How will the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan affect U.S.-Pakistan relations?

[FaujHistorian]

and pakistan too

What? and how many units?

Sir mayra is waqat siraf ayak nukta hay aur who yay ibarat hay:

Let me state this as an assertion: Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

Aap say darkhast hay kay aap isay durast ya ghair-durust qarar dain.

Agar aap mayra khayal jaana chahtay hain to yah ghair-durust har -- aur maira khayal hay aap yeh kah rahay hain kay ya uper wali ibarat durust hay.

Want to check your post (#3) first?

 

[pakistani342]

What? and how many units?




Want to check your post (#3) first?

I'm sorry I don't follow.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I'm sorry I don't follow.

Go to page 1 and see what you wrote in your post (that is #3)

 

[Mitro]

F-16 block 52 and more is on your way from AF enjoy your freebies

What? and how many units?




Want to check your post (#3) first?

 

[pakistani342]

Go to page 1 and see what you wrote in your post (that is #3)

If you mean this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhm,

The federal government regularly bails out large companies (for example GM, Chrysler), cities, etc.

The Federal government also helps fund state programs when there is a state budget short fall -- I think the Federal government helps Medicaid -- the intricacies are complex but at a high level that is the case.

The Federal government also has programs for troubled citizens like
Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP).

Further even if the above was not true I would not want a single penny of my hard earned Tax dollars to go to Afghan programs -- I want every single of my hard earned pennies to go to my daughter's education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I have distilled into this assertion: Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

 

[FaujHistorian]

If you mean this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhm,

The federal government regularly bails out large companies (for example GM, Chrysler), cities, etc.

The Federal government also helps fund state programs when there is a state budget short fall -- I think the Federal government helps Medicaid -- the intricacies are complex but at a high level that is the case.

The Federal government also has programs for troubled citizens like
Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP).

Further even if the above was not true I would not want a single penny of my hard earned Tax dollars to go to Afghan programs -- I want every single of my hard earned pennies to go to my daughter's education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I have distilled into this assertion: Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

you left out the dollar figures.

Again!

F-16 block 52 and more is on your way from AF enjoy your freebies

There is never free lunch.

only paid breakfast

Yoda says

 

[pakistani342]

you left out the dollar figures.

Again!

I don't if you're deliberately throwing a canard ?

What do number have to do with the structure of the budgetary process.

Your argument seems to amount to:
Money saved from Afghanistan cannot be funged onto other priorities.

If that is not your argument then say so.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....What do number have to do with the structure of the budgetary process.
.

budget is collection of numbers.

Yoda says

 

[pakistani342]

budget is collection of numbers.

Yoda says

Water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen -- app mayra khyal hay iss say behtar kar saktay hain.

Dobara:

True or False:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Janab Bhag kyun rahain hain

 

[FaujHistorian]

A water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen -- app mayra khyal hay iss say behtar kar saktay hain.

Dobara:

True or False:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bhag kyun rahain hain

you started off with $4 billion for Afghanistan.

Right?

Show me

that if $4billion is not given to Afgh

then



1. It will reduce your taxes
2. $4 billion will be given to city x
3, if your congressman has confirmed sending that money to Chad


These questions should not be directed towards me

but to your representative

Why it is so hard to understand for you that a Pakistani living in Karachi cannot stop $4 billion to Afgh

Can you?

 

[pakistani342]

you started off with $4 billion for Afghanistan.

I think you are now flailing:

You have basically said (if I understood you correctly that, and I'm pretty sure I did) - that the US budgetary mechanism dees not allow for the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Money saved in Afghanistan can wind up back in my pocket or be directed to a local social programs.

Further when am I asking you to stop the money -- I am hoping my government -- the US government will not send another penny to Afghanistan and if they want to spend that money, spend it here in the US.

 

[Mitro]

you are right you guys paid more then what you are getting in return.

you left out the dollar figures.

Again!



There is never free lunch.

only paid breakfast

Yoda says

 

[ejaz007]

US military proposal seeks shorter Afghan stay

WASHINGTON: U.S. military leaders have presented the White House with a plan that would keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, but then start drawing the force down to nearly zero by the end of President Barack Obama's term, according to senior officials.

The request reflects a far shorter time frame for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan than commanders had previously envisaged after the current international mission ends this year. The new approach is intended to buy the U.S. military time to advise and train the Afghan army but still allow Mr. Obama to leave office saying he ended America's longest war, the officials said.

Military leaders told Mr. Obama that if he rejects the 10,000-troop option, then it would be best to withdraw nearly all military personnel at the end of this year because a smaller troop presence wouldn't offer adequate protection to U.S. personnel, said officials involved in the discussions, according to a report published in Wall Street Journal.

The Obama administration has said it wants an enduring presence in Afghanistan to support the Afghan army and to prevent any regrouping of Islamist militants that could once again threaten the U.S. from the country, officials said.

The debate over troop levels in Afghanistan has taken on new urgency in light of a resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq following the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from that country in 2011.

The Pentagon's approach, discussed in White House National Security Council meetings last week, encountered pointed questions from some NSC officials who asked what difference 10,000 U.S. troops would make on such a temporary basis, U.S. officials said.

Vice President Joe Biden has been a leading skeptic within the administration about keeping troops in Afghanistan to train and advise Afghan forces after 2014, officials said.

A senior administration official declined to characterize Mr. Biden's position on the new Pentagon proposal, saying only that he "has asked questions and listened carefully to presentations" about possible troop levels. The official said Mr. Biden would make his recommendation to Mr. Obama "at the appropriate time."

Mr. Biden has advocated deploying special operations forces to Afghanistan for counterterrorism missions, officials said.

Afghan officials in Washington didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on the new Pentagon proposal.

As an important boost to the request, the 10,000-troop proposal has the backing of intelligence agencies and the State Department. They have told the White House that their activities on the ground inside Afghanistan will depend on whether the Pentagon gets the troops it says it needs to secure bases where military advisers, spies and diplomats would do their work.

Senior U.S. officials called it a "binary" proposal, meaning the Pentagon wants one troop level or the other, not a midpoint that they said will be too small to protect deployments and support the goals of the mission.

Defense and intelligence officials who disagree with Mr. Biden's approach said any future special operations force in Afghanistan would be of limited utility without a robust intelligence network to track militants and guide "kill teams" to their targets.

"To have an intelligence network, you have to have a footprint, and to have a footprint, you have to have force protection," said one senior U.S. official involved in the discussions.

Currently, there are about 37,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and another 19,000 international forces. The U.S. is scheduled to draw down to 32,000 forces by the end of February.

The latest military proposal presents the Obama administration with a stark choice. White House NSC spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Mr. Obama hasn't made decisions about final troop numbers and declined to discuss the details of ongoing deliberations.

Top national security advisers to the president say they have been frustrated by Mr. Karzai's unwillingness to sign the bilateral security agreement. In recent months, the Afghan leader has added several new conditions to the accord, which U.S. officials have said they thought was completed.

"If we cannot conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement promptly, then we will initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan," Ms. Hayden said. "That is not a future we are seeking, and we do not believe that it is in Afghanistan's interests."

US military proposal seeks shorter Afghan stay - thenews.com.pk

 

[FaujHistorian]

you are right you guys paid more then what you are getting in return.

few cents here and there don't matter in billion dollar transaction.

What are your numbers if you think the deal was unfare.

let's hear it

 

[acid rain]

@FaujHistorian, what do you think about the topic of the thread?

There is a wide arc of possibilities, right from ally to hostile.