Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US: No more troops until stable government

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US: No more troops until stable government

    Thoughts on this?
    US decision after Afghan result

    The White House has said that it will take no decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until it determines the new government is a "true partner".

    White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN TV it would be "reckless" to take such a decision without a thorough analysis of the new government.

    Washington is debating a request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

    Results from an investigation into fraud claims in the presidential poll are due in the next few days.

    It is expected to reveal that incumbent President Hamid Karzai's vote count is below the 50% needed to avoid a second round.

    Foreign officials have pressed Mr Karzai to accept that he might have to face a run-off.

    Speaking to CNN, Mr Emanuel said the US would want first to be sure that the government was capable of becoming a "true partner" able to govern the country.

    "It would be reckless to make a decision on US troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the US troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country," he said.

    Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US and Nato commander in the country, has recommended sending the extra troops as the US reviewed its strategy.
    Source: BBC NEWS | South Asia | US decision after Afghan result
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    You beat me to it!

    More pressure on Karzai. Credible government? They will have to define credible, for I believe that completely free and fair elections will not be possible. Maybe in 2020...
    "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

    Protester

    Comment


    • #3
      It's another "line in the sand" about 10 miles out.

      Comment


      • #4
        This could be a subtle way of telling Karzai and his underlings in government to accept a runoff, it will be ran fairly, or we'll leave and your fate as Fearless Leader will be left to whether your enemies in the rest of the country can manage to overthrow you in a coup or not. I don't know how intelligent Karzai is, but I think he understands he has no powerbase without American and NATO soldiers propping him up.
        Last edited by rj1; 18 Oct 09,, 21:16.

        Comment


        • #5
          Also

          Realistically, a surge it troops isn't needed until the May time frame at the latest, when the fighting season begins. It would be good to have them for the winter, but realistically it won't happen anyways. He has time to wait and this way he can make a political statement at the same time.
          Michael C

          On Violence Twitter

          Comment


          • #6
            From the comments I've read in this post, what this basically means is that the US has given the Karzai government a mutually-dangerous ultimatum. If you don't clean up your act by May, you'll be toppled. Of course, if the Karzai government is toppled the country will be left to the Taliban, so it's a staring contest where if neither party blinks, both lose.

            Comment


            • #7
              BBC NEWS | South Asia | McChrystal's blunt warning to the West

              General Stanley McChrystal acknowledges that the US could lose this war in the next 12 months. I don't think he wants to wait until May, fighting is an all year round event, it gets worse in the Warm Season, but our boys are still dying on a weekly basis.

              Comment


              • #8
                Weather

                The summer weather comes much sooner down south and the winter weather is not nearly the same harsh alpine quality of Konar and Nuristan. IIRC, the Brits were running major ops in Helmand in April.

                Still, rain (when it infrequently falls) in the south seems to transform anything but a hard-surface road into a quagmire. Same net effect even if not so cold.

                .
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Karzai 'stripped of outright win'

                  Hamid Karzai is said to be furious at the prospect of a runoff
                  A panel probing fraud claims in the Afghan election has found Hamid Karzai did not gain enough valid votes for an outright win, the BBC understands.

                  Preliminary results from August's first round had placed Mr Karzai comfortably over the 50% plus one vote threshold needed to avoid a run-off.

                  But the BBC understands Mr Karzai's vote share has fallen below half, after a number of votes were ruled invalid.

                  Under poll rules, Mr Karzai now faces a runoff against rival Abdullah Abdullah.

                  In its much-anticipated report on Monday, the UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) ordered that ballots from 210 polling stations be discounted.




                  When this tangled process began, the ECC, the only electoral body composed of Afghan and foreign representation, was regarded as the "final arbiter".
                  The IEC's role was to ratify and announce the results. The IEC is accused by many of being too close to a president who appointed all its commissioners. It now says it needs "a day or two" to examine the details of the ECC report.

                  One source warned of a possible "train crash". Others are still hoping a compromise can emerge at this critical eleventh hour.

                  President Karzai has repeatedly warned foreign countries not to interfere in the election process.

                  Sources say he firmly believes Western countries, in particular the United States and Britain, are conspiring to rob him of victory.


                  Endgame for Afghan elections?

                  The panel said it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" at the polling stations, which were across the country.

                  It was not clear how Mr Karzai would respond to the ECC findings, amid reports of a possible legal challenge.

                  Initial results released last month had given him nearly 55% of votes, with former foreign minister Mr Abdullah on 28%.

                  The Afghan president has insisted he won the election outright, but EU observers have said as many as one in four votes cast were suspicious.

                  Sources have told the BBC that Mr Karzai is furious over the prospect of a second round.

                  The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says the Afghan leader believes an election victory has been stolen from him and he is threatening to block attempts to hold any second round.

