France would pull troops in Afghanistan

France Troops

This month French government announced it would pull 1000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2012. This amount is only a fraction of the total number of France troops in Afghanistan.

Reporting from China news agency, Xinhua, the announcement was made by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, on his visit to Afghanistan, Tuesday, July 12, 2011. Reportedly there are about 4,000 French soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly based in the city of Kapisa.

"We will draw a quarter of our troops, about 1,000 soldiers, between now and the end of 2012," Nicolas Sarkozy said at a military base near Kabul.

Withdrawal is in accordance with the commitment of France and the United States last month that would withdraw troops early. French troops have joined in the NATO coalition forces and the U.S. since 2001.

Their mission is to protect Afghanistan from the influence of Taliban militants. Currently, the U.S. was working with the Afghan government to train soldiers and police the country. Although thousands of foreign troops are present in the country, but the explosions and attacks still occur.

Reportedly, it has more than 64 French soldiers who were killed in the country. One of the last victim was killed yesterday by a stray bullet at the base in Kapisa.

Barack Obama and Afghanistan

Barack Obama and Afghanistan

A gamble that may not pay off

The president is at risk of running down American forces in Afghanistan too fast

THE real question facing Barack Obama over Afghanistan is just what the United States is trying to achieve there. Plenty of Americans, weary of war and anxious about their own plight at home, think that the death of Osama bin Laden should have marked an end to the mission that took 100,000 troops to a distant and dismal part of the world. Afghanistan will cost America roughly $120 billion this year. Many Americans want this money to go towards creating jobs in Kansas rather than in Kabul.

By announcing on June 22nd that he would withdraw 10,000 troops this year, and the remaining 23,000 members of the “surge” by the end of the summer of 2012, Mr Obama tried to give everyone something. To his political strategists, worried about re-election, his message was that nation-building should start at home. To his generals, worried by any withdrawal, he can still claim that he will end his first term with many more troops in Afghanistan than were there when he began it. The middle ground is often good politics; it is less comfortable in warfare. In this case, history will probably judge that Mr Obama took out too many soldiers too early.

Afghanistan’s future turns on whether the central government appears stable, or whether it looks as if it will collapse as soon as NATO troops retreat from the field of battle. The more permanent the government, the more likely rival tribes, ethnic groups and factions will be to seek to negotiate their place in the pecking order, rather than fight for supremacy in a civil war. Crucially, that includes the Taliban.

It is true that Afghanistan looks like a failure beside the dream of 2001, when NATO invaded. It will continue to be plagued by violence and insurgency. Even with the best outcome there, women will suffer discrimination, poppies will flourish and corruption will eat away at daily life. But any hope of a decent life there depends on peace. Avoiding a full-blown civil war is crucial for Afghans.

The outside world also has a stake in its (relative) stability. A vacuum in Afghanistan threatens the entire region. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, an incendiary couple, risk a proxy war through the different ethnic groups they sponsor in the country. Iran, China and Russia could all be sucked in. And a lawless Afghanistan could again become al-Qaeda’s base.

In his speech this week, Mr Obama seemed too prepared to run the risk of all this happening. For the time being he is offering some help to protect the government; but the momentum of the surge will ebb. He is willing to stay long enough to train the Afghan army and police needed to protect the government. But after 2014, when that job is supposed to be complete, will he (or his successor) be willing to pay for the Afghan army and to keep some foreign troops there as a deterrent to civil war? Such doubts will make Afghans less likely to reckon on the government enduring—and hence more likely to fight it.

The pity of this is that, with help, there is every chance that government in Kabul could survive—preferably under some other leader than the erratic Hamid Karzai. After all, Mohammad Najibullah, unloved, isolated and opposed by a superpower, lasted for more than three years after being ditched by the near-bankrupt Soviet Union in 1989. Mr Obama’s decision this week does not condemn the mission to failure. But it does make it harder to realise than it need have been.

Barack Obama and Afghanistan

Barack Obama and Afghanistan

A gamble that may not pay off

The president is at risk of running down American forces in Afghanistan too fast

THE real question facing Barack Obama over Afghanistan is just what the United States is trying to achieve there. Plenty of Americans, weary of war and anxious about their own plight at home, think that the death of Osama bin Laden should have marked an end to the mission that took 100,000 troops to a distant and dismal part of the world. Afghanistan will cost America roughly $120 billion this year. Many Americans want this money to go towards creating jobs in Kansas rather than in Kabul.

