Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

seamus

Another collision between a U.S. Naval vessel and a commercial vessel today. The US ship is de facto at fault because it's smaller. And it wasn't a small incident either; 10 crew are missing.

The previous collision is barely two months ago. Is something that happens regularly, or indicative of a wider problem in the U.S. Navy?

I mention it in the Trump thread because these incidents are quite rare. And practically all of the time involve collisions between military vessels or vessels involved in military exercises. Two collisions with commercial craft is unprecedented, and both have occurred under Trump's watch.

Once is a bad luck, twice is carelessness.

everlast75

seamus wrote: »

Another collision between a U.S. Naval vessel and a commercial vessel today. The US ship is de facto at fault because it's smaller. And it wasn't a small incident either; 10 crew are missing.

The previous collision is barely two months ago. Is something that happens regularly, or indicative of a wider problem in the U.S. Navy?

I mention it in the Trump thread because these incidents are quite rare. And practically all of the time involve collisions between military vessels or vessels involved in military exercises. Two collisions with commercial craft is unprecedented, and both have occurred under Trump's watch.

Once is a bad luck, twice is carelessness.

To be fair Seamus, you can't blame this one on Trump. Sure he hasn't a clue where he navy is..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/trump-warned-north-korea-armada-headed-toward-australia/

seamus

Hah. In all seriousness, I'm not blaming Trump specifically, obviously. It's not like he fired the navy and replaced them with less able sailors.

But I would be concerned - one incident under Trump's watch is pure coincidence. A second one 64 days later is cause for concern. Are there budget cuts, procedural changes causing this? Or maybe the navy have been pushed to engage in a level of readiness that they haven't been in for a decade, and are rusty?

Peregrinus

Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

Akrasia

The Afghanistan press statement could be a big one if the tone of the statements from his whitehouse staff are an indication.
Apparently it covers more than Afghanistan, and is a new 'south asian strategy'

There are mentions of Pakistan and Mattis has concluded a review that he says shows Islmabad are 'tacitly' supporting the taliban in Afghanistan

"He wants to be the one to announce it to the American people," Mattis said. "He now needs the weekend to collect his thoughts on how he's going to explain it to the American people."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/donald-trump-afghanistan-speech/index.html

B0jangles

Samaris wrote: »

Afghanistan is an announcement I'm dreading a bit. It has come up before. Trump's had the leaders of two major private military contractors (one of which is owned by the same guy that owns Cambridge Analytica, btw, because this has all gotten more incestuous than Game of Thrones) in for the past month or two discussing options on privatising the war in Afghanistan. I don't think this is a theory, as much as I'd wish it was, they're pretty serious on it.

This cannot end well.

Reminder for those who might have forgotten, but one of the biggest private companies making money off the U.S's military activities overseas is Private security (AKA Mercenary supplier) Blackwater which has made over $1 billion in government contracts, whose founder is Erik Prince. It originally came to notoriety during the first Gulf War.

Billionaire Erik Prince is Billionaire and Sec. of Education Betsy Devos's brother.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/iraq-war-anniversary-remembering-blackwater-150315063501251.html

If the U.S. starts another war it'll be to get Trump some breathing space and to make the Prince/Devos family even richer than they already are.

ThisRegard

Samaris wrote: »

Afghanistan is an announcement I'm dreading a bit. It has come up before. Trump's had the leaders of two major private military contractors (one of which is owned by the same guy that owns Cambridge Analytica, btw, because this has all gotten more incestuous than Game of Thrones) in for the past month or two discussing options on privatising the war in Afghanistan. I don't think this is a theory, as much as I'd wish it was, they're pretty serious on it.

This cannot end well.

Surely international law would not allow such overt privatisation of a 'war', the UN would have something to say about it?

Blowfish

StringerBell wrote: »

He is less constrained again now, more freedom to wage his kind of war without it tarnishing the administration in an official capacity.

Something that should not be overlooked.

