While President Barack Obama again heralded his keeping his promise to pull out of Afghanistan, news accounts this week revealed that the Administration is again discussing the extension of U.S. troops in that country past 2014. The Administration is determined to stay in a country where U.S. citizens are increasingly attacked not only by the Taliban but Afghan troops. Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated inclinations toward the Taliban and harsh treatment of women. Then there was Karzai’s recent position that women are worth less than men — presumably even those American women keeping Karzai and his corrupt family and friends in power.
Just a week ago, Vice President Joe Biden said in his debate that U.S. troops were leaving Afghanistan by 2014: “We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we’re going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion.” While he said this, the Administration was preparing for negotiations to keep troops in the country.
Many of us have long opposed any troops in the country and Obama has failed to end that presence after three years despite polls showing that a majority oppose our continued presence in the country. In the meantime, Obama has spent hundreds of billions on these wars and we have continued to incur the deaths and wounding of our personnel.
Just last May, Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement that assured an ongoing U.S. commitment to Afghanistan through 2024 — the very troops that Karzai has called “the enemy.” Reports indicate that we want to keep roughly 25,000 American troops in Afghanistan past 2014. Even a fraction of that is too many for many citizens who fail to see why we must continue to drain ourselves of treasure and lives in that country’s civil war.
In the meantime, our British cousins have set a hardcore deadline for 2013 to leave the country.
Source: Foreign Policy
51 thoughts on “Report: Obama Administration To Negotiate To Prolong Presence of U.S. Troops In Afghanistan”
When I vote for the lesser, I take into consideratioon what I dislike and what he did wrong that is abhorrent to me but I also have to take into consideration policies that effect our basic lives and rights, such as women;s rights, fair pay, access to abortion, LGBT rights, etc. That makes the lesser look better to me then ‘merely’ the lesser.
lee, lots of people who believe that consistently voting for the lesser of two evils guarantees that evil will be rewarded and propagated will be voting for a third party candidate.
I understand the strategy of voting for Obama, but voting one’s conscience and refusing to condone acts of evil with that vote is a valuable, even necessary part of democracy.
Six not voting, even if your decision is based on the lesser of two evils, is a defacto vote for the other guy. Already we have 52& only voting (last time I heard. That made Bush’s “mandate slightly over 1/4th of the population. The more who fall out of voting at all the more whomever is elected becomes the president of a sall handful of people, say the rich; if youre Romney
Six, Daniel Ellsberg thinks otherwise, and he is a very very wise man.
Deciding a vote based on the lesser of two evils only leads to more evil.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/romney-military-adviser-tommy-franks-iraq Romney enlists general behind the Iraq debacle as key military advisor.
I agree that it is a shame….. No one with money wants anyone other than a puppy for President…..
Gee whiz another broken promise. What a surprise
Daniel Ellsberg said what needed to said so well, lee.
“It’s true that the differences between the major parties are not nearly as large as they and their candidates claim, let alone what we would want. It’s even fair to use Gore Vidal’s metaphor that they form two wings (“two right wings,” as some have put it) of a single party, the Property or Plutocracy Party, or as Justin Raimondo says, the War Party.
Still, the political reality is that there are two distinguishable wings, and one is reliably even worse than the other, currently much worse overall. To be in denial or to act in neglect of that reality serves only the possibly imminent, yet presently avoidable, victory of the worse.
The traditional third-party mantra, “There’s no significant difference between the major parties” amounts to saying: “The Republicans are no worse, overall.” And that’s absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended. It’s crazily divorced from present reality.” Daniel Ellsberg
Comments are closed.