Thread: Obama: Afghanistan decision in 'coming weeks'

Obama Cuts Hot Food For Soldiers in Afghanistan
AUTHOR Bookworm - May 31, 2013 11:33am PST

Napoleon famously and correctly said “An army marches on its stomach.” An army that is not fed cannot fight. With this in mind, what is one to make of the fact that the Obama administration has cut a significant meal service to Marines serving in Afghanistan? The Obama administration is cutting food supplies as part of the troop draw-down in Afghanistan.

The Marines at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan are losing their “midnight ration” (or “midrats”) meal, a solid hot meal that feeds those who have just ended their noon-to-midnight shift and those who are beginning their midnight-to-noon shift. Not only does this meal fuel men who are burning up enormous amounts of energy conducting business in a combat zone that’s either too hot or too cold, and that’s always too dangerous, it’s an opportunity for Marines to get together once a day in a relaxed setting. The Pentagon has also ordered that the 24-hour sandwich service at Camp Leatherneck must also get cut. Marines will have to make do with MREs (“Meals Ready to Eat”).

The Pentagon justifies its decision by pointing to the massive draw down of troops, which will see all American forces out by 2014. No one can explain why withdrawing troops, which automatically decreases costs, requires the Pentagon to put remaining troops on short rations.

The Marines are keeping to discipline and have refused to speak on record about the change, which goes into effect on June 1. One Marine, however, wrote to his wife about the decision, and allowed her to share his email, anonymously, with NBC News:

This boils my skin. One of my entire shifts will go 6.5 hours without a meal. If we need to cut back on money I could come up with 100 other places. Instead, we will target the biggest contributor to morale. I must be losing my mind. What is our senior leadership thinking? I just got back from flying my ass off and in a few days, I will not have a meal to replenish me after being away for over 9 hours.

Nor is the vanishing midrat the only Obama administration casualty. The ultimate plan is to give those Marines still remaining at Camp Leatherneck only two decent hot meals a day, with the rest of their calories coming from the ubiquitous and distasteful MREs.

One can’t help but get the feeling that the Obama administration, which has always found distasteful the notion of an American military victory anywhere in the world, is doing its part to ensure that the Marines aren’t sufficiently fueled to risk America’s current non-victory status in Afghanistan before the pullout is completed.

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/0...n-afghanistan/

A humorous look at life in Camp Leatherneck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Xo3rTyJfClc

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...69947593_n.jpg

Military deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed under Obama's ROEs and COIN strategy. Our troops are fighting on two fronts http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/us-mil...yrocket-obama/

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...WO-FRONTED-WAR






70 percent of all casualties in Afghanistan happened during Obama's years as president.

But thanks for continuing to blame it all on Bush, folks! Nothing says "it's all my predecessor's fault" QUITE like doing a WORSE job!

I didn't join to fight, although I did some. I didn't join to kill, and I did some of that too. I joined to protect my nation, I did that every day I was in uniform and still do to this day.

Gary S Lieb : A soldiers job is not to die for their country, but to make the other guy die for his.

IN A BLOW TO GOLD STAR FAMILIES and INJURED VETERANS who fought in Afghanistan,
Karzai releases 65 TALIBAN prisoners despite American protest



http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secur...etainees-video

The Afghan government released 65 detainees today that US officials say are responsible for attacks on US and NATO troops. The release drew sharp criticism from US officials and further complicates already tense efforts to negotiate an extension to the US military mission in Afghanistan.

The men were released from the Parwan jail, previously known as the Bagram jail, outside of Kabul. The facility is a point of contention between the US – who says it has extensive evidence against the detainees – and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who “insists there is not enough evidence” against the detainees. The president has called the jail a “Taliban-making factory,” according to the BBC.

The government let free 65 of 88 Afghan detainees in the facility. The men were seen leaving the jail in small groups this morning, according to The New York Times.

The release is the latest of a series of acts by President Karzai that have inflamed tensions with the US government. Congress has threatened to withdraw the aid that Karzai’s government and the Afghan security forces depend on.

Until last year, Bagram was under the control of US and NATO forces, who then handed it over to Afghan authorities. US officials earlier this week warned Kabul that the detainees are likely to rejoin the Taliban and, rather than being set free, should be prosecuted in Afghan courts, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The US military today released a statement noting its “strong concern about the potential threats these detainees pose to coalition forces and Afghan security forces and civilians.”