And, it's already begun. I refuse to link to them, but Breitbart have released 5 articles in a short space of time attacking McMaster. Suprise, suprise, the Russian bots have joined in too.

Akrasia

ThisRegard wrote: »

Surely international law would not allow such overt privatisation of a 'war', the UN would have something to say about it?

The UN will never censure the USA in any meaningful way, because the USA are a permanent member of the SC and can veto anything they don't like.

Christy42

Blowfish wrote: »

And, it's already begun. I refuse to link to them, but Breitbart have released 5 articles in a short space of time attacking McMaster. Suprise, suprise, the Russian bots have joined in too.

Yep though this Bastian of journalistic integrity has also managed to mistake Podolski (an international footballer) enjoying a trip on a jetski for either a migrant gang member or someone getting smuggled across the med. Hilariously they don't seem to be looking at the photo given it involves the footballer laughing and obviously posing for the photo.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/breitbart-lukas-podolski-picture-migrant-jet-ski-donald-trump-steve-bannon-a7903531.html%3famp

Akrasia

The Secret service have gone broke from Trump and his extended family's frequent travel and Trump himself's constant holidaying at his various resorts

Apparently they won't be able to pay the wages of the secret service agents without Congress agreeing to raise the caps on overtime

Every time Trump goes to Mar-a-Lago, it costs the secret service 3 million dollars.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/21/exclusive-secret-service-out-of-money-to-pay-agents-because-of-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family.html

Pelvis

What time is the Afghanistan speech supposed to be at?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

Yes, but this is the fourth incident this year. One off Japan, one off Singapore, one off South Korea, all three being collisions with other vessels, and one cruiser actually running into Japan.

Add to that the fact that there have been sufficient incidents that the Navy stood down all its aircraft for a 'safety pause' earlier this month, there is arguably something going on, and people are starting to take a very serious look at it.

It could be anything from a lack of training dollars to simply working folks so hard that they don't have time to attend those courses. Or the course curriculum needs changing, maybe basic seamanship has been dropped from courses to make room for other things in the limited course time available. After all, they can learn that sort of thing in the fleet, right?

Or, sure, it could just be a coincidence. It's not as if worse disasters haven't befallen the US Navy, such as the loss of seven destroyers which collided with California in 1923 (Two others survived the impact, and another five managed to miss the Continental US...). It's not a bad idea to ask the questions though, just in case.

Peregrinus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Surely international law would not allow such overt privatisation of a 'war', the UN would have something to say about it?

Where have you been for the past 15 years?

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

The Afghanistan press statement could be a big one if the tone of the statements from his whitehouse staff are an indication.
Apparently it covers more than Afghanistan, and is a new 'south asian strategy'

There are mentions of Pakistan and Mattis has concluded a review that he says shows Islmabad are 'tacitly' supporting the taliban in Afghanistan

Meh. My guess is that the Afghanistan speech will largely be more-of-the-same (another troop build up for "one final effort"). The White House are bigging it up in a desparate attempt to change the narrative about Trump, which at the moment is a train wreck.

Incidentally, Trump's campaign position on Afghanistan was that the American engagement was a "total disaster", that those responsible for maintaining the US commitment there were "stupid leaders", and that he favoured "speedy withdrawal". In all the commentary and speculation about what he is to say in this speech, it has not occurred either to his supporters or to more independent commentators to suggest that his position will reflect even in the smallest degree what he promised on the campaign trail. Such is the man's reputation for honesty.

Christy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Meh. My guess is that the Afghanistan speech will largely be more-of-the-same (another troop build up for "one final effort"). The White House are bigging it up in a desparate attempt to change the narrative about Trump, which at the moment is a train wreck.

Incidentally, Trump's campaign position on Afghanistan was that the American engagement was a "total disaster", that those responsible for maintaining the US commitment there were "stupid leaders", and that he favoured "speedy withdrawal". In all the commentary and speculation about what he is to say in this speech, it has not occurred either to his supporters or to more independent commentators to suggest that his position will reflect even in the smallest degree what he promised on the campaign trail. Such is the man's reputation for honesty.

