• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghanistan gains will be lost quickly after drawdown, U.S. intelligence (WAPO)

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,275
Reaction score
10,371
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The National Intelligence Estimate, which includes input from the country’s 16 intelligence agencies, predicts that the Taliban and other power brokers will become increasingly influential as the United States winds down its longest war in history, according to officials who have read the classified report or received briefings on its conclusions.
The grim outlook is fueling a policy debate inside the Obama administration about the steps it should take over the next year as the U.S. military draws down its remaining troops.

U.S. intelligence analysts did not provide a detailed mapping of areas they believe are likely to become controlled by specific groups or warlords in coming years, said one of the officials.
But the analysts anticipate that the central government in Kabul is all but certain to become increasingly irrelevant as it loses “purchase” over parts of the country, the official said.
Afghanistan gains will be lost quickly after drawdown, U.S. intelligence estimate warns - The Washington Post

Afganistan, and some US "officials dispute (are in denial) this. ( see link)
 
Afghan becoming Pakistan (minus nukes, let's hope) is development. If Somalia can pull out of warlord-ocracy, so can Afghan. Locally sourced troops seems to help in the case of Somalia.
 
Monday rejected as baseless a U.S. intelligence forecast that the gains the United States and allies have made in the past three years will be significantly rolled back by 2017.
President Hamid Karzai's spokesman dismissed the U.S. forecast, reported by the Washington Post on the weekend, and suggested there was an ulterior motive for it.

Karzai also denied having reached agreement with the United States on the wording of contentious clauses in the U.S. security pact. But he added that the "zero-option" was an empty threat.
"The U.S. won't go and I have realised that," he said
.
Afghanistan rejects grim U.S. intelligence forecast as baseless | Reuters

call their damn bluff, and GET OUT NOW. :peace
 
Afghan becoming Pakistan (minus nukes, let's hope) is development. If Somalia can pull out of warlord-ocracy, so can Afghan. Locally sourced troops seems to help in the case of Somalia.
what the heck is that supposed to mean??
 
what the heck is that supposed to mean??

It means there was and will remain progress in Afghanistan. That progress is likely to lead to further development. None of which was possible under terrorist rule.

Who promised instant utopia?
 
It means there was and will remain progress in Afghanistan. That progress is likely to lead to further development. None of which was possible under terrorist rule.

Who promised instant utopia?
uh huh. where did you buy your rose colored glasses? (rhetorical) ?

"progress"? Isn't that what the US Intel said is problematic without continual heavy presence?
(8k isn't going to do it -we need a minimum of 12-20k)

Just how many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for that ungovernable pile of rocks? 2300 not enough for you yet?

Just how long do you want to stay there? 13 years long enough? What happens when we finally do leave??
 
Just how long do you want to stay there? 13 years long enough? What happens when we finally do leave??


I agree with this:

The US gave the Afghanis a chance to improve their lives. The Americans spent plenty on it. The Afghanis have probably blown it.
It is now up to them and the International community.


And I think locally sourced military intervention (as necessary) is a good idea (see: Somalia).
 
The US gave the Afghanis a chance to improve their lives. The Americans spent plenty on it. The Afghanis have probably blown it.
It is now up to them and the International community.

You mean to say the official reason for going into A-Stan was bull****?
 
I agree with this:

And I think locally sourced military intervention (as necessary) is a good idea (see: Somalia).

The US must make clear that that is always an option, where the local government and population act in emnity against the US or harbor enemies of the US planing violence against Americans or Americans' property.
 
You mean to say the official reason for going into A-Stan was bull****?

No. I can hardly believe anyone could really have read that into the statement.
 
The US must make clear that that is always an option, where the local government and population act in emnity against the US or harbor enemies of the US planing violence against Americans or Americans' property.

The US and the West has done a fine job supporting Kenyan, Ethiopian and eventually African East/Union troops to bring some semblance of human rights and basic education to Somalia. These countries did so of their own interest and Somalia is benefiting.
 
