Trump to announce Afghanistan plan Monday in TV address

President Trump will address the nation on his Afghanistan war strategy tomorrow at 9 p.m. from Fort Myer in Arlington, VA. It's one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, and it comes after Trump met with his national security team on Friday at Camp David .

Defense Secretary James Mattis said on Sunday, per Reuters: "I am very comfortable that the strategic process was sufficiently rigorous and did not go in with a pre-set position."

The stakes: Should Trump order a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, advisers believe he'd all but ensure the Taliban completes its takeover of the country. Al-Qaeda and ISIS would be allowed to flourish, and you'd have a terrorist launching pad similar to, or potentially worse than, before 9/11.

Trump's decision hasn't leaked; but I can illuminate some of the private conversations leading up to it, from senior administration sources and former officials close to the Pentagon

Sure, never expected logic from the Media & Leftists. But there are a lot of people in the middle (if one can call them “moderate” Democrats) who CAN be changed with many good one-two punches from Trump using well-crafted phrases that catch on.

Think about it: Trump’s “Make America Great Again” phrase won over many blue-collar democrats to vote for Trump.

You’re ignoring that fact. I rest my case...

U.S. President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster blocked Blackwater founder Erik Prince from debating the merits of his private security proposal at the recent high-level Afghanistan war strategy meeting at Camp David, the former Navy SEAL confirms to Breitbart News.

While McMaster and U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis have been advocating for increasing the American military presence in Afghanistan, Prince has proposed using a private army of about 5,500 troops, backed by nearly 2,000 U.S. service members, to end the nearly 16-year-old war.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/08/21/erik-prince-trump-will-roll-accept-failed-strategy-afghanistan/

"What geo-strategic value exists, ....other than the secret war funding opium trade?"

Fair first question. The whole CIA opium trade schtick needs to stay in the movies and on the conspiracy theory websites.

The national interests we hold in Afghanistan is the same as when we first went in. To not allow the legitimate Afghanistan government to be toppled by the Taliban and become the lawless haven for terrorist that it was before 9/11. The 9/11 plot was planned and organized from Afghanistan with the willful complicity of the Taliban.

It's no coincidence that terrorist groups thrive in regions of the world that are lawless (Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan). Places where there is no government or a weak central government that does not have control of it's country. Some of these places we can partner with willing allies to take care of them and some of them we have to do most of the heavy lifting. Right now, the places where we have to do the heavy lifting is in Syria and Afghanistan. This was the main reason we should have never went along with the European powers to topple Qadaffi which I've said on here many times. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but he was not a threat to us. We have now created a situation there that could be a potential threat to us.

Lastly, just as action has consequences, inaction also has consequences. This is something no one thinks about until it happens. Witness the withdrawal from Iraq and the rise of ISIS. If we withdrew from Afghanistan, it would most likely descend into chaos and the central government would topple bringing the Taliban back into power. Also, this would very much destabilize Pakistan and there would be the possibility of that government falling into the hands of Islamo fascists. That's a country with nuclear weapons, both tactical and conventional. This would get India involved and the whole region would have the potential to erupt with the possibility of nuclear weapons being used.

These are the things most likely shown to President Trump and it obviously changed his mind. Yes, we are dealt with a stinko hand here, but it is containable. We don't need 100,000 troops there with men and women dying every week. This is not Iraq, it is counterproductive IMO to have large amounts of troops there. We do need a change in philosophy, not just troop amounts. Trump laid out a general plan on what the definition of winning is, but I'm looking forward to more details on that in the coming weeks. Measurables by which we can look to.

I like Prince and I think at some point Mercs have a role here, but it’s probably not in this phase. One of the main problems is appearances. Mercs have a bad reputation, some of it deserved, but not from Blackwater and the American mercs. If we are going to get cooperation from our allies, I don’t think we can sell them on having a small merc force in there rooting out terrorists. It’s a non starter to many of them.

We can’t solve the Afghani problem ourself. We need allies in this fight. Hopefully we can get more cooperation from Pakistan, but I’m going to wait and see on that. Having mercs in there, would not get what we want from them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.