And in fact the speech was about a massive ramp up in efforts in the middle east. I still remember people here calling him the candidate of peace and how he would reduce American engagement abroad. Still his poll numbers are through the floor and he needs something to distract from his unwillingness to condemn nazis, his multiple policy failures, his abuse of tax payer money for his own benefit to the point that the secret service already needs a budget increase and the fact that several months into his presidency a grand jury has already been called.

I hope the several thousand troops are proud of why they are heading over.

While in general I like the no nation building thing, if you have already blown the.country half to bits I figure it is partly your responsibility. No nation building should be a we won't mess up more countries, not a we wI'll ignore the fact that we messed up your country.

Samaris

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/18/trumps-afghanistan-strategy-may-unlock-3-trillion-in-natural-resources.html

Poor buggers. Being a relatively poor, war-torn country that other countries fight over can only be made worse by having trillions in natural resources. And yet, that's all they have to tempt other countries to help them.

Afghanistan will not grow as a country for a long time. The Afghani people won't benefit from them, you can take that to the bank - along with all their natural resources.

Frustratingly, we have a solution to a lot of problems. Moving over to renewable energy and letting fossil fuels remain where they are. That is a push against climate change, it removes a lot of the international power of Saudi Arabia (who appear to be mighty muckstirrers), it makes Middle Eastern and African countries less tempting to invade and/or destabilise (including, in the long run, by each other). It improves health. It is better for the environments that we're living in. It removes countries being reliant on more powerful neighbours if said neighbours control the power supply. It is not reliant on finding other (usually dirtier) ways of getting remaining deposits out of the ground. Solving, or at least radically slowing while we work on an actual solution (to), climate change also could well prevent a massive migration push out of areas of the world that can no longer sustain their populations. There are benefits to the left and right wing arguments here.

Sure, it won't solve Afghanistan straight-off, but it'd be nice to help lower the risks of another one. Unfortunately, that is not something that President Trump will consider for a moment.

Christy42

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/18/trumps-afghanistan-strategy-may-unlock-3-trillion-in-natural-resources.html

Poor buggers. Being a relatively poor, war-torn country that other countries fight over can only be made worse by having trillions in natural resources. And yet, that's all they have to tempt other countries to help them.

Afghanistan will not grow as a country for a long time. The Afghani people won't benefit from them, you can take that to the bank - along with all their natural resources.

Frustratingly, we have a solution to a lot of problems. Moving over to renewable energy and letting fossil fuels remain where they are. That is a push against climate change, it removes a lot of the international power of Saudi Arabia (who appear to be mighty muckstirrers), it makes Middle Eastern and African countries less tempting to invade and/or destabilise (including, in the long run, by each other). It improves health. It is better for the environments that we're living in. It removes countries being reliant on more powerful neighbours if said neighbours control the power supply. It is not reliant on finding other (usually dirtier) ways of getting remaining deposits out of the ground. Solving, or at least radically slowing while we work on an actual solution (to), climate change also could well prevent a massive migration push out of areas of the world that can no longer sustain their populations. There are benefits to the left and right wing arguments here.

Sure, it won't solve Afghanistan straight-off, but it'd be nice to help lower the risks of another one. Unfortunately, that is not something that President Trump will consider for a moment.

Last year Obama's foreign policy was one area that I agreed with some Trump supporters on. What I disagreed on was whether or not Trump would be better. Time and again Trump has proven so much worse than his predecessors even in areas that they struggled in.

Though having said that he did not say a lot in that speech in terms of specifics so it appears the point of the speech was to change headlines (though the eclipse seemed to have done that for him).

Beechwoodspark

Just had a read of breitbart out of curiosity. They are laying into trump and saying "American first" is the biggest loser and that McMaster has won the battle to influence Trump.

Have a feeling the trump-alt right love is going to get ugly as time goes on.

seamus

Trump's speech is a dog-whistle for every Jihadi in the region to converge on Afghanistan. All of the ISIS forces being routed in Syria and Iraq will make their way to Afghanistan.

