# Exiting Afghanistan



## AWP (Aug 4, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/afghanistan-eyeing-exits-062357371.html

A couple of things jumped out at me while reading this:

- Marauder06 It only took 3-4 years to recognize the HQN as the prime threat? Better late than never I suppose...

- "withdrawing most U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014" I am amazed at the number of people back home who believe that we're all done in 2014. Unless there is an epic shift in policy like that in Iraq, we're going to be here for awhile.



> If history is any judge, however, the generals may not get their wish for a pause in troop withdrawals. The White House is reportedly considering a plan backed by National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon to pull 10,000 more troops out by the end of December, for instance, and then 10,000 to 20,000 more by next June.


 
- Generals getting their way: The article doesn't mention the first instances of commanders not getting the troops they asked for. Tora Bora in '01 and the Iraq invasion where Rumsfeld chopped Franks and Co. off at the knees in their force requirements. A GFC getting his way would be astonishing, but...

- Donilon is a moron, a career lawyer and former lobbyist for Fannie Mae. Remember how I said administrations recycle from previous party administrations? He was the Secretary of State Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration and helped negotiate the Bosnian peace agreement. The likelihood of the generals' opinions counting for much is nil.



> NATO planners are proposing that the Afghan Security Forces be reduced from 352,000 to 230,000 after 2015, as a way to save $2 billion a year in international funding.


 
- Are you kidding me? We're going to trim the number of security forces at every level after we throw up our deuces and leave? Afghan Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 4, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/afghanistan-eyeing-exits-062357371.html
> 
> A couple of things jumped out at me while reading this:
> 
> ...


 
See?  If everyone would listen to me, everyone would be better off ;)

Yeah, better late than never.  Of course, as much as I hate HQN and wish nothing but very, very bad things for them, they are but a symptom of the disease that is Pakistan.  Without state support from Pakistan, HQN and most of those other groups dry up and blow away.


----------



## AWP (Aug 4, 2012)

Pakistan supports terrorists? But I thought you were either "with us or against us?" Surely you are mistaken, sir.


----------



## HOLLiS (Aug 4, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Pakistan supports terrorists? But I thought you were either "with us or against us?" Surely you are mistaken, sir.


 

Definitely,  some thing is lost in the translation when it comes to Pakistan.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 4, 2012)

HOLLiS said:


> Definitely, some thing is lost in the translation when it comes to Pakistan.


 
Chopstick has a phrase she likes to use with regard to that topic, that captures the sentiment of many.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 4, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Pakistan supports terrorists? But I thought you were either "with us or against us?" Surely you are mistaken, sir.


 
I think what they meant was "you're with us *and* against us."


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 4, 2012)

The budget will force a troop withdrawal making this (again) a SOF war.  2016 Presidential Campaign will see the Democrat Candidate promising a total withdrawal.

Bosnia took how long?
Kosovo?
Iraq is the only short war we've had for awhile.


----------



## AWP (Aug 4, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Chopstick has a phrase she likes to use with regard to that topic, that captures the sentiment of many.


 
She stole that from me as I recall, but she's a witch so we shouldn't be too surprised. She steals souls, what's a phrase or two?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 4, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> She stole that from me as I recall, but she's a witch so we shouldn't be too surprised. She steals souls, what's a phrase or two?


"Sorry, I am into dudes"

That phrase?


----------



## AWP (Aug 4, 2012)

Someone's still mad about my "too many field grades" comment.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 4, 2012)

So yeah about this whole exit thing...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/04/world/asia/afghanistan-ministers-sacked/index.html


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 4, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> So yeah about this whole exit thing...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/04/world/asia/afghanistan-ministers-sacked/index.html


 
Good article.

I found this statement to be ironic:



> The Pakistani military said the country's troops *only engage militants where they attack*.


 
100% true.  They do NOT engage them where they train, recruit, rest, plan, hold Americans hostage, or have their headquarters, i.e., western Pakistan.  At least, they don't engage them in any meaningful fashion.


