Three killed, 11 injured in blast in east Afghanistan: police
So that's the Syrian Kurds, the Afghans... who else of our allies am I forgetting that Donnie's sold out for political gain? I mean, at this point, anybody in any kind of alliance with us with forces in the field should be shitting themselves now, because now it's not if the orange moron is going to sell you out for political points back home, it's when. When is he going to need that political football back while being desperate enough to rear-end thousands of people just so he can get praised by a bunch of talking heads on TV and his idiot base?
Not an ally, but the Trump admins total abandonment of the 2state solution and ridiculous imposition of impossible terms on Palestine should be on there somewhere.
Though if we aren’t talking strictly military losses, Donnie has long since thrown Canada, UK, EU, and NATO under the buss for his Russian backers
So that's the Syrian Kurds, the Afghans... who else of our allies am I forgetting that Donnie's sold out for political gain? I mean, at this point, anybody in any kind of alliance with us with forces in the field should be shitting themselves now, because now it's not if the orange moron is going to sell you out for political points back home, it's when. When is he going to need that political football back while being desperate enough to rear-end thousands of people just so he can get praised by a bunch of talking heads on TV and his idiot base?
South Korea and Japan haven't actually gotten the knife yet, but Washington's written both off explicitly enough that they've generally been talking as though they were on their own, so..
SK and Japan also explicitely caved on everything that Trump asked on the trade talks.
You mean caving like South Korea doubling the cap on auto imports to 50,000 even though no US automaker had actually hit the 25,000 cap so it's an utterly meaningless change that doesn't have any impact the balance of goods shipped between us? That kind of caving? Because so far all of Trump's trade victories seem to amount to rebranding the acronyms.
That kind of sounds exactly like Donnie himself- looks good on paper, but in reality is just a pile of bullshit. Doubling a cap we hadn't hit before sounds good, and that's all he needs with the imbeciles that follow him.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
+2
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
what part of him looks good on paper?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+9
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Leaving Afghanistan is the right thing to do. But it will definitely have unintended consequences. The Taliban will probably purge a lot of people associated with the American-backed regime and fund terrorist groups outside their borders.
The Taliban are not a transnational Salafist organization and their only real interest is securing governance over their territory again. There's no reason for them to, nor do they likely have the capacity to, start sending money to Salafist groups outside of Afghanistan who very likely want to kill them and take their territory as part of the future Salafist led Caliphate.
Well, aside from their prior history. And you know, 20ish years of payback.
The prior history of fighting over Afghanistan while Al Qaeda and the "Afghan Arabs", who are/were Salafists, conducted operations outside of Afghanistan? Or do you mean using the tribal area in Pakistan to launch attacks into Afghanistan until they could get a foot hold again? The Afghan Taliban have yet to take credit for an operation outside of Afghanistan and the commanders who have threatened to, like the Dadullah brothers, were either killed or fired as commanders shortly after making video threats. And even those threats were predicated on our occupation.
Yeah, I mean name one terrorist attack on America that originated in Afghanistan in the last 20 years.
...okay, aside from that one
The Taliban are a bunch of fundamentalists who want to control Afghanistan as an Islamic nation. Comparable to some extremist Christians in the US. Bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban or in fact Afghan (being from SA), and his protection by the Taliban was due to their belief in hospitality law. Without proof they refused to give up a guest. There is little reason to believe the Taliban knew of or assisted with the attacks, or in fact would have approved of them at all.
NSDFRand made the uncontroversial point that the Taliban do not have a history of international terrorism. You could say 9/11 originated in Afghanistan, but 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi Arabian and the other four were from the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian and also from a very wealthy family meaning he could just live anywhere he wanted. His residence in Afghanistan is irrelevant. He wasn't even caught in Afghanistan!
Leaving Afghanistan is the right thing to do. But it will definitely have unintended consequences. The Taliban will probably purge a lot of people associated with the American-backed regime and fund terrorist groups outside their borders.