                  But Washington has warned it will not send any more US troops to Afghanistan until a political resolution is reached.






                  In the last few days Western leaders and diplomats have engaged in a rapid round of diplomacy to get Mr Karzai to accept the election results.

                  But our correspondent says that for now that pressure does not seem to have worked and an election that was meant to have helped stabilise Afghanistan has brought yet more uncertainty.

                  The ECC launched its investigation after the vote as allegations of mass fraud began to emerge.

                  The panel reports to the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which will make the final announcement on the election's outcome.

                  The IEC is widely regarded as pro-Karzai, but it is legally bound to accept the ECC's findings.

                  Commenting before the report was released, senior Karzai aide Mohammad Moin Marastyal, quoted by Reuters news agency, criticised the ECC's methodology and said "now we are in a deadlock".



                  Ex-foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah is Hamid Karzai's nearest rival
                  However, the Canadian head of the ECC, Grant Kippen, told the BBC on Monday his panel's investigation "met international standards and was open, thorough and transparent".

                  Diplomats have accused the IEC of stalling to give the president more time to reach a deal with Mr Abdullah, possibly on power-sharing to avoid a run-off.

                  Even if a second round is required, many analysts have said Mr Karzai, a Pashtun from the country's largest ethnic group, would probably still win.

                  With violence at its worst levels across Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, there are warnings the ongoing political paralysis will only embolden the militants.


                  BBC NEWS | South Asia | Karzai 'stripped of outright win'
                  "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

                  Protester

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Social Contract of Governance

                    I mentioned it somewhere. So too Shek in conversations we've had with JAD 333. Without a viable host-nation partner, this is likely an interminably failed enterprise that can only end in failure.

                    That's as far as I'll speak for the good major as our views likely depart from one another here...

                    The real question to me is, if this is the conclusion by the POTUS, where's the logical continuation of such thinking? If not sufficiently viable to reinforce, then our purpose and presence there merits...

                    ...what, exactly?

                    Withdraw en toto and reassess while preparing for the next round. More n' more I see this as the only alternative.

                    We are not, at present, institutionally geared to conduct stability ops effectively in any case.

                    Will we take a lickin'...?

                    Sure, but we'll keep on tickin'.

                    Appears that, as in W.W.II, our enemies need a beat-down first to generate conditions of sufficient political and moral mallability to our ends.

                    Further, we don't deal in a post-colonial world with a Colonial Office and the ability to conduct our operations in a communication vacuum as may have been present in Malaya in 1954.

                    Our global circumstances are dramatically different and, without a radically revised institutional approach, we'd best get back to doing our kinetic best to address what we can and leave the dustpan and broom for others as they wish or not.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good logic

                      Can not be stable government and will not be more troops.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                        Appears that, as in W.W.II, our enemies need a beat-down first to generate conditions of sufficient political and moral mallability to our ends.
                        Well looking at how the world has changed since the end of the Cold War, where does that exist? Where has there been a definitive conclusive war where the people on the losing end have accepted unconditional surrender? When I say people, I mean the entire country, not some fiefdom like Saddam because the people did not stand behind Saddam. And in this age of 10-year-olds crying on television after Momma got bombed to smithereens, can that be done?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm probably going to get some things thrown at me here, but I'm going to say it anyway.

                          I don't think that part of the world is cabable of stabilization. Who here REALLY believes that? With that, and it pains me to say it, all our efforts over the last few decades and especially the last few years, will be made in vain by this administration. They don't want to win.

                          I would love nothing more to save the world and have peace and sunshine everyday for breakfast but there is no way it is going to happen when societies are ruled by religious extremists following antique, barbaric, religious laws.

                          And when opium is your main export, of the other choice of your government, what really does one expect?

                          So what does A-stan really have a choice of? One party wants to sell drugs to support the population and the other represses basic human rights(esp women) to the extreme.

                          I realize this statement seems simplistic, but its not that complicated if you ask me.

                          Everything I said a year ago about this president, is happening or has happened. He has proved himself in every way I expected. I'll wager again, we will leave A-stan in a shambles with no one to blame but this administration. I'll bet anyone it won't be long before Obama offers up some of that "you unclench your fist and we'll extend a hand" crapola to the Taliban.

                          Just wait for it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                            I'm probably going to get some things thrown at me here, but I'm going to say it anyway.

                            I don't think that part of the world is cabable of stabilization. Who here REALLY believes that? With that, and it pains me to say it, all our efforts over the last few decades and especially the last few years, will be made in vain by this administration. They don't want to win.

                            Theres an acceptable degree of stability in Afghans neighbors, so I wouldn't say its not capable of stabilization.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zara View Post
                              Theres an acceptable degree of stability in Afghans neighbors, so I wouldn't say its not capable of stabilization.
                              That reminds me when John Kerry said he wanted to get terrorism "back down to acceptable levels".

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X