US Army could be fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan for a decade

#1
US Army could be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade

* Army chief stresses America must be ready for sustained fights in the Middle East

WASHINGTON: The United States could have fighting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade, the top Army officer said on Tuesday, even though a signed agreement requires all US forces to be out of Iraq by 2012.

Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained US commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East. “Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction,” Casey said. “They fundamentally will change how the Army works.” Casey’s calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would “bring the Army to its knees.”

Casey would not specify how combat units would be divided between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said US ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far US forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective. Casey said his comments about the long war in Iraq were not meant to conflict with Obama administration policies. President Barack Obama plans to bring US combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all US forces would leave by 2012
More on the link
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\05\28\story_28-5-2009_pg4_5
 
#2
Yes? What's you're point, I think most people realise that surely? It's pretty bloody obvious, counter insurgencies are always long term - we're lucky to be able to get out of Iraq when we did. (Feels good to say that, past tense..)
 
#3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090602/wl_mcclatchy/3244513

President Barack Obama's choice to take charge of the war in Afghanistan Tuesday called "significant growth" of the Afghan army and national police the key to his strategy, but the annual cost of building and maintaining the existing Afghan force is more than four times larger than the entire Afghan economy.
It is an absurd situation. Afghanistan is a very poor country. It needs investments. They it turn would stimulate education and as a result it could lead to civil society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

The country's natural resources include gold, silver, copper, zinc, and iron ore in the Southeast; precious and semi-precious stones (such as lapis, emerald, and azure) in the Northeast; and potentially significant petroleum and natural gas reserves in the North. The country also has uranium, coal, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, and salt.[1][25][26][27] However, these significant mineral and energy resources remain largely untapped, due to the effects of the Soviet invasion and the subsequent civil war. Plans are underway to begin extracting them in the near future.
Why not to propose truce to the Taliban, build new hydro power stations, plants, explore mineral resources to improve living standards?

As for the investments to Afghan army then they likely will be lost (would be partially stolen by local corruptioners).
 
#4
KGB_resident said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090602/wl_mcclatchy/3244513

President Barack Obama's choice to take charge of the war in Afghanistan Tuesday called "significant growth" of the Afghan army and national police the key to his strategy, but the annual cost of building and maintaining the existing Afghan force is more than four times larger than the entire Afghan economy.
It is an absurd situation. Afghanistan is a very poor country. It needs investments. They it turn would stimulate education and as a result it could lead to civil society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

The country's natural resources include gold, silver, copper, zinc, and iron ore in the Southeast; precious and semi-precious stones (such as lapis, emerald, and azure) in the Northeast; and potentially significant petroleum and natural gas reserves in the North. The country also has uranium, coal, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, and salt.[1][25][26][27] However, these significant mineral and energy resources remain largely untapped, due to the effects of the Soviet invasion and the subsequent civil war. Plans are underway to begin extracting them in the near future.
Why not to propose truce to the Taliban, build new hydro power stations, plants, explore mineral resources to improve living standards?

As for the investments to Afghan army then they likely will be lost (would be partially stolen by local corruptioners).
Yeah, because that worked so well in the Swat Valley... :roll:
 
#6
Iraq is pretty much over outside some inter tribal nonsense... unless they get a real case of the dumbass and start the Sunni vs. Shiite nonsense in earnest again (hopefully by that point we are gone from there as well.) Afghanistan on the other hand is the real tar baby. Unless we occupy in force and raise a couple generations of Afghanis in a proper Western style education system they will always defer to savage tribalism. Since we do not have that sort of mandate and show no interest in actually changing the society there, anything we accomplish is transitory at best.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top