The Taliban are not a transnational Salafist organization and their only real interest is securing governance over their territory again. There's no reason for them to, nor do they likely have the capacity to, start sending money to Salafist groups outside of Afghanistan who very likely want to kill them and take their territory as part of the future Salafist led Caliphate.
Well, aside from their prior history. And you know, 20ish years of payback.
The prior history of fighting over Afghanistan while Al Qaeda and the "Afghan Arabs", who are/were Salafists, conducted operations outside of Afghanistan? Or do you mean using the tribal area in Pakistan to launch attacks into Afghanistan until they could get a foot hold again? The Afghan Taliban have yet to take credit for an operation outside of Afghanistan and the commanders who have threatened to, like the Dadullah brothers, were either killed or fired as commanders shortly after making video threats. And even those threats were predicated on our occupation.
Yeah, I mean name one terrorist attack on America that originated in Afghanistan in the last 20 years.
...okay, aside from that one
The Taliban are a bunch of fundamentalists who want to control Afghanistan as an Islamic nation. Comparable to some extremist Christians in the US. Bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban or in fact Afghan (being from SA), and his protection by the Taliban was due to their belief in hospitality law. Without proof they refused to give up a guest. There is little reason to believe the Taliban knew of or assisted with the attacks, or in fact would have approved of them at all.
NSDFRand made the uncontroversial point that the Taliban do not have a history of international terrorism. You could say 9/11 originated in Afghanistan, but 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi Arabian and the other four were from the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian and also from a very wealthy family meaning he could just live anywhere he wanted. His residence in Afghanistan is irrelevant. He wasn't even caught in Afghanistan!
The US conducted an airstrike on March 4 against Taliban fighters in Nahr-e Saraj, Helmand, who were actively attacking an #ANDSF checkpoint. This was a defensive strike to disrupt the attack. This was our 1st strike against the Taliban in 11 days.
I'd say I'm surprised, but that's like being surprised by the Sunrise.
Edit: Okay, how do you embed tweets?
Nvm, I did it right the first time, desktop just isn’t displaying them on chrome.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
So... just to recap.
US: Hey we got peace, we're excited to finally end this war.
Taliban: We... we didn't even talk about peace...?
US: Yeah, peace time! Thanks everyone, we're awesome. Time to go home!
Taliban: We're still gonna do our attacks, piss off.
US: What!? How dare they break our peace! *Airstrike*
US: Hey we got peace, we're excited to finally end this war.
Taliban: We... we didn't even talk about peace...?
US: Yeah, peace time! Thanks everyone, we're awesome. Time to go home!
Taliban: We're still gonna do our attacks, piss off.
US: What!? How dare they break our peace! *Airstrike*
Is this accurate?
Don’t forget the part where the US cut GiROA out of the talks and Trump wasn’t even done with his victory lap when the Taliban attacked.
Edit: Oh yeah! Also don’t forget about Trump isn’t really pulling troops out, but just reducing them by a few thousand. I think there’s still gonna be 8000 troops still there after the “pullout”, if memory serves.
This was never planned to be anything more than a headline.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
US: Hey we got peace, we're excited to finally end this war.
Taliban: We... we didn't even talk about peace...?
US: Yeah, peace time! Thanks everyone, we're awesome. Time to go home!
Taliban: We're still gonna do our attacks, piss off.
US: What!? How dare they break our peace! *Airstrike*
Is this accurate?
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Taliban attacks on the government nor US defensive actions violate what was a pretty vague deal
US: Hey we got peace, we're excited to finally end this war.
Taliban: We... we didn't even talk about peace...?
US: Yeah, peace time! Thanks everyone, we're awesome. Time to go home!
Taliban: We're still gonna do our attacks, piss off.
US: What!? How dare they break our peace! *Airstrike*
Is this accurate?
No, both sides agreed to reduction of violence. The Taliban has not agreed to a complete cessation of violence as negotiations continue — and to be realistic about what a final peace process would look, is never going to agree to that.