By announcing on June 22nd that he would withdraw 10,000 troops this year, and the remaining 23,000 members of the “surge” by the end of the summer of 2012, Mr Obama tried to give everyone something. To his political strategists, worried about re-election, his message was that nation-building should start at home. To his generals, worried by any withdrawal, he can still claim that he will end his first term with many more troops in Afghanistan than were there when he began it. The middle ground is often good politics; it is less comfortable in warfare. In this case, history will probably judge that Mr Obama took out too many soldiers too early.

Talibanishment

Afghanistan’s future turns on whether the central government appears stable, or whether it looks as if it will collapse as soon as NATO troops retreat from the field of battle. The more permanent the government, the more likely rival tribes, ethnic groups and factions will be to seek to negotiate their place in the pecking order, rather than fight for supremacy in a civil war. Crucially, that includes the Taliban.

It is true that Afghanistan looks like a failure beside the dream of 2001, when NATO invaded. It will continue to be plagued by violence and insurgency. Even with the best outcome there, women will suffer discrimination, poppies will flourish and corruption will eat away at daily life. But any hope of a decent life there depends on peace. Avoiding a full-blown civil war is crucial for Afghans.

The outside world also has a stake in its (relative) stability. A vacuum in Afghanistan threatens the entire region. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, an incendiary couple, risk a proxy war through the different ethnic groups they sponsor in the country. Iran, China and Russia could all be sucked in. And a lawless Afghanistan could again become al-Qaeda’s base.

In his speech this week, Mr Obama seemed too prepared to run the risk of all this happening. For the time being he is offering some help to protect the government; but the momentum of the surge will ebb. He is willing to stay long enough to train the Afghan army and police needed to protect the government. But after 2014, when that job is supposed to be complete, will he (or his successor) be willing to pay for the Afghan army and to keep some foreign troops there as a deterrent to civil war? Such doubts will make Afghans less likely to reckon on the government enduring—and hence more likely to fight it.

The pity of this is that, with help, there is every chance that government in Kabul could survive—preferably under some other leader than the erratic Hamid Karzai. After all, Mohammad Najibullah, unloved, isolated and opposed by a superpower, lasted for more than three years after being ditched by the near-bankrupt Soviet Union in 1989. Mr Obama’s decision this week does not condemn the mission to failure. But it does make it harder to realise than it need have been.

So the President Gave a Speech Last Night

The full text is here. He pretty much reiterated what was reported Tuesday: He will order the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and 20,000 more by next summer, leaving 70,000 there, who will be gradually withdrawn until security is handed over to Afghan authorities in 2014.

One of the most interesting parts of the speech was this:

Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America's greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep and no horizon is beyond our reach.

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

Leaving aside his usual pixie dust-farting unicorn pipedream of a unified nation with a common purpose, I'll just note that promising to end wars abroad to reinvest in the US is a brilliant idea, and "time to focus on nation building here at home" is a great line, except for the fact that it's BULLSHIT as long as "there is no appetite" for progressive economic policy in the White House, and the Democratic Senate Majority Leader brags about "historic" budget cuts made as part of a doomed austerity strategy which will fail to stimulate growth while simultaneously creating a greater strain on underfunded social programs.

The president talked a good game, as usual, but the reality is that he and his party's Senate leadership are busily endorsing Social Darwinism as their grand vision for America's future.

We have, unfortunately, absolutely no reason to believe that the funds currently being spent on the war machine will be used for anything but paying down debt.

Maybe hope Obama can create a nice little surplus for the next Republican president to squander. Jeb Bush should be ready to ruin the country by 2016 to complete this carousel of horrors.

Obama to Pull Surge Troops out of Afghanistan

President Obama is reportedly going to announce this week that he will withdraw the 30,000 troops that were sent in for a "surge" in Afghanistan last year. But the surge troops will not be fully withdrawn until the end of 2012. (Whut?) The drawdown will leave approximately 70,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

The time-frame would give U.S. commanders another two "fighting" seasons with the bulk of U.S. forces still available for combat operations. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has pushed for additional time to roll back Taliban gains in the country before starting any significant withdrawal -- a position at odds with a majority of Americans, according to recent public opinion surveys.

...The president is expected, in his remarks Wednesday, to stress the importance of preserving flexibility in force levels on the ground so commanders can adjust as conditions warrant, the official said.

The drawdown will be accomplished by troops returning home and not being replaced as well as canceling some proposed deployments.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that Obama had yet to make a final decision on the size and scope of the troop withdrawal, but would do so "soon."

In good news, Obama can probably just recycle the speeches he gave last time he ran for president, when he was also promising to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.