http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...7cc_story.html
So the US and Afghanistan had agreed that they'd leave 8000-15000 troops in Afghanistan (after our withdrawl of combat troops by the end of 2014...currently I believe have about 55k troops there) a couple of weeks ago, but Hamid Karzai has since backtracked and made some unreasonable demands in our eyes and the deal may be in jeopardy. Admin has said the agreement needs to be signed by the end of this month or else the deal is off and we are withdrawing. Some say Karzai is just bluffing and he'll ultimately sign, but others are a little skeptical given his mercurial nature.
Should we stay in Afghanistan? It'll cost us about 4 billion dollars annually in military aid in addition to cost to station the troops there. I say our strategic interest in the country is limited to counterterrorism (not nation building...given the diverse tribal make up and history of the country, I believe long term stability will be extremely difficult and the ability of a small troop presence to affect outcome will be limited) and Obama tripping the number of troops there to degrade the Taliban was a mistake.
Al-qaeda has been significantly diminished in the country and the border-area and if we can sufficiently pursue our counterterrorism interests without a troop presence (through drones, intelligence, special ops, surveillance, +/-EIT, etc), I believe we should. The recently retired National Security Adviser Tom Donolin said he'd like to have troops stay in Afghanistan, but if it didn't work out, we could still pursue our interests without a presence. With a new post-9/11 focus on counterterorism as well as the effective counter-terrorism techniques we've developed, I believe al-qaeda does not have the ability to conduct a successful larger scale attack on us (smaller scale attacks like Boston bombing will always occur occasionally with or without al-qaeda) even with a troop withdrawal. Thus, I think a complete withdrawal is the best option.
Your thoughts?
So the US and Afghanistan had agreed that they'd leave 8000-15000 troops in Afghanistan (after our withdrawl of combat troops by the end of 2014...currently I believe have about 55k troops there) a couple of weeks ago, but Hamid Karzai has since backtracked and made some unreasonable demands in our eyes and the deal may be in jeopardy. Admin has said the agreement needs to be signed by the end of this month or else the deal is off and we are withdrawing. Some say Karzai is just bluffing and he'll ultimately sign, but others are a little skeptical given his mercurial nature.
Should we stay in Afghanistan? It'll cost us about 4 billion dollars annually in military aid in addition to cost to station the troops there. I say our strategic interest in the country is limited to counterterrorism (not nation building...given the diverse tribal make up and history of the country, I believe long term stability will be extremely difficult and the ability of a small troop presence to affect outcome will be limited) and Obama tripping the number of troops there to degrade the Taliban was a mistake.
Al-qaeda has been significantly diminished in the country and the border-area and if we can sufficiently pursue our counterterrorism interests without a troop presence (through drones, intelligence, special ops, surveillance, +/-EIT, etc), I believe we should. The recently retired National Security Adviser Tom Donolin said he'd like to have troops stay in Afghanistan, but if it didn't work out, we could still pursue our interests without a presence. With a new post-9/11 focus on counterterorism as well as the effective counter-terrorism techniques we've developed, I believe al-qaeda does not have the ability to conduct a successful larger scale attack on us (smaller scale attacks like Boston bombing will always occur occasionally with or without al-qaeda) even with a troop withdrawal. Thus, I think a complete withdrawal is the best option.
Your thoughts?