“Detainees from this group of 65 are directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 US or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel or civilians,” the statement said.

The US Embassy in Kabul said the Afghan government would “bear responsibility” for the decision. It complained that it had requested a thorough review of each case. "Instead, the evidence against them was never seriously considered.”

An Afghan panel created to review the detainee cases found that there was not enough evidence against the prisoners and ordered their release, Abdul Shakor Dadras, a member of the panel, told the Times.

Earlier this week, congressional leaders in Washington warned Kabul that a prisoner release could jeopardize US aid:

In a congressional hearing Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), said he would introduce a resolution condemning the release of the detainees and would urge his fellow lawmakers to cut off all development assistance to Afghanistan until after the election.

"President Karzai, in my view, is single-handedly destroying this relationship" with Washington, Sen. Graham said.

Rep. Howard McKeon (R., Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the release would be in "direct contravention" of a U.S.-Afghan agreement on detentions.

"I am, frankly, appalled by the Karzai Government's complete lack of respect for our troops, men and women who are fighting to keep Afghanistan standing," he said in a statement.

The prisoner release comes at a time when US officials are already frustrated with Karzai’s refusal to sign a bilateral security agreement that would allow the US to maintain a small military force in Afghanistan for training and counterterrorism missions after the bulk of its troops withdraw in 2014.

Karzai stunned the US by refusing to sign the agreement, despite negotiating with US Secretary of State John Kerry last fall and getting approval from an Afghan council of elders. As a result, Obama administration officials are increasingly open to withdrawing all troops at the end of the year, the Times reports.

Increasingly vexed by Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s president, Mr. Obama is trying to figure out what form a residual force might take after the bulk of American troops leave by December and what would happen if no Americans stayed behind at all. The debate has rekindled some of the tensions within the administration that divided it in its early days.

With Mr. Karzai reinforcing Washington’s view of him as an erratic ally, skeptics of the administration’s Afghan strategy are increasingly open to withdrawing entirely at the end of 2014. Some in Mr. Obama’s civilian circle suspect that his generals may be trying to manipulate him with an all-or-nothing approach to a residual force. Military officials say they are trying to leave options open and are themselves more ambivalent than ever about staying.

The internal dynamics involved in the review, described by a variety of current and former White House, administration and military officials, are complicating what could be one of the most important decisions Mr. Obama makes this year. The president wants to avoid a repeat of what has happened in Iraq, which is again under siege, and yet he considers extricating the United States from Afghanistan a signature achievement for his legacy.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the US military, who originally wanted the agreement signed by the end of 2013, has revised its plans to allow the Obama administration to wait until after the Afghanistan presidential elections this spring.

The U.S. military has revised plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan to allow the White House to wait until President Hamid Karzai leaves office before completing a security pact and settling on a post-2014 U.S. troop presence, officials said.

The option for waiting reflects a growing belief in Washington that there is little chance of repairing relations with Mr. Karzai and getting him to sign the bilateral security agreement before elections scheduled for the spring.

"If he's not going to be part of the solution, we have to have a way to get past him," said a senior U.S. official. "It's a pragmatic recognition that clearly Karzai may not sign the BSA and that he doesn't represent the voice of the Afghan people."

Peter Tomsen, writing for Politico, noted that those who wonder what Karzai is thinking should note his political motivations.

And while he’s not running in the Afghan presidential campaign that began Monday, Feb. 3, he does seem to be maneuvering for future relevance, drawing on his period in office and on his tribal status as leader of the important Pashtun Popalzai tribe in southern Afghanistan. Karzai may see the predominantly Pashtun Taliban gaining strength after the U.S. withdrawal, reckoning that he has much to gain and little to lose by bashing America. And becoming a more vocal critic of the United States obfuscates the American support that lifted him into the presidency after 9/11.

All of the leading contenders to replace Karzai criticize his anti-American course. His former foreign ministers Abdullah Abdullah and Zalmay Rasoul; his former close advisor and finance minister Ashraf Ghani; and his older brother, Qayyum Karzai, have all declared that they would sign the troop deal with the United States. Each seeks to separate himself from the president, stressing that Afghanistan must maintain a strategic partnership with the West.