There are many reasons for this, and one of them is practical. There are under-appreciated political costs and risks to the Taliban in ordering a nation wide halt to violence; they did it for a week, but they’re not going to devote their entire political organization to stopping attacks for the sake of on-going negotiations. They’ll talk and make concessions, but a total end isn’t going to happen while negotiations are still on-going. No while they’re talking to Obama, Trump, or any future American president.
Three killed, 11 injured in blast in east Afghanistan: police
So that's the Syrian Kurds, the Afghans... who else of our allies am I forgetting that Donnie's sold out for political gain? I mean, at this point, anybody in any kind of alliance with us with forces in the field should be shitting themselves now, because now it's not if the orange moron is going to sell you out for political points back home, it's when. When is he going to need that political football back while being desperate enough to rear-end thousands of people just so he can get praised by a bunch of talking heads on TV and his idiot base?
Not an ally, but the Trump admins total abandonment of the 2state solution and ridiculous imposition of impossible terms on Palestine should be on there somewhere.
Though if we aren’t talking strictly military losses, Donnie has long since thrown Canada, UK, EU, and NATO under the buss for his Russian backers
Don't forget the most prominent attempt to, Ukraine. Granted, didn't help that Obama and NATO let it go too far, but Trump was more than happy to "lay in the slipper" when he had the opportunity to.
Glad you put NATO up there. Could probably include Hong Kong on the list. And inevitably Taiwan, there's no way Trump is going to go to bat for them.
And that's not taking into account the internal populations that are systematically being harmed, like the Uyghurs and the Rohingya and the Indian Muslims, that the US of past years might have taken at least a diplomatic stand on.
It still blows my mind that the Afghanistan deal releases sanctions and other economic pressures from the Taliban, what’s the incentive for that?
Also it just blows my mind that we haven’t heard a peep from the right wing media on this. 5000 Taliban soldiers are going to be released from afghani government prisons, without the afghani governments consent or consultation. Trump going on about how the Taliban will fight international terrorists for us. No mention anywhere by any media figure about how many of these Taliban prisoners are likely responsible for US servicemen deaths.
Like I’m not necessarily against a process to leave, but it just feels like right wing media can turn off the faucet of outrage on a dime. It shocks me every time
Those prisoners are not being released. Not yet, anyways. President Ghani refuses to do it, and that was one of the justifications the Taliban used to go back to launching attacks. There won’t be much progress in this peace deal, or prisoner release, without the Afghan government taking part.
The drawing down to 8,600 troops can and most likely will happen without the Afghan government’s say so, to help Trump in November, but not the prisoner swap.
If you look at the agreement, in section A the US commits that it “will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600)” and “will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases.” But when you get to the prisoner swap in section C what the US is committing to is that it will “work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.”
It’s not even a guarantee that it will happen, but a promise to work on a plan for to happen, if everyone agrees.
Those prisoners are not being released. Not yet, anyways. President Ghani refuses to do it, and that was one of the justifications the Taliban used to go back to launching attacks. There won’t be much progress in this peace deal, or prisoner release, without the Afghan government taking part.
The drawing down to 8,600 troops can and most likely will happen without the Afghan government’s say so, to help Trump in November, but not the prisoner swap.
If you look at the agreement, in section A the US commits that it “will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600)” and “will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases.” But when you get to the prisoner swap in section C what the US is committing to is that it will “work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.”
It’s not even a guarantee that it will happen, but a promise to work on a plan for to happen, if everyone agrees.
The entire thing seems to be basically Trump agreeing to pull troops out of Afghanistan in return for the Taliban agreeing to sign a meaningless piece of paper so Trump can use it as a press release. And the Afghan government, such as it is, is standing on the side going "What The Fuck???!?!?".
Those prisoners are not being released. Not yet, anyways. President Ghani refuses to do it, and that was one of the justifications the Taliban used to go back to launching attacks. There won’t be much progress in this peace deal, or prisoner release, without the Afghan government taking part.
The drawing down to 8,600 troops can and most likely will happen without the Afghan government’s say so, to help Trump in November, but not the prisoner swap.