Of course if Trump hadn't been so busy hating on Obama, he could have spent time building up the relationship with Iran, taking a tougher line with Saudi and working to keep ISIS penned into the Arabian peninsula. But now Saudi and Iran will happily turn a blind eye to insurgents heading off to Afghanistan. While Pakistan will happily give him two fingers.

But his "top officials" have of course told him that increasing activity in the area is the best option. No doubt these "top officials" have business interests in the area of defence contracting and natural resource mining.

ancapailldorcha

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just had a read of breitbart out of curiosity. They are laying into trump and saying "American first" is the biggest loser and that McMaster has won the battle to influence Trump.

Have a feeling the trump-alt right love is going to get ugly as time goes on.

The problem with movements based on hatred and prejudice is that once they get what they want, they inevitably end up turning on each other.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem with movements based on hatred and prejudice is that once they get what they want, they inevitably end up turning on each other.

Yeah. I don't understand why people who thrive on hate and fear can't just get along with one another.

Igotadose

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/18/trumps-afghanistan-strategy-may-unlock-3-trillion-in-natural-resources.html

Poor buggers. Being a relatively poor, war-torn country that other countries fight over can only be made worse by having trillions in natural resources. And yet, that's all they have to tempt other countries to help them.

Afghanistan will not grow as a country for a long time. The Afghani people won't benefit from them, you can take that to the bank - along with all their natural resources.

Frustratingly, we have a solution to a lot of problems. Moving over to renewable energy and letting fossil fuels remain where they are. That is a push against climate change, it removes a lot of the international power of Saudi Arabia (who appear to be mighty muckstirrers), it makes Middle Eastern and African countries less tempting to invade and/or destabilise (including, in the long run, by each other). It improves health. It is better for the environments that we're living in. It removes countries being reliant on more powerful neighbours if said neighbours control the power supply. It is not reliant on finding other (usually dirtier) ways of getting remaining deposits out of the ground. Solving, or at least radically slowing while we work on an actual solution (to), climate change also could well prevent a massive migration push out of areas of the world that can no longer sustain their populations. There are benefits to the left and right wing arguments here.

Sure, it won't solve Afghanistan straight-off, but it'd be nice to help lower the risks of another one. Unfortunately, that is not something that President Trump will consider for a moment.

Ignoring the POTUS for awhile, note that Afghanistan has a huge amount of 'rare earths' that're used in things like cell phone batteries and smoke detectors and so on. I don't believe there's a big pool of oil there. Here's an article from when some surveys were done by the US Geo. Service: https://www.livescience.com/47682-rare-earth-minerals-found-under-afghanistan.html



Otherwise agree with your points, the POTUS' speech was a rally-round-the-flag event to get the poll numbers up. Outsourcing the fighting to his Ed Secretary's brother's company is a side benefit in the .0001% world of scratch my back/I'll scratch yours.

And you do have to find a place to spend that extra $34 billion in the defense budget. Who knows, maybe a few more ship collisions and the Navy'll find a way to spend a chunk, too. Can't see them doing much in Afghanistan.

Akrasia

If we were hoping China would side with America in Trumps war with North Korea, the fact that Trump is going after Pakistan, a Chinese Ally makes that much less likely.

This man is too stupid to command the greatest military force in human history.

When you're covering up domestic problems you're supposed to start a war with Nicaragua, not China and Pakistan.

Plus Saudi Arabia are the worlds greatest terrorist supporters but Trump has no problem selling them billions in weapons....

Mind boggling stupidity and hypocrisy

rossie1977

Once again Trump's old tweets come back to haunt him. Is there anything he hasn't flip-flopped on?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/289807790178959360?lang=en

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/290926188787036161?lang=en

seamus

rossie1977 wrote: »

Once again Trump's old tweets come back to haunt him. Is there anything he hasn't flip-flopped on?

Trump is spinning it as "we're taking the fight to the terrorists", but I don't know if his support will buy it.

US military activity overseas is one of the few areas that the US left and right tend to overlap quite well. The right support attacking America's enemies, the left support defending America's allies.

But the right would also prefer for American blood to not be spilled where there's no real war to fight and no benefit for the US - such as in Afghanistan - and the left believes the US presence is provocative and counterproductive.

Aside from small handfuls of people who either have business interests in this area or who just like the idea of killing Muslims, Trump doesn't have support for Afghanistan even within his own crazy supporters.

spacecoyote

Didnt see the speech. Did he mention something about working with India & Pakistan to come up with a solution?

If so, is he nuts, they wouldnt be known to have the greatest relationship for a long time

InTheTrees

spacecoyote wrote: »

Didnt see the speech. Did he mention something about working with India & Pakistan to come up with a solution?

If so, is he nuts, they wouldnt be known to have the greatest relationship for a long time

Its all just hot air. Trump hasnt even appointed a new ambassador to India. The state department is only barely staffed too.

Akrasia

spacecoyote wrote: »

Didnt see the speech. Did he mention something about working with India & Pakistan to come up with a solution?

If so, is he nuts, they wouldnt be known to have the greatest relationship for a long time

Here's his full statement

It's basically war on terror 2017, except now he's not even pretending that he's going to bring democracy and civilisation to replace the despotic and failed states.

Trump did say that they would make their allies contribute 'much more money' to their defence, and he also said that the prime minister of afghanistan said that they will
"participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us" So there's a bit of spoils of war to the oligarchs in there too.

There was no strategy, no plan, no victory condition. His announcement was that they will no longer announce their strategy. He is giving his military carte blanche to attack anyone, anywhere without any oversight.

It's literally a recipe for unending eternal war.

VinLieger

Akrasia wrote: »

It's literally a recipe for unending eternal war.

So basically exactly what the likes of Blackwater want

PopePalpatine

I wonder what our resident swamp-draining enthusiasts make of this.

MadYaker

He's pretty much taking the same line that Obama did. I think if given the option most presidents would go for a full withdrawal but when they get top security clearance and all the facts are available to them I'm guessing at that stage it becomes pretty clear that full withdrawal is not an option unless you want ISIS setting up another caliphate.

There is no good option here and the "war" in Afghanistan can never really be won in the traditional sense. There are too many tribal factions in Afghanistan who have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years and they aren't going to stop now.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

I hope the several thousand troops are proud of why they are heading over.

Hopefully that wasn't supposed to be a satirical comment, as we're fine with it, actually. I've said for years that this is a generational war, not a short one. I've done a couple tours, I'm sure the Army will get at least one more out of me.

The military reaction to this speech is rather good on several levels. This should not be surprising, given the input that several highly respected generals have had on this plan. Whatever flaws Trump may have in terms of his appointments, the Defense/National Security side is fairly unimpeachable. Even his Chief of Staff lost a son in Afghanistan, he knows damned well what the results of ongoing engagement can be.

Firstly, the shift to conditions based operations. The whole timeline thing which had been demonstrated by earlier actions was idiocy propelled solely by domestic US politics. A job is done, or it is not. If you have no intention of hanging around until it is done, why the hell are you sending us over in the first place? And it must say, it has pained me a bit to see what I had worked for in Mosul to have been destroyed given we just let IS walk in.

Secondly, calling out Pakistan. It is either true that we are giving them a lot of money or it is not. It is true that the enemy finds haven there, or it is not. If both are true, then to heck with their sensibilities. The Afghans I know are saying "Finally. An American President is speaking the plain facts about Pakistan." Calling out for India right after calling out Pakistan is doubtless going to annoy the Pakistanis even more. Can't say we care much, they should keep their house in order.

Thirdly, no more nationbuilding. The host government needs to figure itself out. HMMWVs are not there to haul cattle feeders (Yes, I've seen it). Something like IS or the Taliban pops up, we will happily stomp it. And leave it at that. Afghanistan's people and culture do not mesh well with the concept of a strong central government in Kabul, and it has been something of a fool's errand to try to reinforce the central government model. Let the Afghans figure out for themselves what their country is supposed to look like. As long as it does not look like something which will threaten the US and its allies (i.e. IS, or Taliban), we should leave it be.

Fourthly, easing restrictions. The Obama administration was known for its micromanaging of military operations. Let the folks on the ground react as they see best.

As for comments about Trump's base being annoyed, or how Trump looks stupid for completely reversing his position on Afghanistan, I don't think we care. It looks to us like he is on the correct course now, isolationists who are annoyed can go hang. Folks who take glee in his reversal can also take solace in the fact that he has reversed. Better to acknowledge a wrong position (which he did) than to stick with it just because.

Again, above is the military reaction to what I've seen. What some expert in Pakistani domestic politics is going to take out of this, I have no idea. Though after 17 years, I'm not sure we should care any more.

Akrasia

I just don't see how 'killing terrorists' is going to solve the problem. The war on terrorism has brought only increases in terrorism. A political solution needs to be found. A negotiated withdrawal of US troops would need to involve all the parties in the region, Iran, India, Pakistan, Turkmenistan etc

Would a breakup of afghanistan along ethnic lines be possible? There is a significant Pashtun population in Pakistan, maybe the Pashtuns in Afghanistan might be happy to become a part of Pakistan?

Would the Tajiks join Tajikistan, would the Turkmeni people be happy joining Turkmenistan...

I know it would pose a host of problems and would be a nightmare to negotiate, but the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. is going to waste on bombing afghanistan for the forseeable future could be better spent on creating a long term political solution.

Leroy42

So it was wrong for killer HC to even think about being tough but when Trump does it is being pragmatic?

You might fool youselves thinking he is a hero for changing his mind but really you have ended up voting for HC but without any of the experience or international credibility.

And despite being in Afgan for, what, 17 years the only real answer is to stay longer?

US military has been banging this drum since 2001 and is US any safer now? Has the terrorist problem been dealt with?

No. Maybe the much heralded militay might of the US is not as useful as they think it is.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hopefully that wasn't supposed to be a satirical comment, as we're fine with it, actually. I've said for years that this is a generational war, not a short one. I've done a couple tours, I'm sure the Army will get at least one more out of me.

The military reaction to this speech is rather good on several levels. This should not be surprising, given the input that several highly respected generals have had on this plan. Whatever flaws Trump may have in terms of his appointments, the Defense/National Security side is fairly unimpeachable. Even his Chief of Staff lost a son in Afghanistan, he knows damned well what the results of ongoing engagement can be.

Firstly, the shift to conditions based operations. The whole timeline thing which had been demonstrated by earlier actions was idiocy propelled solely by domestic US politics. A job is done, or it is not. If you have no intention of hanging around until it is done, why the hell are you sending us over in the first place? And it must say, it has pained me a bit to see what I had worked for in Mosul to have been destroyed given we just let IS walk in.

Secondly, calling out Pakistan. It is either true that we are giving them a lot of money or it is not. It is true that the enemy finds haven there, or it is not. If both are true, then to heck with their sensibilities. The Afghans I know are saying "Finally. An American President is speaking the plain facts about Pakistan." Calling out for India right after calling out Pakistan is doubtless going to annoy the Pakistanis even more. Can't say we care much, they should keep their house in order.

Thirdly, no more nationbuilding. The host government needs to figure itself out. HMMWVs are not there to haul cattle feeders (Yes, I've seen it). Something like IS or the Taliban pops up, we will happily stomp it. And leave it at that. Afghanistan's people and culture do not mesh well with the concept of a strong central government in Kabul, and it has been something of a fool's errand to try to reinforce the central government model. Let the Afghans figure out for themselves what their country is supposed to look like. As long as it does not look like something which will threaten the US and its allies (i.e. IS, or Taliban), we should leave it be.