But Karzai’s unlikely to change direction. He is probably attempting to position himself as a future bridge between the Taliban and the next Afghan government. He may hope to be seen as an elder tribal leader and international statesman deserving respect and deference by the winning candidate, and by Afghan political, tribal, ethnic and religious leaders generally—including the Taliban. He might decide to tone his anti-Americanism down a notch now that the presidential campaign is underway and, constitutionally, he is a lame duck. And while the U.S.-led coalition should not count on it, Karzai might even deputize a cabinet minister to sign the troop agreement on his behalf before his successor takes office. But don’t expect him to keep quiet.

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...p&VID=25615538

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...p&VID=25615538

Since Karzai saw fit to release more than sixty of 85 Taliban prisoners, and said it was NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, there should be NO MILITARY PERSONNEL OF OURS there past the time it takes us to gather up all OUR STUFF including the the military hardware their ILLITERATE soldiers cannot be trusted with and BE GONE. NOW.

Our Soldiers in Afghanistan must fight a two-front war: http://bit.ly/1dYg6xD
Click photo to enlarge and please share.
PLEASE USE THIS WEBSITE FOR UP-TO-DATE CASUALTIES OF THIS WAR: http://icasualties.org/oef/

Pentagon: Insider threat in Afghanistan ‘as dangerous as it ever was’
By Jon Harper Stars and Stripes Published: February 14, 2014

WASHINGTON — The two Americans who were killed Wednesday by Afghan soldiers were members of the Special Forces, the Army announced Friday. Spc. John Pelham. 22, of Portland, Ore., and Sgt. First Class Roberto Skelt, 41, of York, Fla., were assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) based at Fort Bragg, N.C. Their battalion was deployed to Kapisa province.

Pelham and Skelt were part of a small team of ISAF advisers who were with their Afghan counterparts at the Tagab District Center when two individuals wearing Afghan National Army uniforms opened fire on them with machine guns. Pelham and Skelt were fatally wounded before the shooters were killed by coalition forces, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters.

The Associated Press reported that four other ISAF members were wounded.

The number of insider attacks against international forces in Afghanistan has declined significantly since 2012, when more than 60 foreign troops were killed and many more were injured by their Afghan counterparts. But the Defense Department believes the threat has not diminished since a number of new security measures were implemented to mitigate the problem. “It’s just as dangerous as it ever was,” Kirby said.

Kirby is not aware of any new force protection measures that have been put in place since Wednesday’s attack.

ISAF is conducting a joint investigation of the incident with the Afghan National Security Forces, Kirby said.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon...r-was-1.267778

Interesting historical fact of the day: what's in a picture?



First, here is a history lesson on Afghanistan. From 1933 until 1973, Afghanistan was ruled under a man named Mohammed Zahir Shah. While he was a devout Muslim, he had a Western education in France. His reign marked four decades of peace and stability. With the introduction of a constitution Afghanistan progressively developed into a modern democratic state with free elections and a parliament, as well as a massive push for women’s rights, universal suffrage, education, worker’s rights, and civil rights. So yes, Afghanistan was doing well in the 60’s as this photo suggests. However, the photo doesn’t give you context for what went wrong.

During this period in time, the Soviet Union had a strong influence in Afghanistan. They supported modernization and education in the Afghan state. The United States, not wanting to risk their hegemony in the region, clearly had a major problem with this. They were terrified of the spread of Communism and quickly developed a plan. Afghanistan would become the Cold War’s chessboard. In the late 80’s, the Saudis, Pakistanis, and the Americans brought in radical Islamists from around the world. They armed, trained, and directed them into a militant force, and they were called the mujahideen. They became the US’ main offense against the Soviets. It wasn’t to defend the Afghans against the Soviets who were ready to pull out, but to deliver as much harm against them imaginable. Carter wanted Afghanistan to be the Soviet’s “Vietnam”. And it was. When they finally retreated Afghanistan spun into chaos and a civil war ensued under the militant mujahideen warriors. Within this framework we saw the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and of course Osama bin Laden. All under the auspices of the United States security forces and American tax-payer monies. Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan was directly responsible for their rise. Oh, and then in what was most likely the greatest immoral injustice of the 21st century the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 only further driving the besieged nation further into turmoil.

