PDA

View Full Version : US troops may stay in Afghanistan until 2024



Zigzagman
8-19-11, 9:55pm
Just when you think it couldn't get any crazier (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8712701/US-troops-may-stay-in-Afghanistan-until-2024.html)- America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024, The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain.

Both Afghan and American officials said that they hoped to sign the pact before the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan in December. Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai agreed last week to escalate the negotiations and their national security advisers will meet in Washington in September.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Mr Karzai’s top security adviser, told The Daily Telegraph that “remarkable progress” had been made. US officials have said they would be disappointed if a deal could not be reached by December and that the majority of small print had been agreed.

Somebody please pinch me - I feel like I am in the twilight zone. Does anyone agree with this?

Peace

freein05
8-19-11, 10:31pm
Get out of Afghanistan now. Get out of the whole mess that is the Middle East.

Gregg
8-20-11, 12:24pm
I can take a pretty good guess at the rationale behind something like that. Keeping a foothold in the prime oil producing region jumps to mind. Bordering Pakistan is no small deal. Something very similar is probably in the works in Iraq as well. They still have the world's second largest oil reserves AND by controlling Iraq and Afghanistan we have Iran flanked. IMO the oil is the prize. Simply put, we need it. We (the US) HAVE to have it. I'm increasingly convinced that very few people understand the ramifications of doing without it. That is enough subject matter for volumes, let alone another thread. In a somewhat bizarre and left-handed fashion the power elite are looking out for the best interests of the country by looking out for their own best interests.

Understanding the geopolitical theory and motivations doesn't justify the actions. I'm still in the camp that says its time to bring 'em home. If we apply the cost of the wars to developing alternatives to middle east oil we win on several fronts.

Zigzagman
8-20-11, 1:38pm
IMO the oil is the prize. Simply put, we need it. We (the US) HAVE to have it. I'm increasingly convinced that very few people understand the ramifications of doing without it. That is enough subject matter for volumes, let alone another thread. In a somewhat bizarre and left-handed fashion the power elite are looking out for the best interests of the country by looking out for their own best interests.

Understanding the geopolitical theory and motivations doesn't justify the actions. I'm still in the camp that says its time to bring 'em home. If we apply the cost of the wars to developing alternatives to middle east oil we win on several fronts.

I'm not drinking that kool-aid. At the present time we get about 16% of our oil from the Middle East. If it is a matter of national security, as you imply, then we need to approach it that way. I have heard this argument for years. It usually comes about when the oil oligarchy wants to extend their tentacles into areas such as the Arctic, offshore, and now the tar sands of Canada. It is used when they justify fracking, etc. I don't consider it a conspiracy theory I think is simply an excuse to continue our "Love of War" no matter the cost in terms of human lives and geopolitical damage not mention the ecological damage.

If it is a matter of national security then I think we are doing a very poor job of finding a resolution. Maybe the idea of GREEN is not so left-wing and more about common sense - something that corporation (being a person) have a hard time grasping.

We are fools to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq - we are dealing with a corrupt government and people that hate us and seem to find every reason on the planet to justify our actions and it is sold to the American public with FEAR of the boogeyman.

Peace

Gregg
8-20-11, 2:01pm
I'm still in the camp that says its time to bring 'em home.

Lol Zig, I never quoted myself before. You Texicans have the craziest ways to debate so I figured I had to remind you that I AGREE with you! !Splat!

The problem with just letting go of the reigns in the middle east doesn't really hinge on the 16% of the our oil that comes from there. The problem is that if we see a disruption of even 2% or 3% the impact could be significant. Prices would skyrocket in way that would catch most people totally flat footed. The SPR would get drawn down too quickly to slow the price increases. If we lost all 16% in one shot it would probably lead to a total collapse. The 'just in time' systems in this country are a big part of that. Grocery stores have 3 days worth of food. I've been where a combination of blizzards and avalanches closed the supply route for 6 days. I'm telling you that the stores looked exactly like the old pics from Russia. This was in a small community and everyone knew we would be resupplied as soon as the roads opened. In the case of a major oil shock that would not be the case. I wouldn't want to be in an major city if that happened.

The real point is that we need to develop alternatives as we are letting go of what we have a tenuous handle on. We can start to wean ourselves back from the ridiculous consumption levels we are at while we develop replacement energy sources. What we can't do is accomplish that over night. Leaving ourselves open to a big shock is not sound strategy. Defining a plan and moving forward as quickly as possible is.

Zigzagman
8-20-11, 2:10pm
Lol Zig, I never quoted myself before. You Texicans have the craziest ways to debate so I figured I had to remind you that I AGREE with you! !Splat!
OK,OK,OK - Please don't lump me in with a few crazy Texans that you have been exposed to lately!! It seemed to me that you agreed but were trying to give some rational argument for our continued presence? I am beginning to despise OIL almost as much as WAR!:|(

Peace

Gregg
8-22-11, 8:56am
There's a couple kinds of crazies in TX, Zig. I've always known you were one of the good kind.

