What's new

U.S. 'not winning' in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary tells Congress

Reminds me much of Vietnam. Actually quite a lot.

Though investing more on a lost cause might not make much sense to the naked eye, Afghanistan provides a much needed foothold for Uncle Sam in the region.

The momentum has been lost to effectively sell this idea to the American masses and the Senate but this idea remains a genuine option for America albeit with not much political gain at home.

Striking a balance will be quite critical here for the new administration. Lets see what happens. Pakistan is however in far better condition than in 2001 and pretty much prepared. Heck we even went with the Trump wall on our western border. Different ball game in the region with this 'multi polar' bubble which may not last long either.

Interesting indeed.
 
.
Same for Pakistan. You guys blaming Taliban attacking Pakistan from Afghan side.
We already passed the bloody years . now we are working on border issue and trying to seal the Afghan border :) . let america face the collapse of puppet afghan government.
 
.
If US is considering an exit strategy,that must not be without drawing Talibans on Table because if they will leave without breaking Taliban,these groups would have a real moral boost and increase in popular support.

Well those two seem to be the only problems:

1) that a retreat from Afghanistan may embolden extremist groups the world over and
2) it will undermine US credibility when the US seems to be in relative decline and other powers such as China are ascendent.

Otherwise the US could pack up and come home -- Afghanistan by itself doesn't really pose a threat to the US homeland of vital interests.

So the question is what cost is the US taxpayer willing to bear interns of his blood and treasure -- my personal lean is still towards that we shouldn't spend a cent.

US security and order in the world, like every other country, is tied to how many US citizens we can provide a college education, scientific grants we can give to our business and universities, and the like.

It is tragic if the Afghans want to kill each other and live in the seventh century -- but at some point this is an Afghan problem not ours.
 
.
Well those two seem to be the only problems:

1) that a retreat from Afghanistan may embolden extremist groups the world over and
2) it will undermine US credibility when the US seems to be in relative decline and other powers such as China are ascendent.

Otherwise the US could pack up and come home -- Afghanistan by itself doesn't really pose a threat to the US homeland of vital interests.

So the question is what cost is the US taxpayer willing to bear interns of his blood and treasure -- my personal lean is still towards that we shouldn't spend a cent.

US security and order in the world, like every other country, is tied to how many US citizens we can provide a college education, scientific grants we can give to our business and universities, and the like.

It is tragic if the Afghans want to kill each other and live in the seventh century -- but at some point this is an Afghan problem not ours.

Totally agreed.

Middle America needs working on. The miners are roughing it for the past years if not decades. The whole infrastructure needs to be modernized. The opportunities are endless if Americans just look towards America for their share.

Everything you have said is correct but i would politely ask you to take that reference to the 7th century out. Afghanistan has been like this since the giant Turtle leaped out of space and defecated Earth through its nostrils.


 
.
Well those two seem to be the only problems:

1) that a retreat from Afghanistan may embolden extremist groups the world over and
2) it will undermine US credibility when the US seems to be in relative decline and other powers such as China are ascendent.

Otherwise the US could pack up and come home -- Afghanistan by itself doesn't really pose a threat to the US homeland of vital interests.

So the question is what cost is the US taxpayer willing to bear interns of his blood and treasure -- my personal lean is still towards that we shouldn't spend a cent.

US security and order in the world, like every other country, is tied to how many US citizens we can provide a college education, scientific grants we can give to our business and universities, and the like.

It is tragic if the Afghans want to kill each other and live in the seventh century -- but at some point this is an Afghan problem not ours.
I agree with you,but if things would really Jump back to 1980 and world is divided again among two blocks,then countries hostile to US would like her to stay and take severe drainage of resources.
 
. .
He was suppose to tell it before the invasion.
US policy is to make Afghanistan iraq before leaving or turn it into Vietnam nothing more these bloody American want.
Pakistan china Russia need to eliminate the ISIS before it takes roots.
Any how according to someone Pashtuns are enough to fight this israel son.
 
.
So much for a Super Power Army:super:
Bro,

Don't be stupid; US army is # 1 in the world without an iota of doubt.

They don't have any issue in achieving 'battlefield successes' but insurgency recurs one way or other in Afghanistan from time-to-time. This country is arguably the greatest breeding ground of terrorists and militancy in the world.

Question is should US leave Afghan government to its fate? It wasn't easy to establish and all those sacrifices will be in vain if it is abandoned.

Reminds me much of Vietnam. Actually quite a lot.

Though investing more on a lost cause might not make much sense to the naked eye, Afghanistan provides a much needed foothold for Uncle Sam in the region.

The momentum has been lost to effectively sell this idea to the American masses and the Senate but this idea remains a genuine option for America albeit with not much political gain at home.

Striking a balance will be quite critical here for the new administration. Lets see what happens. Pakistan is however in far better condition than in 2001 and pretty much prepared. Heck we even went with the Trump wall on our western border. Different ball game in the region with this 'multi polar' bubble which may not last long either.

