The fact that the US will be leaving Afghanistan has been worldwide knowledge for literally years. It was a big part of both the last presidential elections if you recall.

If the Obama administration were silent about the general strategy of departure, you'd be screaming bloody murder that he was up to something, and why not tell us his strategic plan for withdrawal. Im sure there would be a few lines about King Obama building his own kingsguard.

This is really sort of a silly complaint, no one is leaking tactical information about actual operations in planning, but out exit strategy is and has been totally public for nearly a decade.

American troops will remain in various capacities if the treaty agreement is signed. Obama is attempting to strong arm the Afghan's into signing it to keep the special legal rights for US troops operating over there, if they don't sign it, we're out completely. Making it public about the time limit makes the stakes real for the Afghans.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

It was a grave strategic error for Bush to personalize the war by singling out Bin Laden. Shortly after 9/11 Bin Laden was no longer a factor. Much like Tokyo Rose or Lord Hawhaw in WWII. A figurehead of no strategic or tactical consequence.

It was an error for Obama to focus public attention on Bin Laden when he was killed. It should have remained low key with nobody certain that he was dead while we continued to stalk Al Qaeda using special operations and CIA.

I'm not a fan of drones but to me their biggest virtue is that we don't risk the lives of Americans special ops/CIA trying to kill Al Qaeda.

THIS.............

ding, ding, ding (again) well said

This is where you are SO WRONG! Do you think that you are a mindreader or something?

If Obama were smart enough to keep his trap shut about military information, he would go WAY UP on my respectibility scale. I was only an NCO in the Army, but I have a FULL understanding of the importance of tight lips.

Have you ever played football, or even acquired a very rudimentary understanding of the game? If so, do you think it is wise to be showing the opposition your playbook?

It's only fair.

I totally agree, but with Bin Laden being billed as the symbolic boogie man, once he was dead it was time to haul ass. The WTC could not go with zero retaliation, but they should have hammered some bad guys HARD and then got the hell out of Dodge.

I think whether or not my football team was going to arrive or not to play the game would be generally public knowledge to the other team, which is a lot closer to whats going on here. You are confusing tactical operational security with publicly debated strategic thought.

Even at the height of WW2, the opening of a second front and invading Europe from Italy and France to relieve pressure on Russia was a public debate.

The Afghan's do not want to extend the special rules to the US Military in their country by signing the agreement. Thats fine then, we will leave if they don't and take our help with us. If we are going to be operating as a military force on their land, we need some guarantees stipulated in the agreement to allow us to do just that. Typically you would be applauding this position of strength and emphasis on self reliance the Obama administration is dictating to the Afghans, but as usual, emotion dictates thought. If they don't need our help and don't want to sign, no skin of our nose.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

I agree with Bot, but maybe next time we have China draw the short straw. Russia had its hard times, US & NATO have had theirs. Maybe ten years from now it'll be in China's economic or security interest to play whack a mole for a decade. Hell, let'em have it.
And, yes, some people do need killing.
Come Mr. Taliban, tally me Afganistan......
......Daylight come and me want go home....

If we can't get a deal with Karzai, which I've read has support of many Afgan officials, or his successor, nothing else to do but pack up & come home. Our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors, CIA & SpecOps did everything asked of them.
Let's just try not make the final image a UH-1 departing from the rooftop of the AmEmb.

Right, topple a government, throw a country into chaos, nail the principle bad guy we don't like, and blow town.

In another thread, you referenced history concerning military operations. I would like you to find the historical precedent where doing your proposed plan wouldn't result in anything but chaos for the nation we toppled and countless deaths?

I would also like you to review how the rehabilitation of Germany and Japan was accomplished, with ongoing support and economic investment. How did that work out in the long run?

Compare that with the US army taking and sacking Mexico city in the 1840s and leaving. Which policy was more effective?

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

I agree with Bot, but maybe next time we have China draw the short straw. Russia had its hard times, US & NATO have had theirs. Maybe ten years from now it'll be in China's economic or security interest to play whack a mole for a decade. Hell, let'em have it.
And, yes, some people do need killing.
Come Mr. Taliban, tally me Afganistan......
......Daylight come and me want go home....

If we can't get a deal with Karzai, which I've read has support of many Afgan officials, or his successor, nothing else to do but pack up & come home. Our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors, CIA & SpecOps did everything asked of them.
Let's just try not make the final image a UH-1 departing from the rooftop of the AmEmb.

It could have...if they had followed the original plan, which they didn't.

__________________
Strelnik
Invest in America: Buy a Congressman!

1950 170SD
1951 Citroen 11BN
1953 Citroen 11BNF limo
1953 220a project
1959 180D
1960 190D
1960 Borgward Isabella TS 2dr
1983 240D daily driver
1983 380SL
1990 350SDL daily driver alt
3 x Citroen DS21M, down from 5
3 x Citroen 2CV, down from 6

In a word: YES

__________________
Strelnik
Invest in America: Buy a Congressman!

1950 170SD
1951 Citroen 11BN
1953 Citroen 11BNF limo
1953 220a project
1959 180D
1960 190D
1960 Borgward Isabella TS 2dr
1983 240D daily driver
1983 380SL
1990 350SDL daily driver alt
3 x Citroen DS21M, down from 5
3 x Citroen 2CV, down from 6

Want has nothing to do with it.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

Except they didn't depose the TB. The TB simply jumped the "non existent" fence to Pakistan and bided their time. Hence we would have been back already in that scenario. And, given that they will take over the place again once the US leaves it will all go down the ****ter again soon. So we'll be back within a couple of years.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S