You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Karzai demands timeline for departure of foreign troops
2008-11-26
President Hamid Karzai demanded at a meeting with a UN Security Council team Tuesday that the international community set a "timeline" for ending military intervention in Afghanistan, his office said. Karzai told a delegation from the Security Council that his country needed to know how long the US-led "war on terror" was going to be fought in Afghanistan.
Posted by:Fred

#13  Bring our forces out now. Next time, deal with it from the air.

I do not believe that the new administration will support them, and we'll end up with casualties for no reason.

GolfBravoUSMC's point is well made and should be carfully considered.

Posted by: SR-71   2008-11-26 18:53  

#12  The Battle of Kabul and the retreat to Gandamak
War: First Afghan War

Date: January 1842.

Place: Central Afghanistan.

Combatants: British and Indians of the Bengal Army and the army of Shah Shuja against Afghans and Ghilzai tribesmen..



Generals: General Elphinstone against the Ameers of Kabul, particularly Akbar Khan, and the Ghilzai tribal chiefs.

Size of the armies: 4,500 British and Indian troops against an indeterminate number of Ghilzai tribesmen, possibly as many as 30,000.

Uniforms, arms and equipment:
The British infantry, wearing cut away red jackets, white trousers and shako hats, were armed with the old Brown Bess musket and bayonet. The Indian infantry were similarly armed and uniformed.

The Ghilzai tribesmen carried swords and jezail, long barrelled muskets.
Winner: The British and Indian force was wiped out other than a small number of prisoners and one survivor.

MORE HERE
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-11-26 17:30  

#11  Karzai is a drug dealer. Nothing more and nothing less. A-stan is not sustainable. This is a regional problem that combines A-Stan, FATA, Pakistan, Kashmir and India. In the long run, I think only India is going to be able to deal with it.

Geography plays a big role in why this area is going to remain a goat-bugger's paradise for years to come. The terrain is simply not conducive to the formation of a national identity since it breaks the area into isolated regions/tribal areas.

We are wasting $$ and lives in this dump. I agree with Verlaine that our objectives there need to be very low as that will enable us to perform the appropriate diplo-kabuki to say we are leaving under our own terms.

Those terms need to be made very clear to all players. Should some islamo-nut from there decide he wants to kill Americans, and makes good on that desire, then our airforce will return and flatten several locations. Screw nation building in a trbal backwater.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-11-26 13:15  

#10  Tell 'em if they hand over bin Laden and Zawahiri we'll leave.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2008-11-26 11:56  

#9  How about partition?

Give the Taliban a few provinces, then station US forces in the provinces that don't want the Taliban.



Posted by: mhw   2008-11-26 09:21  

#8  The Taliban are in some ways analagous to the ex-Baath Sunni in Iraq; they have a history of being the 'legitimate' government, they have a substantial, dedicated, and to a degree desperate following, they know how to be ruthless. Like the Baath though, they are not monolithic - I suspect there is hope that there is a less-dedicated/radical subset that can be pulled off. No matter how much we don't like the idea, it is probably not possible to create stable A'stan without involving (or killing) them. (The story with the Shia relative to Mookie and his gang is not all that different either.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-11-26 09:06  

#7  I'm sick of this fucking Taliban appeaser. Has he ever said that the Taliban are enemies of the Afghan state who must be defeated? That's not a 'War on Terror', you prick, it's a war to stop these fanatics hanging you from a tree.
Posted by: Apostate   2008-11-26 08:16  

#6  Hamid's brother Ahmad Wali Karzai needs to have an accident. The sooner, the better.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-11-26 07:33  

#5  Get out now. Let them know that when we come back, it will be our mean brothers in our uniform.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-11-26 07:25  

#4  Gotta say your idea has merit, OldSpook.

I've always thought that aiming relatively low in Afghanistan was prudent. Iraq's quite a different place, its importance and location are different. In Afghanistan, I've defined "victory" as just barely keeping the lid on, at minimal cost. Admittedly there are two flaws with this approach: surrendering the initiative to some extent, and no-end-in-sight.

But I think it's possible both problems can be finessed. Patience, quiet aggression (esp. against hardboyz seeking sanctuary next door), and careful expectations management. I think the fever will pass (organized global terror jihadism), if we soldier on long enough, and make sure defeat is the only result anyone ever sees at the end of the jihadi road.
Posted by: Verlaine   2008-11-26 02:38  

#3  One other consideration: if we leave, and have to come back, we will NOT be comiong back to rebuild or stay, we will just fly over and destroy.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-11-26 01:22  

#2  He wants to know when to buy his plane tickets and transfer the opium money to Swiss accounts.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-11-26 01:21  

#1  how about "today", dickhead?
Posted by: Frank G   2008-11-26 00:27  

00:00