In truth I am trying to make a rational argument for continued presence...kind of. If I thought the US was prepared for all the possible consequences I would say let's bring 'em all home tomorrow, but we're not. We are WAY too dependent on the oil. The middle east is a big pile of sand and rock and "people who don't like us much". As far as I can see oil is the ONLY reason for us to be there.

If our current leadership (President AND the Congress) were to get off their butts and immediately develop an energy policy geared toward developing every possible domestic resource they would solve a lot of problems. It would create millions of jobs. It would be a huge economic stimulus with actual tangible results. It would decrease our dependence on foreign oil. It really would add to our national security. And it would eliminate the need for a presence in the middle east. I doubt the savings from ending the wars would be enough to pay for the whole thing, but the increased tax revenues from a few extra trillion dollars a year being spend here instead of there sure as heck would.

Maxamillion
8-26-11, 2:32pm
Understanding the geopolitical theory and motivations doesn't justify the actions. I'm still in the camp that says its time to bring 'em home. If we apply the cost of the wars to developing alternatives to middle east oil we win on several fronts.
Agreed there.

redfox
8-26-11, 2:42pm
I am beginning to despise OIL almost as much as WAR!:|(

Peace

DITTO!!!

Florence
8-26-11, 3:31pm
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to President Obama last week. I have committed to writing one letter each week to the President to urge a complete withdrawal from these endless wars.

Dear President Obama,


I am writing to you today to urge you to end the decade long war in Afghanistan and to remove U.S. troops from Iraq. As we move closer to their removal, there will be immense pressure on you to leave some troops longer. I urge you to resist these pressures and to move steadily and consistently to a complete end to these military involvements.
Respectfully,

ApatheticNoMore
8-26-11, 5:25pm
Quote Originally Posted by Zigzagman View Post
I am beginning to despise OIL almost as much as WAR!

Peace
DITTO!!!

Yes. Of course present society is completely dependent on oil and what deeper indictment of the present economy do you need than that? Of course oil is used for a thousand things some of which are absolutely necessary but let's just look at one major contributor: commuting. Oil is used to commute to work. This is an TOTAL indictment of the current society. Why? Well of course the lack of adequate public transit but not *just* that. Probably half the work that people commute to could be done at home via telecommuting. But companies have such a need for direct control over employees (still have to wonder why just looking at an employees actual throughput or if that fails alas even electronic surveillance wouldn't work) that they seldom allow this. And yet they call an economy in which showing up physically is necessary due to the highly coercive hierarchical nature of such an economy "efficient". It's madness.

Meanwhile wouldn't it be nice if companies made it a priority to hire locally so people could work locally? Ok that might be discriminatory but how it actually works now is companies are so picky on what they require that they end up hiring people 50 miles away to fill positions. Yes it might be skilled labor and require some skills but very few are that special a snowflake that they couldn't instead hire a person with close skills and train them. But why should they? Companies bear none of the costs of a workers commute afterall, so they look for a 100% match and the 100% match commutes 50 miles to work.

Meanwhile government policies actually discourage moving to lessen commute time. Which policies? ALL those that encourage home ownership over renting. It would be a vast improvement if the government just stopped taking sides on this.

And yea we need massive investment in efficiency and green fuels of course!!!!! Meanwhile we have people like Krugman argue that an alien invasion would be nice as it would mean the government would spent money freely on it (waste money in other words, just flush it down the tiolet). We don't need an alien invasion (good because none is likely forthcoming :)). We need instead to invest heavily in getting off oil!!! To deal with climate change and resource shortages!

There's also the whole moral aspect of the whole thing. So it's ok for the U.S. to bomb countries often killing innocent civilians to gain access to a resource? Ok, but don't be surprised if the people in those countries who have loved ones murdered don't see it that way! And how much can you blame them if they take their revenge (although personally I wish they would target the politicians, since it's the power structure more than the average citizen that is the problem. But even this would probably backfire in every more draconian restrictions on the average citizen.). The average citizen often only has so many choices in their life and is only guilty to the degree they actively cheer for the powers that be in their war making. People could at least stop the cheering.

Gregg
8-26-11, 6:05pm
Yes. Of course present society is completely dependent on oil and what deeper indictment of the present economy do you need than that? Of course oil is used for a thousand things some of which are absolutely necessary but let's just look at one major contributor: commuting. Oil is used to commute to work. This is an TOTAL indictment of the current society. Why? Well of course the lack of adequate public transit but not *just* that. Probably half the work that people commute to could be done at home via telecommuting. But companies have such a need for direct control over employees (still have to wonder why just looking at an employees actual throughput or if that fails alas even electronic surveillance wouldn't work) that they seldom allow this. And yet they call an economy in which showing up physically is necessary due to the highly coercive hierarchical nature of such an economy "efficient". It's madness.


Could not agree more. In fact I've been preaching the same idea to deaf ears and stupefied looks for many years. The savings from allowing even a small percentage of the workforce to telecommute become exponential when you start to look at companies being able to downsize their buildings by as little as 15 or 20%. (Conditioning and lighting in buildings consumes several times the energy that cars do in the US.)