One more lie to add to the list.......

[LocoBead]

February 13, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/12/politics/obama-sotu-afghanistan-troops/

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night that some 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will have returned home by this time next year.

The move will reduce the number of U.S. forces in the country by more than half. There are now about 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

A Washington Post poll on Tuesday showed that 80% of registered voters support the president's policy to end the war in Afghanistan.

In January, Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington, where they agreed to accelerate the military transition in Afghanistan.

Afghan forces will take the lead in combat missions throughout the country starting in the spring, instead of mid-year, as was previously expected.

Today, November 19, 2013

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/19/21534305-endless-afghanistan-us-afghan-agreement-would...

KABUL – While many Americans have been led to believe the war in Afghanistan will soon be over, a draft of a key U.S.-Afghan security deal obtained by NBC News shows the United States is prepared to maintain military outposts in Afghanistan for many years to come, and pay to support hundreds of thousands of Afghan security forces.

The wide-ranging document, still unsigned by the United States and Afghanistan, has the potential to commit thousands of American troops to Afghanistan and spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The document outlines what appears to be the start of a new, open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan in the name of training and continuing to fight al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be ending, but renewed under new, scaled-down U.S.-Afghan terms.

[LocoBead]

So, we'll continue to bolster their economy, while ours continues down the crapper.

[Former_Member]

A July draft?

Whom ever leaked this should be fired.


Obama has said some troops will remain in 2015 and afterwards, but he hasn't set a number. In his Feb. 12 State of the Union address, Obama said he intended to bring 34,000 troops back home over the next year.

"While it is too soon to make decisions about the number of forces that could remain in Afghanistan after 2014, any presence would be at the invitation of the Afghan Government and focused on two distinct missions: training, advising and equipping Afghan forces, and continued counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda and their affiliates,” Obama said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/1096/end-war-afghanistan-2014/

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also emphasized the 2014 deadline in conversations with troops on March 8 in a visit to Afghanistan.

"We are still at war, and many of you will continue to experience the ugly reality of combat and the heat of battle,” Hagel said. "But the goal we have established – to have Afghans assume full responsibility for security by the end of 2014 – is clear and achievable.”



Barack Obama on War & Peace : Feb 12, 2013
Move into support role in Afghanistan; 34,000 troops home
We can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda. Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.

Beyond 2014, America's commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.

Source: 2013 State of the Union Address


He noted this plan in his SoUA...Not seeing the big 'gotcha'.

[Former_Member]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/afghanistan-withdrawal-left-behind

[Former_Member]

Fox News...22hrs ago reported this : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/19/obama-reportedly-to-pen-letter-to-afghan-people-admitting...

Repeated it on their tv news around 1:30pm today...

Yet, http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/world/asia/us-afghanistan-talks/

[LocoBead]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/18/americas-longest-war-likely-to-get-longer/

President Obama ordered a surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan in 2009, with a pledge that those fighting would all be out by the end of next year. Now—surprise!—he and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have hammered out a draft accord that would permit perhaps 10,000 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely.

That means the U.S. war in Afghanistan will probably slip beyond the 4,834 days (13 years, 2 months, 25 days) between Oct. 7, 2001, when the U.S. invaded, and Dec. 31, 2014, when all U.S. combat troops are due to leave. Those likely to be left behind will be there largely to train Afghan troops, hunt down and kill terrorists, and be targets for those same terrorists. That makes the U.S. war in Afghanistan more than three times the duration of its 1,346-day (3 years, 8 months, 7 days) participation in World War II.

But Iraq, increasingly slipping toward civil war, should offer Americans a cautionary tale about U.S. troops rushing for the exits from a war-torn country they created.

It’s tough for a war-weary American public to concede, but the costs paid in American blood (2,193 killed) and treasure ($700 billion) could well be spilled in vain if there isn’t some continuing U.S. presence in Afghanistan to keep al Qaeda and the Taliban in check. It also could give a shaky and corrupt Afghan central government, under a new president (Karzai is barred from seeking a third term), enough time to mature and send extremists packing.

[Former_Member]

We have troops all over the world... http://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/

[Former_Member]

They are not staying there for 'war', they are staying to maintain...

[LocoBead]

"Those likely to be left behind will be there largely to train Afghan troops, hunt down and kill terrorists, and be targets for those same terrorists."

[Former_Member]

http://ndbi.utk.edu/Uploads/files/Force%20Structure%20Study.pdf

232 military bases/installations in Germany?

[LocoBead]

U.S casualties in Afghanistan since 2001=2292
U.S casualties in Germany since 1950 = 0 ?


http://icasualties.org/oef/ByTheatre.aspx

[LocoBead]

"Those likely to be left behind will be there largely to train Afghan troops,

hunt down and kill terrorists,

and be targets for those same terrorists."

[LocoBead]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/21/21557863-afghan-president-hamid-karzai-i-dont-trust-th...

KABUL - Afghan President Hamid Karzai told tribal leaders Thursday that he did not trust the United States, hours after Secretary of State John Kerry said a final draft deal on troop levels had been reached.

"My trust with America is not good," Karzai said at a meeting of tribal elders and political leaders in Kabul. "I don't trust them and they don't trust me. During the past 10 years I have fought with them and they have made propaganda against me."

Civilian war casualties in Afghanistan rose 45 percent over the last year, with hospitals treating children who have been shot, or hit by shrapnel. NBC's Richard Engel reports

His remarks were made at the Loya Jirga - a grand council of tribal elders and political leaders – to support the new security deal governing relations between the U.S. military and the Afghan government for years to come.

Karzai faces a challenge in persuading the Loya Jirga to accept the pact, which allows for between 10,000 and 15,000 international troops - mostly U.S. - to remain in Afghanistan another decade or more.

[Former_Member]

LocoBead from LocoBead says

U.S casualties in Afghanistan since 2001=2292
U.S casualties in Germany since 1950 = 0 ?


icasualties.org/oef/ByTheatre.aspx


Exactly - why are we there?



Interesting... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism.[1] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948.[2] The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.[3] The phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.[4]

The initiative[5] was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan, with help from Brookings Institution, as requested by Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[6] Marshall spoke of an urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.[3][7]

[LocoBead]

Fact: Germany is our ally
Fact: Afghanistan is not our ally

http://thediplomat.com/2011/12/puncturing-the-u-s-base-myths/

But while we should carefully review the proper balance of our forward-deployed military assets, our overseas presence is both a fundamental enabler of our national defense policy and a means to safeguard shocks to the international system. Stationing U.S. Army soldiers, Marines, and Air Force and Navy assets forward is the only guaranteed way of protecting U.S. interests, responding immediately to a crisis, and reassuring our allies and friends.

Deterring regional aggression with forward basing has been central to U.S. military strategy since the end of World War II, when we resolved to never again have to “fight our way in” as we had just done in the Pacific. This strategy remains just as relevant today. Gen. Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, recently testified that “being forward deployed and forward engaged allows us to shape the environment as opposed to reacting to the environment.” If a conflict with Iran were to erupt, or North and South Korea found themselves on the brink of war, or China threatened the use of force to acquire Taiwan, the robust regional presence of U.S. forces would have an immediate impact, either to deter escalation or quickly respond to aggression.

The United States’ forward presence also offers numerous diplomatic benefits. The politics of maintaining a presence in foreign nations no doubt comes with challenges. However, it also represents a steadfast commitment to an ally, which provides the basis for a sustained diplomatic partnership and regular military engagement and training with the host nation. For example, six decades of close cooperation between U.S. and Japanese naval forces have built an unrivaled degree of trust and interoperability. The presence of U.S. forces in South Korea has also helped to fashion a close relationship with the government in Seoul that would be vital during a crisis. And in Europe, U.S. forces have trained with NATO allies so that they have the capabilities to operate with us during an operation.

[LocoBead]

http://nypost.com/2012/12/30/afghan-allies/

A 2011 Army survey found that “on average, US soldiers perceived that 50% of (the) ANA (Afghan National Army) were Islamic radicals” vulnerable to Taliban recruitment. The results were reported in an unclassified study titled, “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility.” It quotes one American soldier as saying, “A reporter attached to my platoon said that during a conversation with ANA soliders, they said that if the Taliban began to win the war, they would switch sides and join the Taliban.”

The crux of the Obama administration’s exit strategy has been training Afghan security forces to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda. Much of that training has been suspended due to rogue attacks and defections not unlike what the Soviets faced.

Afghan government troops and police — our allies — have turned their guns on US-led coalition troops at least 47 times this year, killing at least 63, most of them Americans. That’s more than double 2011’s total of 21 attacks, in which 35 were killed.