----------



## Brill (Aug 4, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> So yeah about this whole exit thing...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/04/world/asia/afghanistan-ministers-sacked/index.html


 
Here's a pic of Gen Wardak:


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 5, 2012)

Judging by the size of his head/neck, he obviously eats at chick-fil-a uncontrollably like all their patrons.


----------



## pardus (Aug 5, 2012)

I think we just asked the Taliban to become either a part of or the entire govt of Afghanistan once we "leave". Then again I think we've already done that right?


_NATO planners are proposing that the Afghan Security Forces be reduced from 352,000 to 230,000 after 2015, as a way to save $2 billion a year in international funding._

Anyone want to take bets on who will last longer, the post Soviet Afghan govt or the current one?


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 5, 2012)

I think it's going to break apart into "Civil War" between warlords.


----------



## AWP (Aug 5, 2012)

I typed up a detailed post to support the next paragraph, but the level of detail to support it will more or less "out" me and what I do so I deleted it. If I know you and you want to read it, PM me.

This topic came up at breakfast this morning. If we leave the Afghan gov't as we know it wouldn't last a year. I genuinely believe that on 01JAN2015 we will still have about 20k servicemembers on the ground here and that's on top of thousands of contractors to support the mission. If not? Whoever wins the Afghan presidential election next year won't last unless he's Taliban or Haqqani. I think whoever wins next year will determine how the country shakes out.

There is an enormous amount of contruction occuring at Shindand and Bagram and with it comes enormous amounts of money and personnel. A majority of the infrastructure outside of our bases is paid for and maintained by either NATO or the US; the Afghans are incapable of assuming either role.

If we pull out you'll be able to hear the collapse in North America. The only good news is that the civil war won't have SCUDs and thousands of tanks.

That's how I see it ending: we stay or the country implodes. Whether we should stay or not is another topic, but this country is simply incapable of functioning without us and our aid. They will party like it's 1992 all over again and those of you with children in diapers? They'll have a good chance to be the second generation of Americans to fight here.

I know I'm usually Debbie Downer the pessimist so you can believe my comments or not, but the reality as I see it is that we stay or this becomes HQN or Taliban. If we want a reasonably pro-Western or even apathetic gov't in place, we will have to stay for another decade or so.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 5, 2012)

While I value the input of the posts on this thread on all the points made above I think that, after gorging ourselves uncontrollably yet again at Chik-fil-A in support of First Amendment rights and Freedom of Speech for all,  at the end of the day the only thing you can say about this issue is "FUCK PAKISTAN" ...and the shirt they rode in on.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> If we want a reasonably pro-Western or even apathetic gov't in place, we will have to stay for another decade or so and occupy the FATA in Pakistan.


 
You left off a few words from your thought so I fixed it for you. ;)


----------



## AWP (Aug 5, 2012)

lindy said:


> You left off a few words from your thought so I fixed it for you. ;)


 
Thank you and you are correct.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 5, 2012)

You wan't an exit strategy.  Pull everyone out then nuke the entire fucking place especially a little shit hole called Do Abe and let the radiation drift over into Pakistan.


----------



## Poetic_Mind (Aug 13, 2012)

Mac_NZ said:


> You wan't an exit strategy. Pull everyone out then nuke the entire fucking place especially a little shit hole called Do Abe and let the radiation drift over into Pakistan.


 
To add to this, pull out, take away support from Pakistan, throw it behind India and encourage India to nuke Pakistan and be done with it(no need to waste our own nukes). Maybe some of the fallout will drift into Afghanistan and do harm to them as well.


----------



## NeverSayDie (Aug 13, 2012)

Exactly what are pakistans nuclear capabilities? And what kind of delivery systems do the have available?


----------



## AWP (Aug 13, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> Exactly what are pakistans nuclear capabilities? And what kind of delivery systems do the have available?


 
Google Pakistan's Nuclear Capability and numerous non-Wikipedia articles will turn up.


----------