"Afghanistan Gains." If ever there were an oxymoron, that is it.
 
The US and the West has done a fine job supporting Kenyan, Ethiopian and eventually African East/Union troops to bring some semblance of human rights and basic education to Somalia.

Which is the way to go in future. Unless the threat is to Americans help but let the neighbors and international organizations do it. No more free riding US policing.
 
No more free riding US policing.

Except Iran to also end Assad, Hez and Hamas.

And we still have to deal with Pakistan.
 
The US must make clear that that is always an option, where the local government and population act in emnity against the US or harbor enemies of the US planing violence against Americans or Americans' property.
sure. we do it in Yemen. although we drone the occasional wedding party/child..well you know how that goes. :roll:

Nothing inherently wrong with going after TRUE theats, the problem in Afg is "nationbuilding" (counter-insurgency).

The problem in Paki is the drones are aggrevating the populace to the point they are blocking US supply lines thru Kyber.

The problem in Yemen is radicalizing the local populace, to the point they give harbor to AQ.

The problem is mindless categorizing of "militants"/extremists"/AQ - without any discrimination.

INO words..."shoot first, ask questions later"
 
President Obama, bring them home now.
 
The US must make clear that that is always an option, where the local government and population act in emnity against the US or harbor enemies of the US planing violence against Americans or Americans' property.

I am confused. Are you talking about Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
 
No. I can hardly believe anyone could really have read that into the statement.

You said that the US gave Afghan's the chance to improve their lives, when in fact we were told that al Qaida in A-Stan was responsible for 9/11 and we needed to go take them out.
 
sure. we do it in Yemen. although we drone the occasional wedding party/child..well you know how that goes. :roll:

Nothing inherently wrong with going after TRUE theats, the problem in Afg is "nationbuilding" (counter-insurgency).

The problem in Paki is the drones are aggrevating the populace to the point they are blocking US supply lines thru Kyber.

The problem in Yemen is radicalizing the local populace, to the point they give harbor to AQ.

The problem is mindless categorizing of "militants"/extremists"/AQ - without any discrimination.

INO words..."shoot first, ask questions later"

As I said elsewhere, the US has not been clear enough on how it will react to threats and disturbances. One of the main points in reacting is to make people understand that you will do, what you say you will do. You lose that stabilizer, if you haven't told the people, what you will do.
 
This should be what we call "their problem". The Afghanistan people need to stand up and take control of their own country or let a handful of backward ass mountain ****s own them. Their choice. Their president has stabbed the US in the back at every turn while he tries to play both sides of the fence. Playtime is over. We should put a bow on that POS country and give it back to them. Thrive or die...their choice.
 
This should be what we call "their problem". The Afghanistan people need to stand up and take control of their own country or let a handful of backward ass mountain ****s own them. Their choice. Their president has stabbed the US in the back at every turn while he tries to play both sides of the fence. Playtime is over. We should put a bow on that POS country and give it back to them. Thrive or die...their choice.

I don't believe they ever asked for any US help to begin with, thank you very much. Can the US now just stay home and stop ****ing with the ME already.
 
You said that the US gave Afghan's the chance to improve their lives, when in fact we were told that al Qaida in A-Stan was responsible for 9/11 and we needed to go take them out.

And you assume these two are mutually excluding aims?
 
And you assume these two are mutually excluding aims?

Please dispense with the notion that the US went into A-Stan and spent blood and treasure to take out al Qaida and improve life for the Afghanistan people.

Before the U.S. invasion, before the Russian war, before the Marxist revolution, Afghanistan used to be a pretty nice place.
An astonishing collection of photos from the 1960s was recently featured by the Denver Post.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/01/28/podlich-afghanistan-1960s-photos/5846/

Read more: Astonishing Pictures Of Afghanistan From Before The Wars - Business Insider
 
Back
Top Bottom