One recent attack involved for the first time an Afghan policewoman, who early last week drew her US-issued pistol and fatally shot a US military adviser in the chest at the police headquarters in Kabul. The police sergeant, a mother of four with a clean record, had earlier been a refugee in Iran.

[Former_Member]

I guess we just skip over the whole WWI issue where we were not on the same side...

Oh, wait, we also were fighting them in WWII....

Post war

Following the defeat of the Third Reich, American forces were one of the occupation powers in postwar Germany. In parallel to denazification and "industrial disarmament" American citizens fraternized with Germans which was – despite an initial partly based on ancestor relations, among other reasons. The Berlin Airlift from 1948–1949 and the Marshall Plan (1948–1952) further improved the Germans' perception of Americans.

Cold War

The emergence of the Cold War made the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) the frontier of a democratic Western Europe and American military presence became an integral part in West German society. During the Cold War, West Germany developed into the largest economy in Europe and West German-U.S. relations developed into a new transatlantic partnership. Germany and the U.S. shared a large portion of their culture, established intensive global trade environment and continued to co-operate on new high technologies. However, German-American cooperation wasn't always free of tensions between differing approaches on both sides of the Atlantic. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of Germany marked a new era in German-American relations.



So, there is (successful) precedence for remaining in a country post war to help rebuild and establish positive relationships, etc.

[Former_Member]

nypost - which recently got the whole 'census scandal' um, WRONG?

Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[29]

Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage. Post executive editor Steven D. Cuozzo has responded that the Post "broke the elitist media stranglehold on the national agenda."

According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[30]

The Public Enemy song "A Letter to the New York Post" from their album Apocalypse '91...The Enemy Strikes Black is a complaint about what they believed to be negative and inaccurate coverage blacks received from the paper.
Controversies

There have been numerous controversies surrounding the Post:

In 1997, a national news story concerning Rebecca Sealfon's victory in the Scripps National Spelling Bee circulated. Sealfon was sponsored by the Daily News. The Post published a picture of her but altered the photograph to remove the name of the Daily News as printed on a placard she was wearing.[31]
On November 8, 2000, the Post printed "BUSH WINS!" in a huge headline,[32] although the presidential election remained in doubt because of the recount needed in Florida. Like the Post, many other newspapers around the country published a similar headline after the four major TV networks called the election for George W. Bush.
On March 10, 2004, the Post re-ran as a full-color page one photograph,[33] a photograph that had already been run three days earlier in black and white on page 9, showing the 24-story suicide plunge of a New York University student, who had since been identified as 19-year-old Diana Chien, daughter of a prominent Silicon Valley, California, businessman. Among criticisms leveled at the Post [34] was their addition of a tightly cropped inset photograph of Chien, a former high-school track athlete, depicting her in mid-jump from an athletic meet, giving the false impression that it was taken during her fatal act, despite the fact that she had fallen face up.
On July 6, 2004, the Post ran an article claiming to have learned exclusively that Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee-in-waiting, had selected former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt to be the party's Vice Presidential nominee. The article, under the headline "KERRY'S CHOICE", ran without a byline.[35] The next day, the Post had to print a new story, "KERRY'S REAL CHOICE", reporting Kerry's actual selection of Senator John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate.
On April 21, 2006, several Asian-American advocacy groups protested the use of the headline "Wok This Way" for a Post article about Bush's meeting with the Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China.[36]
On September 27, 2006, the Post published an article called "Powder Puff Spooks Keith" that made fun of Countdown host Keith Olbermann receiving an anthrax threat from an unknown terrorist.[37]
On December 7, 2006, the Post doctored a front-page photograph to depict the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, in primate fur, under the headline "SURRENDER MONKEYS", inspired by a once-used line from The Simpsons. In defense of the "Surrender Monkeys" headline, media contributor Simon Dumenco wrote an Ad Age article about his love for the Post.[38]
On February 18, 2009, the Post ran a cartoon by Sean Delonas that depicted a white police officer saying to another white police officer who has just shot a chimpanzee on the street: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." The cartoon referred the recent rampage of Travis, a former chimpanzee actor, and was criticized as being in bad taste,[39] primarily by making a reference to the racist stereotype of African-Americans being portrayed as apes. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton called the cartoon "troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys."[40] The Post has defended itself by stating that the cartoon was deliberately misinterpreted by its critics.[41] The stimulus bill itself was first passed out of the House of Representatives, which Nancy Pelosi presided over, and later passed in Senate, which was led by Harry Reid, so, if it is viewed in a literal context, the cartoon itself is actually referring to Pelosi, Reid, and other Congressional leaders as monkeys.
On December 4, 2012, the Post used a picture taken by a freelance photographer, R. Umar Abbasi, of a 58-year-old man identified as Ki Suk Han struggling to climb back up onto the platform 49th Street Station in New York City as a subway train approached. The caption on the front read, "Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die" on top, and "DOOMED" in large, boldface print on the bottom. The image caused outrage among many, as its use was viewed as exploiting a tragedy for commercial gain. Abbasi stated that he was not strong enough to pull the man up, and attempted to use the flash on his camera to alert the driver of the oncoming train.[42]
Aspects of the Post's coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were criticized. The Post reported in several stories on the day of the attack that the death toll was 12, while most organizations reported two and then three fatalities. In addition, they reported that a Saudi national was being held as a suspect, but Boston Police denied this and said they had no suspects in custody.[43] Additionally, the April 18 cover of the Post featured a full-page photo of two young men the paper described as being sought by law enforcement in possible connection with the attack. CBS News reporter John Miller reported that the two men are not considered suspects by the FBI. The apparent insinuation by the Post that they were suspects was denounced by media critics.[44] In June 2013, the two men sued the Post for libel over the story.[45]

