Afghanistan pullout – USA Gov Policy

Deeply disturbing news comes from a recent Congressional hearing on Afghanistan.

Unlike the contentious political skirmishes that surrounded the Iraq war and U.S. involvement in Libya, America’s military action against the Taliban, which has now become the nation’s longest fight, were widely supported. Clearly, that organization’s involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon made the necessity for a response beyond question.

However, in a repeat of questionable political dictates from the Vietnam era, U.S. and allied forces did not engage in full scale warfare designed to bring about absolute victory. The enemy was allowed to take haven across national borders, and rules of engagement designed more for public opinion and legal scholars took precedence over actually defeating the foe.

In accordance with President Obama’s drive to end U.S. combat operations and withdraw most troops, similar to his policy in Iraq which allowed ISIS to become a major regional power, Americans are handing off combat duties to Afghan forces. Unfortunately, they do not seem ready or capable of handling the responsibility.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) Chair of the House Armed Service Submcommittee on Oversight and investigations, stated “In reading the recent Congressional reports submitted by our witnesses, and listening to testimony from General Campbell, the subcommittee understands that the Afghan security forces are still in their nascent stages of becoming a professionalized, self-sustaining, and capable institution. But, there are still various shortfalls and insufficient capabilities in important functions hindering these goals.

“The Afghan forces do not have enough airplanes or helicopters, especially those capable of providing close-air support. While there clearly has been improvement, the ability to collect and disseminate ample intelligence is lacking, as is the ability to maintain and account for equipment. Even the ‘bread and butter’ administrative issues, such as pay, leave, and medical services for Afghan forces need attention…these challenges are compounded by the fact that 70 percent of the problems facing Afghan Security forces result from poor senior leadership within the Afghan Ministries of Defense and the Interior.
Mostly it is due to the psychological reasons and set the stage for levitra generika an event of impotence. This is viagra line a direct result of the wellbeing and certification of treatment. Ajanta pharmacy cheapest viagra price observed these reasons and worked out on it. This step must not be tadalafil professional avoided and the pills should be mixed up with pennies enhancement exercise for a strong solution.
“The Taliban are emboldened, the Haqqani Network continues to sponsor terrorist attacks, and there is a growing Islamic State presence in Afghanistan…

“I am concerned that the president’s current budget request for aiding the Afghan forces is $200 million less than last year’s amount, and the Administration plans to withdrawal U.S. forces down to 5,500 beginning as soon as April of this year. We must not prematurely reduce our commitment to the people of Afghanistan. All one needs to do is look at the result of premature withdrawal in Iraq to determine what will happen if we repeat near history and prematurely leave Afghanistan.”

As noted in a Stratfor review, “…the Taliban’s 15-year insurgency is escalating. The militant group now controls more territory than at any time since the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. Worse still, the Taliban’s resolve to continue waging war remains undiminished…Army Gen. John Campbell, the outgoing commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, commented that Afghanistan has reached an inflection point, warning that 2016 could be even worse than 2015 if the United States fails to prosecute a consistent and effective strategy. Campbell also urged Congress to extend its annual $4.1 billion aid package to Afghanistan until at least 2020.”

Quoting Taliban sources, Longwar Journal notes that the organization as saying embraced this death and destruction for the sake of some silly ministerial posts or a share of the power. ‘This objective’ mentioned in the above quote is the re-establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban’s official name of its government. The Taliban has insisted from the very beginning that it will settle for nothing less than regaining full power.”

Over objections based both on practical and moral grounds, the Obama Administration opened discussions with the Taliban in 2011. Since then, Taliban forces have become more brazen and effective.

The Constitution gives Congress a considerable role, through funding and treaty approval, in military and foreign affairs. It has also has been an area in which the citizenry and the press have, through vigorous comments, demonstrations and electoral decisions, played a substantial part.

