Liveleak Forums  

Go Back   Liveleak Forums > War and military actions. > All War And Military Action Topics > Afghanistan

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2012, 03:02 PM   #1
figatova
LiveLeaker
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 35,448
figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Default USMC General: U.S. Forces To Remain in Afghanistan Past 2014

USMC General: U.S. Forces To Remain in Afghanistan Past 2014

The general tapped to become the top American and NATO military official in Afghanistan would not say coalition troops are winning the 11-year-old conflict while testifying at a Senate confirmation hearing Nov. 15, but he also said that U.S. forces will likely stay past the 2014 withdrawal date.

In response to a series of questions from Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., about what missions U.S. forces might conduct after December 2014 — which the Obama administration has set as the end date for the U.S. combat mission there — Marine Corps. Gen. Joseph Dunford said that “counterterrorism operations and advise and assist” duties would be the most crucial.

While he didn’t offer specifics, keeping those missions active would allow Special Operations forces to continue hunting terrorists, while U.S. soldiers would continue to train the Afghan Army and police. Those missions will continue to be “an enduring role [that] will exist after 2014,” Dunford said. Any other missions after 2014 “will be informed by the gaps that remain” in Afghan capability, he said.

Dunford also stressed that the U.S. and Afghan governments will need to sign a bilateral security agreement no later than May 2013 to grant American forces legal protections against arrest and prosecution, because “we’ll be there beyond 2014 to secure our objectives.”

Any such agreement would help to define a “clear and compelling narrative of commitment” by the U.S. to Afghanistan post-2014.

While pushing back the end date for the conflict — which has entered its second decade — the general also testified that “we are making progress, and our objectives are achievable” in Afghanistan. Notably, Dunford opted for a nuanced answer to this fairly straightforward question posed by Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain, R-Ariz.: “Are we winning the war in Afghanistan?”

“I’m concerned if we didn’t complete the mission, we would have areas in Afghanistan where al-Qaida would continue to operate, and we’d have a failed state neighboring Pakistan, where we have considerable national interests,” Dunford told the committee. “That would destabilize the entire region.”

In written answers to questions posed by the committee before the hearing, Dunford stated that counterterrorism operations will become the third of three “primary missions” for American forces beyond 2014. The top U.S. missions in Afghanistan beyond 2014, he said, will be training and advising indigenous forces and supporting civilian Afghan agencies.

But McCain has concerns about the Obama administration’s plans for getting to 2014, saying the operation is at a “strategic crossroads” amid a “perception of growing insecurity.”

To McCain, Obama’s focus on establishing a timeline to withdraw most Western forces is at the root of a resurgent Taliban/al-Qaida force, corruption inside the Afghan government, and “doubt … shared among our friends and enemies alike in Afghanistan and the region.

“This doubt has encouraged all actors in Afghanistan and the region to hedge their bets, which increases the worst instincts of the Afghan government and increases the chances of a return to civil conflict in our absence,” McCain said.

The committee’s top Republican described his “fear” that Obama will soon begin “implementing aggressive cuts to our forces in Afghanistan well before 2014 and then leaving a presence of supporting forces that is not equal to the tasks they need to perform.”

McCain and other committee members raised concerns that Washington appears on track to strike a status-of-forces agreement with Kabul that fails to set binding conditions to create an Afghan government and security entities capable of defending the nation. McCain suggested the administration might not be able to strike a forces agreement at all.

McCain laid out an alternative: Delaying any further withdrawal of U.S. forces beyond the 68,000 currently there. Commanders in Afghanistan tell him, McCain said, that they need all 68,000 U.S. troops to adequately set the table for a 2014 withdrawal.

“If we can’t accomplish the mission,” McCain said, “I’m not quite sure we should stay.”

Dunford told the panel he would need to conduct his own review of the situation in Afghanistan, including the number of American forces that will be needed after 2014, before talking publicly about troop levels. The current U.S. and NATO commander, Marine Gen. John Allen, is wrapping up his own assessment of needed force levels, and during a trip to Asia on Nov. 12, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that “my hope is that we’ll be able to complete this process within the next few weeks.” He added, “I’m confident that we’re going to be able to get to the right number that we’re going to need for the post-2014 enduring presence.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, raised concerns about “a string of negative reports … over the past few months that have raised questions about various aspects of the campaign and the performance of the Afghan security forces.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham used words other than success and victory when describing the potential outcome of the conflict.

“I believe the Afghan war is salvageable,” the South Carolina Republican said. Graham asked Dunford whether a status-of-forces agreement that calls for a major U.S. presence beyond 2014 would be the difference between victory and losing.

“I believe so, senator,” Dunford told Graham.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...xt%7CFRONTPAGE
figatova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:04 PM   #2
samwise
Duck Belly
 
samwise's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,256
samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!
Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100
Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100 Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100 Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100
Activity: 43%
Activity: 43% Activity: 43% Activity: 43%
Default

Bin Laden is dead.

Not one donkey riding taliban member of any afghan terrorist will be able to touch America any time soon.

We need to leave.
samwise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:06 PM   #3
figatova
LiveLeaker
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 35,448
figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Default

Quote:
U.S.-Afghanistan Open Talks on Post-2014 Military Aid

KABUL — The United States and Afghanistan launched crucial talks Nov. 15 on the status of U.S. forces remaining in Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal of combat troops in 2014.

A key element of any agreement will be the question of immunity for U.S. troops from prosecution in local courts, but this was not discussed in the first round of talks, negotiators said.

In Iraq, Washington pulled out all of its troops after failing to get Baghdad to grant its soldiers immunity, and President Hamid Karzai has warned there could be similar problems in Afghanistan.

The issue has been highlighted by the massacre of 16 villagers earlier this year, allegedly by a rogue U.S. soldier who was flown out of the country and is facing hearings in the United States.

The number of troops who will stay in the country and their roles in the fight against insurgents led by Taliban Islamists are also unlikely to be dealt with in the early rounds of talks, according to sources close to the negotiations.

“We were very encouraged by today’s round that we could speak frankly with each other,” U.S. chief negotiator and deputy special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan James Warlick told a news conference.

“And I am very confident that the rounds ahead will lead to the conclusion of a document which is in both of our countries’ interest.

“This document is intended to provide legal authorities for United States armed forces and its civilians component to continue a presence in Afghanistan with full approval of the government,” he said.

Afghanistan’s chief negotiator and ambassador to Washington, Eklil Hakimi, said the security agreement was one of the most important elements of the long-term strategic partnership deal already signed with Washington.

“In this agreement, the quantity, quality, defense cooperation and security presence of the U.S. in Afghanistan after ... 2014 are included,” he said.

The negotiations would be based on Afghanistan’s national interests and sovereignty and ensuring peace and stability, strengthening democracy and the capability of Afghan armed forces, Hakimi said.

Both men said the deal, which could take a year to negotiate, would pose no threat to any other country in the region.

Iran in particular among Afghanistan’s near neighbors, which include China, Pakistan, India and former Soviet Central Asian states, has made clear its objection to any military deal between Washington and Kabul.

The U.S. has stressed that it is not seeking permanent bases in Afghanistan.

It is also considered likely to shy away from a security guarantee, which would require it to come to the nation’s assistance against aggressors.

That, however, is seen as one of the targets of Afghan negotiators.

U.S. President Barack Obama flew to Kabul to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Karzai in May, but it did not cover the legal status of any troops remaining behind after the 2014 withdrawal of NATO combat forces.

The U.S. has some 68,000 troops in the NATO force of more than 100,000 and is expected to leave an as yet unspecified number to help train, advise and assist Afghan forces in the war against Taliban insurgents.

U.S. military officers have said they envisage a follow-on force of around 15,000 personnel, but the number, and their role, is expected to be announced soon by the new Obama administration.

The negotiations come against a background of relations strained by perceived atrocities by U.S. troops and an increasing number of so-called green-on-blue attacks, in which Afghan forces turn their weapons against their NATO allies.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...xt%7CFRONTPAGE

I believe the latest deal was for Karzai to get $4bn per year in bribing. But I don't think that's going to be enough to keep him and his thugs in power.
figatova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:09 PM   #4
figatova
LiveLeaker
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 35,448
figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwise View Post
Bin Laden is dead.

Not one donkey riding taliban member of any afghan terrorist will be able to touch America any time soon.

We need to leave.
Taliban? Afghan terrorist? I think you're confusing your boogeymen.

Protip: Commie, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim, Arab are different things.
figatova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:35 PM   #5
samwise
Duck Belly
 
samwise's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,256
samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!samwise is a forum GOD!!
Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100
Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100 Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100 Points: 638,153,989, Level: 100
Activity: 43%
Activity: 43% Activity: 43% Activity: 43%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by figatova View Post
Taliban? Afghan terrorist? I think you're confusing your boogeymen.

Protip: Commie, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim, Arab are different things.
Who cares?

We are done over there and have been since Bin Laden was killed.
Mission complete.

Time to get the fuck out.
samwise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:42 PM   #6
figatova
LiveLeaker
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 35,448
figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwise View Post
Who cares?
Well, I'm guessing the soldiers dying there care, I'm guessing the civilians dying there care, I'm guessing the families of those dying there care.