The Post and the Daily News often take potshots at each other's work and accuracy, particularly in their respective gossip-page items.

In certain editions of the February 14, 2007, newspaper, an article referring to then-Senator Hillary Clinton's support base for her 2008 presidential run referred to then-Senator Barack Obama as "Osama";[46] the paper realized its error and corrected it for the later editions and the website.[47] The Post noted the error and apologized in the February 15, 2007, edition.[48] Earlier, on January 20, 2007, the Post received some criticism[49] for running a potentially misleading headline, "'Osama' Mud Flies at Obama",[50] for a story that discussed rumors that Obama had been raised as a Muslim and concealed it.

[LocoBead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

[LocoBead]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/china-envoy-says-middle-east-conflict-too-complex-for-u-s-a...

The Middle East’s challenges are too complicated for the U.S. to address alone, a top Chinese envoy said today, as the government seeks greater influence in a region that’s the source of 50 percent of its oil imports.

China’s new leadership is paying great attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Wu Sike, China’s special envoy for the Middle East, told the official Xinhua News Agency in comments reported yesterday. He spoke as China hosted United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who is scheduled to meet President Xi Jinping today.

“The Middle East problems are too complex to be solved single-handedly, including by a superpower like America taking the leading role,” Wu said. “It’s not that the U.S. doesn’t want to solve it, it’s that they can’t solve it.”

Since becoming president in March, Xi has taken steps to bolster China’s role in promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including hosting visits by the two sides’ leaders and proposing a plan to resolve the conflict. The Middle East may feature more prominently in China’s pursuit of natural resources amid forecasts the country will overtake the U.S. as the world’s top crude importer in 2014.

[Former_Member]

Oh please, the right wingers were all gung ho to have troops in the middle east and justified it at every turn. Does the phrase "war on terror" ring a bell?

Eta: and this little ditty as well: "Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan"

[LocoBead]

Afghanistan has always been unwinnable.......

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/ballen-afghanistan-loya-jirga/

"While our Afghan allies hold the Loya Jirga to decide the fate of a continued U.S. military presence in the country, their Taliban enemies deliver their response with more bombs. And while the U.S. continues to invest unprecedented resources into a largely corrupt and feckless Afghan government, the Taliban leaders wait for dreams."

[LocoBead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. The last U.S. troops left Iraq on December 18, 2011.[5]

[Former_Member]

The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) refers to the intervention by NATO and allied forces in the Afghan political struggle, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to dismantle the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and to remove from power the Taliban government, which at the time controlled 90% of Afghanistan and hosted al-Qaeda leadership. U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel the al-Qaeda network which was supporting the Taliban in its war with the Afghan Northern Alliance. The Taliban recommended that bin Laden leave the country[citation needed] but declined to extradite him without evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The United States refused to negotiate and launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom and later joined by Germany and other western allies, to attack the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in conjunction with the Northern Alliance.[23][24]
Source wikipedia

[Former_Member]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden