lost their lives there. Panetta says we'll start winding this thing down "hopefully by mid to the latter part of 2013..." That means by the latter part of next year, maybe. Why not start right now?

I don't buy Panetta's bullshit. The only way we'll end this war is if Congress cuts off the funding.