What does this mean? The mujahideen, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda do not represent thousands of years of Afghan culture and Islam. They are a direct reaction to Western imperialism. The root cause for the disparity between the two pictures is foreign intervention. Not Islam, and certainly not Afghan people.

Second, here is a history on Iran. Before 1953, Iran was ruled under a democratically elected man called Mohammad Mosaddegh. Under his reign Iran saw a progressive movement of social and political reforms. During this time Britain tried to establish an oil company (British Petroleum) on Iranian soil, and promised to share profit and technology with the Iranian government. However the British, as usual, didn’t honor their agreement. They, and the United States, began to steal Iran’s oil. Prime Minister Mosaddegh would not stand for this and demanded the seizure of the oil fields and the ouster of the British. In response, the British and the United States overthrew him in a coup and installed the Shah who was a brutal tyrant and ruled the nation under an absolute monarchy. His security service, which amnesty international described as "the worst in the world" and "beyond belief" was trained by the CIA in torture techniques.

The women in this picture did live well, but that was because they were members of a very small minority and in the Shah’s social circle. Everyone else in Iran lived under harsh conditions. The economy was failing, education was abysmal, and the entire nation was rural and very religious.

Today, Iran’s health care is better. They have more political freedom. Education is improving. The economy is slightly better off, however that is quickly changing with the Western world’s sanctions against Iran in midst of their nuclear propaganda campaign at the behest of Israel.

What does this mean? Essentially, the Islamic Revolution had little to do with the rise of an Islamic state; it was the resistance of Western imperialism. Almost every social and political group was united in resisting the Shah, from the communists to the secularists to the Islamists. They demanded Iranian sovereignty and political freedoms. Is the current regime in Iran perfect? Absolutely not, and I’m passionately against it. But this picture is extremely distortive of the truth.

Unfortunately, we have gone full circle. Today, the United States is supporting terrorist cells in Iran in an attempt to oust the current Iranian regime. They want to establish another pro-Western government like the Shah and “try again” where they failed. They have been doing this for decades and it hasn’t been working well. That is why we have seen media hysteria against Iran, and supposed quest to achieve nuclear weapons. Iran is a peaceful nation, and always has been. They have never attacked another nation, and have absolutely no intention of attacking Israel or anyone else for that matter. The United States’ war against Iran is rooted solely to seek revenge for their failed foreign policy in the 70’s and to once again take control of their natural resources.

In conclusion, if you think you can understand decades of history in Iran and Afghanistan, or anywhere for that matter, by looking at a photograph or two, you have absolutely no right to engage in intellectual discussion or give your opinion on anything. Ever.

August 5, 2014

HAROLD J. GREENE
Schenectady, NEW YORK
55, MG, USA, assigned to Combined Security Transition Command, Afghanistan. Died of wounds sustained from enemy small-arms fire in a so-called green-on-blue attack when an Afghani in an Afghan Army uniform turned his weapon on coalition forces at the former Afghan National Defense University in Kabul, Afghanistan.




Amazing, how he can get on TV and make comments about a young hood and "bad boy," Treyvon Martin, but he cannot say a word about one of our generals being killed?

Or is it because due to HIS "rules of engagement," that we are the ONLY nation whose soldiers MUST CARRY UNLOADED WEAPONS in *COMBAT THEATER*?!!! NO BULLETS ALLOWED in weapons UNTIL one is fired upon!!

And people wonder why this president, and by proxy, our nation, is becoming the LAUGHING STOCK of the world?!!

Just LOOK for yourself at the number of DEAD AND WOUNDED soldiers under 6 years of O, compared to 8 years with the last president.

So, maybe it's NOT so amazing he hasn't said anything about our general being killed ... why, it might make HIS ALLIES in the Middle East think he sides with AMERICA and all the Kaffirs in it! Maybe that's why he couldn't say ONE KIND WORD when one of our best, hero Chris Kyle, was killed in cold blood by another retired warrior suffering with PTSD! Or how he could take off campaigning and fund raising the morning after one of our ambassadors and three others will killed in Benghazi! Food for thought ...