You see, if people weren't so fucking ignorant and had the faintest fucking clue about these wars maybe it wouldn't be so easy to fool the gullible plebs and maybe these wars wouldn't happen so I'm guessing millions of people do care about the difference between those wee words that sound so similar to some.
figatova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:44 PM   #7
smeblee
LiveLeaker
 
smeblee's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,531
smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!smeblee is a forum GOD!!
Points: 1,981,493,729, Level: 100
Points: 1,981,493,729, Level: 100 Points: 1,981,493,729, Level: 100 Points: 1,981,493,729, Level: 100
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Default

The US forces will be there after it's over as many countries will. We should of glassed the place.
But the goals required of the ANA and ANP is unachievable..
Afghanistan will go back to the dark ages, acid attacks, violence against women, be headings etc.

I see people support these guys on LL cause they're so anti US..

Fuck you guys.
__________________
'the water out of the tap is very hard to drink'

'you see a mouse trap, i see free cheese and a fucking challenge'

'I love it when i wake up all bloodied. With no idea what i have done..' - tRauma26100
smeblee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:51 PM   #8
figatova
LiveLeaker
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 35,448
figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!figatova is a forum GOD!!
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100 Points: 266,671,423, Level: 100
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smeblee View Post
We should of glassed the place.
This is by far, the most retarded comment that keeps being repeated in these kind of threads. Not having a go at you in particular Smeblee, you're hardly unique in this sense, just a general observation.
figatova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:27 PM   #9
ThisisnotChad
LiveLeaker
 
ThisisnotChad's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the fires of HELL
Posts: 15,108
ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!ThisisnotChad is a forum GOD!!
Points: 526,630,379, Level: 100
Points: 526,630,379, Level: 100 Points: 526,630,379, Level: 100 Points: 526,630,379, Level: 100
Activity: 38%
Activity: 38% Activity: 38% Activity: 38%
Default

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/xnuke.jpg...XD9-0bi6PQ.jpg
__________________
Street physics .. this is what happens when an ignorant force meets a stupid object. - Tinbuk3

The Taliban decimated the virgin 6 year old community... we all suffer - Dat

Being an atheist is not a choice. It's a default state of mind.
ThisisnotChad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:05 PM   #10
the demon
American Infidel
Alien Commander Champion Brighton Bounty Champion Fishwater Challenge Champion Fish Kill Champion Barts Watersports Adventure Champion Fishing the Sea Champion
 
the demon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: United States of America
Posts: 19,387
the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!the demon is a forum GOD!!
Points: 1,011,510,735, Level: 100
Points: 1,011,510,735, Level: 100 Points: 1,011,510,735, Level: 100 Points: 1,011,510,735, Level: 100
Activity: 84%
Activity: 84% Activity: 84% Activity: 84%
Default

Figs definition of a victory is 'absolute peace'. As if that could possibly happen in a country infested with jihadists. It's Muslims, go figure. Bombs are going off in most Muslim nations that we haven't invaded.

Fact is, Afghanistan has more freedom now than they ever did under the Taliban. People can actually elect their leader, womens rights ect...

The fact the Taliban won't be running the country is a victory. The fact we have annhilated the entire alqaeda leadership is a victory. To be naive enough to think Afghanistan has to be absolutely and entirely at peace for a victory is kinda dumb considering the acheivements of this war that Fig and others like him wouldn't dare recognize.

Take Iraq for instance. Regardess of what conspiracies people come up with or reasons behind the Iraq war, it has it successes. Saddam will never invade his neighbors again, they are as close to democracy as they've ever been, the new iraqi government is holding it's ground nicely and things are going much better than even our most hardcore critics predicted. There has been a victory in Iraq whether people want to admit it or not.

Are things perfect? No, ofcourse not; same with afghanistan, it will never be perfect, but it will be better off. Some people are quick to mention the failures, but always fail to see the success. Naturally. No matter how hard some try to degrade the US and these failures, the successful parts of these wars will always remain.

Afghanistan can finally elect it's leaders and choose their own destiny. Alqaeda has been sent running like their asses are on fire, they have no real safe place anymore, their leadership has literally been killed and the entire group are now scattered and unorganized throughout the Islamic world. No place to call their own anymore. No place to organize themselves and those in charge and the replacements are people who were initially low ranked before 9/11. Inexperienced arm chair generals who can no longer even trust each other considering they have watched their leaders dissapear one by one.

With the exception of Zawahiri, they have absolutely no legitimate force. It's only a matter of time before we get him as well. He can't trust anyone, always looking over his shoulder and even the current replacements in Alqaeda doesn't even know where Zawahiri is right now. If that isn't a victory over Alqaeda, i dunno what is.
__________________
"It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of the prophet Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes of the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing" -- WW2 General George S. Patton

Last edited by the demon; 11-16-2012 at 08:09 PM.
the demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.