If you look at the agreement, in section A the US commits that it “will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600)” and “will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases.” But when you get to the prisoner swap in section C what the US is committing to is that it will “work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.”
It’s not even a guarantee that it will happen, but a promise to work on a plan for to happen, if everyone agrees.
The entire thing seems to be basically Trump agreeing to pull troops out of Afghanistan in return for the Taliban agreeing to sign a meaningless piece of paper so Trump can use it as a press release. And the Afghan government, such as it is, is standing on the side going "What The Fuck???!?!?".
Yeah, this seems to be the reason. This is EXACTLY the same shit as North Korea. It's about allowing Donnie to claim that he's done something no other President has been able to do, ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually DO anything. The Taliban (like KJU) will continue doing what they're doing, but Trump gets to claim a meaningless victory, in an election year, and that's all that matters to him.
I don't think it's a controversial take (on here at least) to wanting to stop the 'endless wars', but this is Trump trying to cut and run, under the pretense of victory. He's not doing any of the hard work to actually withdraw in a proper manner. He just hopes he can get out before it all goes to shit (hopefully beyond November) and then claim it's not his problem anymore. It's so completely 'on brand' for him.
Those prisoners are not being released. Not yet, anyways. President Ghani refuses to do it, and that was one of the justifications the Taliban used to go back to launching attacks. There won’t be much progress in this peace deal, or prisoner release, without the Afghan government taking part.
The drawing down to 8,600 troops can and most likely will happen without the Afghan government’s say so, to help Trump in November, but not the prisoner swap.
If you look at the agreement, in section A the US commits that it “will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600)” and “will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases.” But when you get to the prisoner swap in section C what the US is committing to is that it will “work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.”
It’s not even a guarantee that it will happen, but a promise to work on a plan for to happen, if everyone agrees.
The entire thing seems to be basically Trump agreeing to pull troops out of Afghanistan in return for the Taliban agreeing to sign a meaningless piece of paper so Trump can use it as a press release. And the Afghan government, such as it is, is standing on the side going "What The Fuck???!?!?".
Yeah, this seems to be the reason. This is EXACTLY the same shit as North Korea. It's about allowing Donnie to claim that he's done something no other President has been able to do, ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually DO anything. The Taliban (like KJU) will continue doing what they're doing, but Trump gets to claim a meaningless victory, in an election year, and that's all that matters to him.
I don't think it's a controversial take (on here at least) to wanting to stop the 'endless wars', but this is Trump trying to cut and run, under the pretense of victory. He's not doing any of the hard work to actually withdraw in a proper manner. He just hopes he can get out before it all goes to shit (hopefully beyond November) and then claim it's not his problem anymore. It's so completely 'on brand' for him.
It helps that neither he or his base give a fuck about anything but themselves. So what if the region fall into chaos? Not their problem.
Those prisoners are not being released. Not yet, anyways. President Ghani refuses to do it, and that was one of the justifications the Taliban used to go back to launching attacks. There won’t be much progress in this peace deal, or prisoner release, without the Afghan government taking part.
The drawing down to 8,600 troops can and most likely will happen without the Afghan government’s say so, to help Trump in November, but not the prisoner swap.
If you look at the agreement, in section A the US commits that it “will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600)” and “will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases.” But when you get to the prisoner swap in section C what the US is committing to is that it will “work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.”
It’s not even a guarantee that it will happen, but a promise to work on a plan for to happen, if everyone agrees.
The entire thing seems to be basically Trump agreeing to pull troops out of Afghanistan in return for the Taliban agreeing to sign a meaningless piece of paper so Trump can use it as a press release. And the Afghan government, such as it is, is standing on the side going "What The Fuck???!?!?".
That’s a little part of what they’re doing. Most government statements have been focused on Pakistan, which was doing its own gloating over the deal, and now the two are in yet another war of words.
"Do they [Afghan leaders] prioritize Afghanistan's interests, or do they give their own personal benefits more importance?” Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi asked journalists on March 1 in a jab at Kabul.
In a thinly veiled reference to the Afghan government, he warned U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of spoilers.
