Why Remain in Afghanistan?

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Remain-in-Afghanistan-by-Philip-Giraldi-Afghanistan_Afghanistan-Pullout_Agreement_Political-131215-837.html



Why Remain in Afghanistan?
OpEdNews Op Eds 12/15/2013 at 14:36:52
By Philip Giraldi

The White House is pushing hard to keep a significant number of American soldiers in Afghanistan contrary to President Barack Obama's earlier pledge to have then all out by the end of 2014. As the United States President has demonstrated himself to be a habitual liar, that failure to connect promises made in 2008 with promises broken in 2013 should surprise no one. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is resisting the effort, insisting that no such agreement be ratified until April of next year, which he well knows would be too late as the United States likely will accelerate plans to withdraw from the country completely by the end of 2014 if there is no agreement by January.

Karzai, who will be leaving office next Spring and is undoubtedly looking forward to a comfortable retirement in Dubai in close proximity to the bank accounts holding all the money he stole, is quite likely relying on a continued US presence no matter what agreement is reached. Beyond that, he is playing off his various constituencies in Afghanistan in an effort to make sure that he and his family have a base of support after he leaves office -- he knows that agreeing to a long term deal with Washington is unpopular and it is useful for him to appear to be a patriotic Afghan by demanding no more raids on Afghan homes and a framework for peace talks with the Taliban.

The White House's official explanation for why the United States has to remain in Afghanistan goes something like this: al-Qaeda is still based in nearby Pakistan and is a threat that has to be dealt with. It is most practical to do so from bases inside Afghanistan, using drones and special ops resources. A small residual military presence could man the major US base at Bagram and several other drone bases around the country while helping to secure US diplomatic facilities in the capital Kabul. There are also a number of small CIA bases in Afghanistan as well as technical collection sites along the Iranian border that acquire signals intelligence relating to Iran, but they are relatively insignificant in the calculus being made regarding continued presence in Afghanistan.

~snip~

The US Embassy in Kabul and whatever Consulates remain open will undoubtedly employ thousands of armed contractors as a security force, as the Baghdad Embassy did when the US Army left Iraq. For what it's worth, all the redevelopment schemes, which have wasted billions of US taxpayer dollars will essentially be abandoned no matter what the outcome of negotiations to stay as the Embassy will not be able to maintain them without a security bubble and the NGOs that are involved will return home when the situation deteriorates, as it surely will no matter what agreement is reached.

[CFLDem]

1. I say we leave, start a rumor about oil being there

and let the Chinese take care of em.

Unlike us they won't hold back and would do the job right.

[truebluegreen]

2. Sounds like you think China is stupid enough to get sucked in

to the Graveyard of Empires by a rumor about oil.

BTW, why do you think we are there? And want to stay? To "finish the job"?

[CFLDem]

3. We could only wish China was so gullible.

Thing is China would actually be brutal enough to succeed and wouldn't mind shrinking its population a bit.

As for us, we clearly want to stay to keep our war machine warmed up until the next fight.

[truebluegreen]

4. I don't think China is that stupid, although clearly we are.

I was just wondering--and still am--how you defined winning, or finishing the job.

[CFLDem]

5. Unquestioned domination of course

Like Germany or Japan or in this case more like what the Romans did to Carthage.

If you're going to fight a war, unquestioned domination is the only logical end. There'd be a lot less war if it was taken that seriously.