Interesting indeed.
Afghan War is next to nothing in comparison to Vietnam War in terms of brutality and challenges confronting US army in the region.

Vietcong was a very powerful and well-organized resistance front and they largely confonted US army in regions where its conventional superiority was nullified. However, US army is a different beast now.

Anyways, US needs a new strategy for Afghanistan. They should start with exterminating those settlements that have a long history of supporting Taliban groups but then human rights organizations will cry foul.
 
Last edited:
.
Don't be stupid; US army is # 1 in the world without an iota of doubt.

They don't have any issue in achieving 'battlefield successes' but insurgency recurs one way or other in Afghanistan from time-to-time. This country is arguably the greatest breeding ground of terrorists and militancy in the world.

Question is should US leave Afghan government to its fate? It wasn't easy to establish and all those sacrifices will be in vain if it is abandoned.
They,re cowards! only go after the weak. Think about china or russia then I,ll see if it really is a supa powa.
 
.
They,re cowards! only go after the weak. Think about china or russia then I,ll see if it really is a supa powa.
We are talking about US here, not India.

Russia and China are safe from aggression because they can strike US mainland with a large number of nuclear warheads and this capability acts as a deterrent but this might change in the future since US have developed the capability to intercept ICBM in midcourse phase of its flight and this capability will only grow in coming years. In a conventional military engagement, neither stands a chance against the US at present; disparity is too vast.

US have fought wars with great powers of different era such as British Empire, Spanish Empire, Germany (Nazi), Japan (Imperial) and USSR. US have also fought a war with China in Korean peninsula.

Not long ago, US destroyed a large number of Syrian military assets stationed within and near Shayrat military base right under the nose of Russian defenses and Russia could do nothing about it. Additional reports of aggression against Syrian military assets are emerging in spite of Russian warnings: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/us-syria-airstrikes-russia/index.html

Only a superpower can show blatant disregard of Russian warnings in a conflict zone and continue to have its way there without fear of retribution. Only a superpower can impose heavy sanctions on Russia and damage its economy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timdai...-russia-causing-angst-for-putin/#3d2f16ec39e5
 
Last edited:
.
Pentagon Chief: US 'Not Winning' in Afghanistan
In-Depth Coverage
By Carla Babb June 13, 2017

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told lawmakers Tuesday that the United States is not gaining in the fight to stabilize Afghanistan and vowed to present a strategy to Congress "by mid-July."

"We are not winning in Afghanistan right now, and we will correct this as soon possible," Mattis told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mattis acknowledged that the Trump administration was currently in a "strategy-free time" concerning Afghanistan, where American troops have fought for 16 years.

The defense secretary called on Congress to provide the Department of Defense with a budget, "not a continuing resolution," that is "passed on time," in order to push the U.S. military through readiness shortfalls while maintaining a support role in two wars.

Republican Senator John McCain, the chair of the committee, agreed that Congress needs to pass a budget but said lawmakers also needed to see an Afghanistan plan from the Pentagon on how to move forward.

"It makes it hard for us to support you when we don't have a strategy," McCain said.

The Arizona senator noted the last administration's plan in Afghanistan was simply "don't lose," which McCain said has not worked.

'Change in approach'
Secretary Mattis equated "winning" in Afghanistan with the Afghan government's ability to handle the enemy's level of violence, which he said will require a "residual force" of U.S. and allied forces to train Afghan troops and maintain high-end capabilities.

"It's going to take a change in approach," Mattis said.

But he said the United States cannot quit on Afghanistan because problems that threaten the U.S. and its economy arise out of "ungoverned spaces."

On Saturday, a uniformed member of the Afghan Special Forces turned his gun on U.S. military personnel, killing three American soldiers and wounding one other.

The U.S. Defense Department said 25-year-old Sgt. Eric M. Houck, 29-year-old Sgt. William M. Bays and 22-year-old Corporal Dillon C. Baldridge of the Army's 101st Airborne Division were killed during the attack in the eastern Afghan province of Nangarhar.

Senator McCain highlighted the attack on Tuesday. He said that Congress and the Department of Defense should not ask the families of service members to "sacrifice any further" without an Afghanistan strategy in place.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...613-voa01.htm?_m=3n.002a.2038.nz0ao0axfl.1vib
 
.
Anyways, US needs a new strategy for Afghanistan. They should start with exterminating those settlements that have a long history of supporting Taliban groups but then human rights organizations will cry foul.
Soviets tried that strategy by bombing settlement without discrimination between militaryand non-military, by destroying centuries old irrigation system and many more things, but failed, Afghan terrain is suited for Guerrilla warfare and Defenders.
 
.
They nor win nor can.
But they create a virus for the neighbours of Afghanistan.i feel shocked when i saw this documentary.KGB have to jump out as soon as possible.its all the cia and raw mossad input in Afghanistan.just requesting to all pakis and Russian to watch this video.


 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom