Sorry, but we aren't getting entirely out of Afghanistan, if President Obama has his way

[cali]

President Obama is pressuring President Karziai to sign the BSA- Bilateral Security Agreement, before he leaves office. This agreement would enable the U.S. to funnel several billion dollars a year to Afghanistan's Security Forces. It would also leave a residual international force of some 8,000 to 12,000 troops, 2/3 of which would be American. To date, Karzai has refused to sign, but that may be changing. The complete withdrawal of troops is NOT what President Obama wants.


The White House's release of the readout from President Barack Obama's recent phone call with Afghan President Hamid Karzai signifies a shift in the U.S. approach to Karzai's government. While stressing the importance of holding a "fair, credible, timely and Afghan-led" election, President Obama made clear that the ball is in Karzai's court when it comes to signing the Bilateral Security Agreement or BSA, which would allow for a small U.S. military contingent to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to train and support Afghan forces

<snip>

President Karzai's influence is also beginning to wane. He has tried to retain his relevance by refusing to sign the BSA with Washington until after the election. His thinking seems to have been that as long as he had not signed the agreement, Washington would have to kowtow to him. However, Karzai miscalculated. Washington appears to have accepted the fact that Karzai will not sign the pact until after the election, making him an increasingly irrelevant man.

Since Karzai has linked the BSA to the election, and since he knows the BSA is necessary to pay for the government and security forces, Karzai must now ensure that the election happens as smoothly as possible or acquiesce and sign the BSA himself. The nine remaining presidential hopefuls have invested significant financial resources in this election, and are also risking their own security, as the recent ambush of one of the candidates' convoys demonstrated. None of these candidates are running to preside over a bankrupt country and therefore nearly all of the candidates say that they will sign the BSA, if elected

<snip>
http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/26/turning_the_tables_on_karzai



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/us-commander-warns-of-risks-in-pullout-from-afghanistan.html?ref=world&_r=1

[malaise]

1. So which President is responsible for the troops in Germany, Japan

and several other places since WW2? Why are all those military bases across the globe - Obama's fault????

[cali]

3. I realize that you do this kneejerk defense of the President in all cases. Every. Single. Time.

It's a strange cognitive dissonance thing. You rail against how awful U.S. foreign policy often is- and I usually agree with you there, but you have conniptions if President Obama's feet are held to the fire on decisions HE makes.

This has nothing to do with Germany and Japan. Are U.S. troops in mortal peril every single minute in those countries? No. Are they in Afghanistan? Yes. Do troops in Japan and Germany endanger the citizens of those countries the way that troops in Afghanistan do? No.

Of course I'm not holding Obama responsible for everything. I'm holding him responsible for HIS OWN POLICIES. That's all. I really have no respect for desperate strawman arguments and it's sad to see you employing one here.

This isn't about military bases. It's about a huge amount of money per annum- billions, and it's about keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

That is what the President wants. It appears YOU agree with him. Your criticism of current U.S. policies under this President is entirely hollow and totally contradictory.

[Lasher]

2. That's the same thing he tried to do in Iraq.

Thankfully the Iraqis wouldn't buy it.

[cali]

4. Looks like the Afghanis will.

And that means billions and billions each year in military aid to Afghanistan. All the presidential candidates say they'll sign it if Karzai doesn't. Recent events mean even more pressure. My guess is the agreement will be signed by Karzai before he steps down. A caveat: the violence in Afghanistan over the next week could change the expected scenario quite a bit.

[Lasher]

9. Karzai will sign, he's just holding out for more suitcases full of cash for his Dubai accounts.

If he can't keep the money flowing otherwise, he will sign.

[cali]

10. excuse me while

I go puke.

there, that's better.

right again.

[woo me with science]

5. K&R

[cali]

7. thank you.

[snappyturtle]

6. I agree with Sen. Manchin... To me if the Afghanis

can't train its forces after ten years...I just don't get it. I would love to know who General Dunford talks to. Something other than training has to be behind why the U.S. should stay. imho

[cali]

8. I'm wondering about that too. Geopolitical strategy?

Mineral wealth? Pipeline? Russia?

I have no idea.

And I hate agreeing with Joe Manchin.... on anything.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. "Mineral wealth? Pipeline? Russia?"

Close.
Mineral wealth. Pipelines. Russia. China.

[woo me with science]

11. kick

[JoePhilly]

12. OMG, we might train some troops!!!

yawn.

[cali]

13. 4 billion dollars plus a year. sure to elicit another yawn from you

reflection isn't in your tool kit.

[TheKentuckian]

23. If there is no actual defense, "it is that big of a deal" will always work.

If it turns out to be a train wreck then "better than (insert boogieman) would have done" may be applied.

Failing that one may always fall back on borrowed but sometimes slightly modified rehashed right wing slurs and sling them left, again just like the right wingers. Phony acronyms preferably.

Sometimes (virtually always) this must be leveraged with a technique we'll call "make it personal and about personalities". This also pulled out of the right wing tool box, utilized because no way they could win an honesty debate on the substance of issues and the same goes for this crowd.

Failing all else, "stand" with a politician and prattle on about "I know ___ isn't perfect (who is) but I trust them/they have more information than I do/it was the best they could do/I don't agree but trust their decision making process/it is better than (insert boogieman here) might do", like such means anything at all.

[polichick]

14. Didn't you claim that the prez was getting us out just the other day?

Yep, that was you.

[JoePhilly]

15. And he is.

Unless one is confused by leaving a small number of troops to help train the Afgans.

I'm regularly amazed at how simple some of you think the world is.

The Afghanistan war, like the Iraq war, is ending. Just a fact.

But I understand that the perpetually disgruntled, will remain, now and forever, disgruntled.

[polichick]

16. So he's NOT getting us out. lol

[NYC Liberal]

18. Except he is.

[polichick]

20. Except for the troops the mic needs there.

[NYC Liberal]

21. Except we have troops in many countries.

By that logic, WWII is still going on.

[polichick]

22. What's going on is the same thing Eisenhower warned us about...

only on steroids.

[NYC Liberal]

24. The same Eisenhower that authorized the CIA to stage coups in Iran and Guatemala?

[polichick]

27. The same guy who was pressured in a way that troubled him enough to speak out...

We can only imagine the pressure Pres. Obama gets - eventually the people will have to find a way to dismantle the for-profit mic.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. And as long as the Germans & South Koreans keep killing our troops with IEDs,

the parallel is exact.

[cali]

29. yep. such a profoundly silly comparison. ignorant or

just duplicitous.

[GiveMeMorePIE]

17. Because President Obama's way is the responsible way.

It may make some feel good to see 'not a single troop left in Afghanistan' as the headline, but that's all it is... a feel-good headline and position not rooted in reality.

[polichick]

19. The for-profit-oil-drenched mic will always fight to stay.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. It's hard for politicians to admit that another war was lost under their administration.

[woo me with science]

30. kick