"We cannot be in denial about this. There were spoilers, there are spoilers," he said. "In Afghanistan and outside. So you will all have to keep a close eye on those spoilers."
On March 3, Qureshi appeared to criticize Afghan President Ashraf Ghani for saying his administration has made no commitment to free 5,000 Taliban prisoners.
"The U.S.-Taliban agreement says there will be an exchange of prisoners," he said. "President Ghani should ask the U.S. for an explanation of the agreement."
Kabul countered quickly and encouraged Islamabad to move toward good neighborliness. “Pakistan needs to take practical steps toward enhancing bilateral ties in various areas and refrain from making such irresponsible statements regarding the internal affairs of Afghanistan,” read an Afghan Foreign Ministry statement on March 3.
Kabul warned such statements could create an environment of distrust that will prevent the neighbors from developing a bilateral relationship. “Until such statements are avoided, taking effective steps toward consolidating bilateral relations will not be feasible,” the statement said.
Speaking to a gathering in the eastern city of Jalalabad on the same day, Ghani called on the Taliban to sever ties with Pakistan.
“When are you going to abandon Pakistan?” he asked. “If you want to talk to us about prisoners and want to have it as a precondition [before talks with the Afghan government], then we too have prerequisites.”
So a thought just occured to me about the Taliban; how stable is it's leadership?
I'm asking because if this is a less organized group with top down command structure as opposed to a coalition of warlords, it might not actually be possible to get a deal that sticks in any meaningful way.
So a thought just occured to me about the Taliban; how stable is it's leadership?
I'm asking because if this is a less organized group with top down command structure as opposed to a coalition of warlords, it might not actually be possible to get a deal that sticks in any meaningful way.
Their chain of command is stable enough that commanders who have done things the leadership doesn't like have been fired pretty quickly and replaced.
I know it came off really well in the debates back then, but Obama going after Romney for claiming that Russia was a belligerent international actor has aged like a fine milk.
I know it came off really well in the debates back then, but Obama going after Romney for claiming that Russia was a belligerent international actor has aged like a fine milk.
Or, more importantly, the idea of a "reset" of US-Russia relationships. The theme on a lot of things not great about the Obama admin is assuming good faith from people that, by large, have never deserved it. Ask Merrick Garland.
Before that actually. It was the protests before and after the 2012 that really soured things because Putin blamed them on the US and specifically Clinton. Although Putin comes back to power in part because of issues leading up to all that as well. The reset was actually fairly successful in the short term, especially after the last Russian invasion in South Ossetia had caused issues with the relationship. But then Putin gets upset with how some things are going after that and gets even more pissed off at the protests and starts turning the ship around and then Crimea basically shits all over everything even worse then the South Ossetia war did.
Wasn't Romney's whole thing about 'russia is the real enemy' that his response and plan was 'build more boats'? Like it wasn't even broke clock, it was like the hands came loose and always point at 6:30.
Wasn't Romney's whole thing about 'russia is the real enemy' that his response and plan was 'build more boats'? Like it wasn't even broke clock, it was like the hands came loose and always point at 6:30.
It doesn't really matter what Romney's "plan" was because openly and loudly shitting on someone as a party for pointing out that Russia is an adversary only to abruptly flip four years later isn't a good look. It comes off as disingenuous.
Also, our navy is what allows us to effectively control the global commons. So boats good.
Wasn't Romney's whole thing about 'russia is the real enemy' that his response and plan was 'build more boats'? Like it wasn't even broke clock, it was like the hands came loose and always point at 6:30.
It doesn't really matter what Romney's "plan" was because openly and loudly shitting on someone as a party for pointing out that Russia is an adversary only to abruptly flip four years later isn't a good look. It comes off as disingenuous.
Also, our navy is what allows us to effectively control the global commons. So boats good.
Blue-water boats, sure. Romney was intentionally misleading with numbers including all the brown-water swiftboats in Vietnam. As though they are no different from a full on Carrier. Both only count as one.
Wasn't Romney's whole thing about 'russia is the real enemy' that his response and plan was 'build more boats'? Like it wasn't even broke clock, it was like the hands came loose and always point at 6:30.
It doesn't really matter what Romney's "plan" was because openly and loudly shitting on someone as a party for pointing out that Russia is an adversary only to abruptly flip four years later isn't a good look. It comes off as disingenuous.
Also, our navy is what allows us to effectively control the global commons. So boats good.
Blue-water boats, sure. Romney was intentionally misleading with numbers including all the brown-water swiftboats in Vietnam. As though they are no different from a full on Carrier. Both only count as one.
that and Romney was complaining about the Obama admin decommissioning some...destroyers? That desperately needed to be, as they were already operating longer than they were supposed to? It has been too long before I looked at this issue.
The Russia issue and the "reduction" of the size of the US navy were two separate talking points.
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2020
Also, the threat Russia would later pose to the US was because their tactics and strategy were embraced by his party, so fuck him.
Posts
Though if we aren’t talking strictly military losses, Donnie has long since thrown Canada, UK, EU, and NATO under the buss for his Russian backers
MWO: Adamski
That kind of sounds exactly like Donnie himself- looks good on paper, but in reality is just a pile of bullshit. Doubling a cap we hadn't hit before sounds good, and that's all he needs with the imbeciles that follow him.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
The Taliban are a bunch of fundamentalists who want to control Afghanistan as an Islamic nation. Comparable to some extremist Christians in the US. Bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban or in fact Afghan (being from SA), and his protection by the Taliban was due to their belief in hospitality law. Without proof they refused to give up a guest. There is little reason to believe the Taliban knew of or assisted with the attacks, or in fact would have approved of them at all.
NSDFRand made the uncontroversial point that the Taliban do not have a history of international terrorism. You could say 9/11 originated in Afghanistan, but 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi Arabian and the other four were from the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian and also from a very wealthy family meaning he could just live anywhere he wanted. His residence in Afghanistan is irrelevant. He wasn't even caught in Afghanistan!
Reminds of Family Guy every time this comes up:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKPuxIKl7Lk
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
(US Forces in Afghanistan Spokesman)
I'd say I'm surprised, but that's like being surprised by the Sunrise.
Edit: Okay, how do you embed tweets?
Nvm, I did it right the first time, desktop just isn’t displaying them on chrome.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
US: Hey we got peace, we're excited to finally end this war.
Taliban: We... we didn't even talk about peace...?
US: Yeah, peace time! Thanks everyone, we're awesome. Time to go home!
Taliban: We're still gonna do our attacks, piss off.
US: What!? How dare they break our peace! *Airstrike*
Is this accurate?
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Don’t forget the part where the US cut GiROA out of the talks and Trump wasn’t even done with his victory lap when the Taliban attacked.
Edit: Oh yeah! Also don’t forget about Trump isn’t really pulling troops out, but just reducing them by a few thousand. I think there’s still gonna be 8000 troops still there after the “pullout”, if memory serves.
This was never planned to be anything more than a headline.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Taliban attacks on the government nor US defensive actions violate what was a pretty vague deal
No, both sides agreed to reduction of violence. The Taliban has not agreed to a complete cessation of violence as negotiations continue — and to be realistic about what a final peace process would look, is never going to agree to that.
There are many reasons for this, and one of them is practical. There are under-appreciated political costs and risks to the Taliban in ordering a nation wide halt to violence; they did it for a week, but they’re not going to devote their entire political organization to stopping attacks for the sake of on-going negotiations. They’ll talk and make concessions, but a total end isn’t going to happen while negotiations are still on-going. No while they’re talking to Obama, Trump, or any future American president.
(Mobile tweets to not embed.)
Don't forget the most prominent attempt to, Ukraine. Granted, didn't help that Obama and NATO let it go too far, but Trump was more than happy to "lay in the slipper" when he had the opportunity to.
Glad you put NATO up there. Could probably include Hong Kong on the list. And inevitably Taiwan, there's no way Trump is going to go to bat for them.
