Trump said:Surely he is doing what his predecessor promised but actually doing what he said!
Before: Long before he ran for president, Mr Trump posted a number of tweets calling for an end to US involvement in Afghanistan. They were similar in tone to this one from 2013: "Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA."
But his stance changed during last year's presidential election, when he said US troops would probably have to stay in order to avoid the total collapse of the Afghan government, and to keep a check on neighbouring nuclear-armed Pakistan.
After: He has committed the US Army to the open-ended conflict, saying his approach will be based on conditions on the ground and will not have time limits. He also said he would get tough on Pakistan, who he criticised for offering "safe havens" to extremists - claims rejected by Pakistan.
US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis confirmed Mr Trump's strategy in an announcement that the US would send 3,000 additional troops to Afghanistan
Trump said American service members would be withdrawn on a "condition-based" approach and not according to a timetable. “One way or another these problems will be solved,” he said. “In the end, we will win.”
I can't help wondering how long before the 8,000 contractors cost more than the 23,000 service personnel. Blackwater are not going to do this at a loss and the ex military they want to recruit are not going to do it for peanuts.
The plan is they wont be costing US Taxpayers anything! Or at the least a whole lot less than the US Army does.I can't help wondering how long before the 8,000 contractors cost more than the 23,000 service personnel. Blackwater are not going to do this at a loss and the ex military they want to recruit are not going to do it for peanuts.
So who is paying, will it be 'village security by subscription', are Blackwater the successors of Big Al from Chicago.The plan is they won't be costing US Taxpayers anything! Or at the least a whole lot less than the US Army does.
PMC's make profits because they are smarter at what they do. They aren't stuck waiting for some general officer 20 000 miles away giving the go ahead.
Jesus.The yanks are cutting their financial aid. The PMC's will I expect be paid up front by the locals, where they get there money from isn't really important, the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians all have a dog in the fight and possibly even the Saudis. I suspect the Indians just to upset their neighbours!
One thing you can be sure of is that when the money stops so does the PMC.
The fact that loads of the money will come from us and the Eu is immaterial.
I think that you might be ill informed on several global issues big dog, with the first one being since when did the Afghans have the ability to sort their own security issues out?About time too! It's a total waste of money having troops over there. We went to Afghanistan due to dismantle al-qaeda and to topple the Taliban. There's no need for us to be there now and Afghanistan can sort its own security issues out.
USA spending more money over there by keeping troops - would just be a complete waste of money. Having served in Afghanistan myself - I know first hand that you'd need about 100 years to modernise that country and it's infrastructure. We shouldn't be paying for other countries to modernise when we have people homeless and living in poverty, and child poverty is rampant - plus we have a housing crisis.
The USA is much the same - a wealthy nation but that's maybe only the top 10% of people, while millions of people are poor and living in poverty.
We/USA and the west should sort our own issues out and use our taxes to help our own people, before spending it on these 3rd world fleabag countries.
I can see the Blackwater recruiting drive kicking in already, which Uncle Sugar will fund. Be a PMC make three or four times the money and get your own share of a poppy field!Having been closely involved with the US mission in Afghanistan i can tell you that throwing a load of SOF Magazine reading Americans to do what US/NATO couldn't is not the answer. On top of that, its never the cost of boots on the ground type personnel that cost money, its the support and using the dirty word, Logistics, that will be the thing that drains the purses of whoever is paying for all this. And whoever that is will want results fast unlike what the military were doing pissing in the wind for the past 15 odd years.
Here is an example..getting fuel transported to run a small base for 24 hours that does not have the luxury of Afghan main supply, approx $60,000...thats a daily charge! And the answer is not large convoys like it used to be as mil oversight will disappear. So $1.8million a month alone for fuel.....yep, i can see loads of people rushing to finance that!
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Telegraph: "Royal Navy To Halve Number Of Staff At Headquarters, As Sailors Are Redeployed To Front Line Roles"||Royal Navy||76|
|Sperm counts among western men have halved in last 40 years – study||The Intelligence Cell||18|
|A||British troops in Iraq likely to be halved after success||Current Affairs, News and Analysis||4|