LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 25, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Colbert Slams PBS for Appeasing Koch Brothers

'Left, Right & Center': Obama Ends the War on Terror

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour

Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel’s Neoliberal Savagery

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * New York City’s Summers May Heat Up

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
A Call to Action
Act of Congress

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
The Yankee Years

The Yankee Years

By Joe Torre and Tom Verducci
$17.79

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Afghans Plan for Security Takeover By 2014

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 20, 2010
Afghanistan
Flickr / U.S. Army

A U.S. Army member patrols with Afghan soldiers in the village of Yawez in Wardak province last February.

It’s been a long while since Afghans have had anything resembling autonomy when it comes to protecting their own interests, not to mention their own people. Well, it’s going to be a while longer, too, but on Tuesday some progress was made in paving the way for local officials and forces to assume responsibility for their security, and for foreign troops to finally ship out.  —KA

Los Angeles Times:

“I remain determined that our Afghan national security forces will be responsible for all military and law enforcement operations throughout our country by 2014,” Karzai told the delegates, who included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and dozens of foreign ministers and other dignitaries.

All the major troop-contributing nations in the Afghan conflict were represented at the meeting. The endorsement of Karzai’s timeline was not binding, but it addressed a growing desire on the part of NATO allies to have some kind of pullback plan in place.

The Afghan leader had put forth the goal of a security handover by 2014 last November, as he was inaugurated for a second presidential term. Since then, though, the sense of urgency surrounding an exit strategy for the West has increased dramatically.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By SGater, July 21, 2010 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Hulk:

I agree to a degree, lol, remember before afghan was ‘invaded’ by the US and international armies the Taliban was in power they controlled the country so they could walk around and plan big attacks without fear of, well, anything but now they are hiding in fear fighting for their own lives in their own country so they cannot plan big attacks in ‘western’ countries and probably don’t have the resources to do so.

I think it would have been inevitable that another hit on the US or UK, France or Germany whoever it may have been, I don’t know for sure, obviously, but it may have been 1 year, 2 years or 20 years. Hopefully now the risk has been significantly reduced.

You say huge armies cannot stop individuals, true but the 9/11 attacks were done by a massive network of terrorist cells, huge armies can make them go defensive instead of looking to attack, that’s my point more.

Don’t get me started on Pakistan! I think they have as much to blame in all this (harbouring terrorists etc, I know its tough terrain in the mountains) but we are so afraid of the ‘nuclear problem’ to talk harshly to them…oh there I go….lol.

What if we found WMD’s or a nuclear armament program in operation in Iraq, would people be so quick to slag the governments about the war. I think not but you would say that was not point number 1 on the sheet to invade Iraq. Am I right?

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, July 21, 2010 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

To SGater:

I share your pessimism about pulling out.  But since the track record in Afghanistan shows the utter futility of continuing, getting out would at least clear the picture for a while. 

You ask what if more terror attacks occur?  And what if they don’t?  I believe it’s been proven adequately that huge armies CANNOT stop individual terrorists. 

The bombings continue in the so-called “stable” Iraq.  They will almost certainly continue when the US leaves. 

Iraq was an adventure that should never have been taken.  Afghanistan was at least (at the beginning) done smartly and with a smaller footprint.  Maybe going back to a tiny US presence would be a return to a more intelligent approach. 

It would at least encourage the “bugs” to come out of the woodwork (aka Pakistan).

Report this

By SGater, July 21, 2010 at 2:27 am Link to this comment

I know but you would be more angry at your government if more terrorist attacks too place, how ever big or small they were.

At least the attacks are in Afgan (at the moment) with people who are trained to deal with the attacks not in US & UK where civilians get targeted.

We should just all get on!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

The Afghans are like every other country America has graced with its presence, they want us to leave.

I want us to quit paying for overseas adventurism and spend our money in the U.S.

Report this

By SGater, July 20, 2010 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

I’m worried that when we pull out that the whole thing will start up again and we will have taken 10,000 steps back.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.