Fourthly, easing restrictions. The Obama administration was known for its micromanaging of military operations. Let the folks on the ground react as they see best.

As for comments about Trump's base being annoyed, or how Trump looks stupid for completely reversing his position on Afghanistan, I don't think we care. It looks to us like he is on the correct course now, isolationists who are annoyed can go hang. Folks who take glee in his reversal can also take solace in the fact that he has reversed. Better to acknowledge a wrong position (which he did) than to stick with it just because.

Again, above is the military reaction to what I've seen. What some expert in Pakistani domestic politics is going to take out of this, I have no idea. Though after 17 years, I'm not sure we should care any more.

Maybe after 16 years it needs to be admitted that simply increasing the dosage for the whateverth time is not going to do anything.

I agree with the assessment that the US can't leave now but new solutions need to be sought out.

I reckon you will find nation building will be a requirement to not have to go back there in a few years time. While obviously you don't want a colony you do want to ensure that the country has the resources to not descend into chaos as soon as you leave.

Having said that the no nation building was largely for optics. Trump will leave office before this war is done, even if he lasts the 8 years.

I should point out that I mean no disrespect to the soldiers travelling. I just feel like the adding more guns approach has already been tried.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

US military has been banging this drum since 2001 and is US any safer now? Has the terrorist problem been dealt with?

No. Maybe the much heralded militay might of the US is not as useful as they think it is.

You do have to admit, the US hasn't suffered any major attacks since. A lot of the credit for that probably must go to the three-letter-agencies including the FBI, but it's not as if they're not getting any intel from the overseas operations, and the US military does seem to be keeping the opposition in the area fairly distracted.

And despite being in Afgan for, what, 17 years the only real answer is to stay longer?

Got a better one? Again, if the job isn't done, why are we looking at a calendar? We have been half-arseing our conflicts, worrying about troop levels and domestic US political sentiment more than we have about actually coming to some form of conclusion. Well, since Trump hasn't any more political support to lose, why not do what the folks fighting the war are suggesting?

Zubeneschamali

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, if the job isn't done, why are we looking at a calendar?

The job you mean is impossible, it will never be done.

The real job, rattle the Taliban, kick Al Queda's ass and kill Osama was completed years ago,

Samaris

Igotadose wrote: »

Ignoring the POTUS for awhile, note that Afghanistan has a huge amount of 'rare earths' that're used in things like cell phone batteries and smoke detectors and so on. I don't believe there's a big pool of oil there. Here's an article from when some surveys were done by the US Geo. Service: https://www.livescience.com/47682-rare-earth-minerals-found-under-afghanistan.html

Ugh, if it's rare earths, they are screwed. They can look at DRT Congo for an example of what's going to happen. Sure, maybe less attacks by other insurgents and neighbouring armies, because who wants to prod America, but god knows beyond labour towns, the Afghanis won't see much result from their natural resources.

Fair point on oil, but they do, I believe, have large natural gas resources.

Wildlife Actor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Got a better one? Again, if the job isn't done, why are we looking at a calendar? We have been half-arseing our conflicts, worrying about troop levels and domestic US political sentiment more than we have about actually coming to some form of conclusion. Well, since Trump hasn't any more political support to lose, why not do what the folks fighting the war are suggesting?

As someone who has been on the ground out there, what's your view on the Blackwater/private contractor aspect to the latest policy. According to an earlier post Prince and another player were in with Trump recently. Is it his policy or theirs?

Samaris

An "online day of action", huh? I suppose that's a lot safer and they don't have to confront those that disagree with them.

Phonehead

It really does seem like a pointless exercise! What is the end game here, essentially they need to build an iron curtain around Afghanistan and spend the next number of decades bringing up the living standards to the point of Westernising an entire population. Do Americans really believe that by fighting against the impoverished afghani people they are somehow keeping the USA safe?

For Forks Sake

Akrasia wrote: »

I just don't see how 'killing terrorists' is going to solve the problem. The war on terrorism has brought only increases in terrorism. A political solution needs to be found. A negotiated withdrawal of US troops would need to involve all the parties in the region, Iran, India, Pakistan, Turkmenistan etc

Would a breakup of afghanistan along ethnic lines be possible? There is a significant Pashtun population in Pakistan, maybe the Pashtuns in Afghanistan might be happy to become a part of Pakistan?

Would the Tajiks join Tajikistan, would the Turkmeni people be happy joining Turkmenistan...

I know it would pose a host of problems and would be a nightmare to negotiate, but the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. is going to waste on bombing afghanistan for the forseeable future could be better spent on creating a long term political solution.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid, if you're Trump and you want to impress your idiot voterbase, some dead brown people will suffice, it doesn't particularly matter where or of what ethnicity.

Plus given the fact that most americans couldn't point out Afghanistan on a map, it's far enough removed that any 'successes against terrorism' being spun by the WH will go unquestioned by his supporters.

Hande hoche!

Love nor Money wrote: »

As someone who has been on the ground out there, what's your view on the Blackwater/private contractor aspect to the latest policy. According to an earlier post Prince and another player were in with Trump recently. Is it his policy or theirs?

The policy that is being proposed is probably closest to that put forward by the generals rather than Trump's own ideas. Wouldn't credit it to Prince, his ideas were quite "unusual" to put it kindly. If you have time, an Atlantic article on those ideas is worth the time to read.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/afghanistan-camp-david/537324/

Junkyard Tom

Manic Moran wrote: »

Got a better one?

Yes. Don't get embroiled in conflicts you cannot win. Learn from Vietnam. I believe the 9/11 attacks cost half-a-million USD. Wasn't Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's intention to draw the US into wars it couldn't win?

How much has Iraq/Afghanistan cost the US people in blood and treasure? A few trillion USD's and tens-of-thousands of casualties (that's before we consider the carnage that was unleashed after the invasions). The only people winning from those wars are the weapons manufacturers.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My99imFzeWw

These are some of the fine people that donald trump didn't condemn fully.

Manic Moran

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes. Don't get embroiled in conflicts you cannot win. Learn from Vietnam. .

Vietnam was another half arsed war.
However, be that good advice or not as a general principle, it is thoroughly unhelpful when one is already in it. Iraq has been a learning point in what happens if we just up and leave. I don't think anyone, US, Iraqi or European has come out the better from that event.

Which brings us to option B. Stay. Pontificating does not change that binary choice. And if we are gong to stay, we need an attainable goal and the assets (to include the time) to do it.

As for the Blackwater question, I'm not sure I'm tracking the proposals. PMCs certainly have their utility in security and training/ advisory roles, but if the suggestion is to just hand over the whole lot to them to include offensive operations, then no. I don't think anyone is a fan of having private citizens controlling national assets such as air strikes, I would consider their ability to conduct platoon level operations and higher as suspect, and I am unsure as to what extent things like rules of engagement are legally enforceable.

Junkyard Tom

Manic Moran wrote: »

Vietnam was another half arsed war.

'If only we'd have been more like the Spartans we'd have won', perverse logic. The US got its ass kicked in Vietnam they were never going to win that war unless they nuked Vietnam from top to bottom. They'd no business being there in the first place thousands of miles from their own borders.

However, be that good advice or not as a general principle, it is thoroughly unhelpful when one is already in it. Iraq has been a learning point in what happens if we just up and leave. I don't think anyone, US, Iraqi or European has come out the better from that event.

Iraq is a perfect example of why you don't go to war based on the fantasies of war-fetishist neocon chickenhawks.

Which brings us to option B. Stay. Pontificating does not change that binary choice. And if we are gong to stay, we need an attainable goal and the assets (to include the time) to do it.

Stay for what? The US is eventually going to withdraw regardless. It's a no-hoper. Anyway, the US should look after its own domestic problems as one of the worst developed countries in the world to live if you are poor.

dfx-

Dear God, that 'speech' he just gave was unhinged.