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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, May 27, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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

    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

    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. Yeah, because that worked so well in the Swat Valley... :roll:
     
  5. Only a decade. That's a bit optimistic.
     
  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.