And that's not taking into account the internal populations that are systematically being harmed, like the Uyghurs and the Rohingya and the Indian Muslims, that the US of past years might have taken at least a diplomatic stand on.
Also it just blows my mind that we haven’t heard a peep from the right wing media on this. 5000 Taliban soldiers are going to be released from afghani government prisons, without the afghani governments consent or consultation. Trump going on about how the Taliban will fight international terrorists for us. No mention anywhere by any media figure about how many of these Taliban prisoners are likely responsible for US servicemen deaths.
Like I’m not necessarily against a process to leave, but it just feels like right wing media can turn off the faucet of outrage on a dime. It shocks me every time
The drawing down to 8,600 troops can and most likely will happen without the Afghan government’s say so, to help Trump in November, but not the prisoner swap.
If you look at the agreement, in section A the US commits that it “will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600)” and “will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases.” But when you get to the prisoner swap in section C what the US is committing to is that it will “work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.”
It’s not even a guarantee that it will happen, but a promise to work on a plan for to happen, if everyone agrees.
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
The entire thing seems to be basically Trump agreeing to pull troops out of Afghanistan in return for the Taliban agreeing to sign a meaningless piece of paper so Trump can use it as a press release. And the Afghan government, such as it is, is standing on the side going "What The Fuck???!?!?".
Yeah, this seems to be the reason. This is EXACTLY the same shit as North Korea. It's about allowing Donnie to claim that he's done something no other President has been able to do, ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually DO anything. The Taliban (like KJU) will continue doing what they're doing, but Trump gets to claim a meaningless victory, in an election year, and that's all that matters to him.
I don't think it's a controversial take (on here at least) to wanting to stop the 'endless wars', but this is Trump trying to cut and run, under the pretense of victory. He's not doing any of the hard work to actually withdraw in a proper manner. He just hopes he can get out before it all goes to shit (hopefully beyond November) and then claim it's not his problem anymore. It's so completely 'on brand' for him.
It’ll only last until the next mass casualty event dominates the news cycle, then Trump can blame Obama or some such horse shit.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It helps that neither he or his base give a fuck about anything but themselves. So what if the region fall into chaos? Not their problem.
That’s a little part of what they’re doing. Most government statements have been focused on Pakistan, which was doing its own gloating over the deal, and now the two are in yet another war of words.
https://gandhara.rferl.org/a/us-taliban-deal-rekindles-old-rivalry-between-afghanistan-and-pakistan/30470772.html
Related to that, Radio Lab has been doing a 6 part series on one of the prisoners who is still there and it's been fascinating .
I haven't listened to this week's yet, but I just listened to one of the behind the scenes things, and good lord.
I'm asking because if this is a less organized group with top down command structure as opposed to a coalition of warlords, it might not actually be possible to get a deal that sticks in any meaningful way.
Their chain of command is stable enough that commanders who have done things the leadership doesn't like have been fired pretty quickly and replaced.
Bellingcat is an open source intelligence/journalism outfit of note
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
Or, more importantly, the idea of a "reset" of US-Russia relationships. The theme on a lot of things not great about the Obama admin is assuming good faith from people that, by large, have never deserved it. Ask Merrick Garland.
The Russians took care of the Syrian chemicals neatly, helping President Obama out of a real jam.
Like anyone in power cares.
It doesn't really matter what Romney's "plan" was because openly and loudly shitting on someone as a party for pointing out that Russia is an adversary only to abruptly flip four years later isn't a good look. It comes off as disingenuous.
Also, our navy is what allows us to effectively control the global commons. So boats good.
Blue-water boats, sure. Romney was intentionally misleading with numbers including all the brown-water swiftboats in Vietnam. As though they are no different from a full on Carrier. Both only count as one.
that and Romney was complaining about the Obama admin decommissioning some...destroyers? That desperately needed to be, as they were already operating longer than they were supposed to? It has been too long before I looked at this issue.
The Russia issue and the "reduction" of the size of the US navy were two separate talking points.