Uniquely, however, throughout the course of the Obama presidency, the influence of Congress and the public has been comparatively less considerable. Part of this has been due to the exceptional support this White House has received from the media, limiting the public’s exposure to the controversial nature and unwanted results of his decisions. Additionally, Mr. Obama’s tactic of labelling new treaties as “agreements” or other terms has been successfully employed to reduce the Senate’s role.

Throughout his tenure in office, Mr. Obama has combined reduced military spending with lesser cooperation with traditional allies and greater concessions to adversaries. He has given greater priority to United Nations decision making, as well as concerns about potential global warming over more immediate issues such as national security.

There have been dramatically undesirable results from the President’s policies, including the failed “reset” with Russia, China’s continuing extensive cyberespionage, unfair trade tactics, and outright armed aggression, and, of course, the series of mistakes which strengthened international terrorism to an unprecedented degree. It appears that a repeat of his mistake in Iraq may lead to the return of the Taliban and a new role for other terrorist forces in Afghanistan.

However, you must remember that these drugs cannot be taken by women, but also by tadalafil 5mg online children too. Psychologists and Psychiatrists Proven to have great success in child anxiety cure are buying viagra in italy http://respitecaresa.org/event/efmp-parents-night-out/ trained and professional child psychologists and psychiatrists. Other on line levitra respitecaresa.org ingredients include microcrystalline cellulose, calcium hydrogen phosphate (anhydrous), croscarmellose sodium, magnesium stearate, hypromellose, titanium dioxide (Ci77891), iron oxide yellow (Ci77492), iron oxide red (Ci77491). One can measured cardiac health, diabetes, neurological concerns, hormonal destabilization, over use cialis pills free of medication, smoking, etc. There is much debate on whether the U.S. should have eliminated the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. However, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama’s premature removal of U.S. forces following the conflict created a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to grow into a significant regional power. That mistake may be repeated in Afghanistan.

It has been approximately a year since the U.S. and its NATO allies have changed their mission from direct confrontation with Afghanistan Islamic extremist to a supporting role for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF.) The President had previously announced a departure date for U.S. forces from Afghanistan, but later amended his plans, in light of the disastrous results of the Iraqi pullout, to allow some continuation of a limited role.

According to a Defense Department Report “Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” “U.S. forces in Afghanistan continue to conduct two narrow, well-defined, and complementary missions: training, advising, and assisting the ANDSF and supporting counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda and its associates. In order to preserve hard-fought gains and help the ANDSF continue to develop and to provide stability and security in Afghanistan, on October 15, 2015, President Obama announced that U.S. forces will maintain their current posture of 9,800 military personnel through most of 2016. By the end of 2016, rather than draw down to a Kabul-only U.S. military presence as previously envisioned, the United States will maintain 5,500 military personnel in Kabul and Bagram, in addition to a limited presence in the east and south of Afghanistan. This decision provides U.S. forces the access and the reach required to implement these two missions effectively in the next year and reflects the U.S. government’s enduring commitment to Afghanistan and its security forces. It also recognizes that the ANDSF will require more time and assistance to develop into a capable, credible, and independent force that can protect the Afghan people and contribute to regional and international security. The continued U.S. presence will also address threats to the homeland from terrorist actors in the region, particularly al Qaeda.

The results from America’s reduced role and the announced pullout date have been poor. According to the Report, “In the second half of 2015, the overall security situation in Afghanistan deteriorated with an increase in effective insurgent attacks and higher ANDSF and Taliban casualties…The Taliban have remained active in their traditional strongholds, namely in Helmand in the south and Logar and Wardak in the east, and also created a sense of instability for brief periods of time in other parts of the country, such as in Kunduz in northern Afghanistan… insurgents are improving in their ability to find and exploit ANDSF vulnerabilities, making the security situation still fragile in key areas and at risk of deterioration in other places.” While the Report notes improvement and some successes for Afghan forces, it is clear that the 2016 pullout is an enormous risk.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.