And soon, this:
Posted on 08/26/2017 5:45:04 AM PDT by davikkm
U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told reporters that President Donald Trump’s administration will win in Afghanistan by allowing the country to “be Afghanistan” rather than trying to “create a state in the U.S. image.” “Winning in Afghanistan is really aimed at allowing Afghanistan to be Afghanistan. As the president said, not to nation-build, not to create a state in the U.S. image,” said Gen. McMaster when asked about President Trump’s newly unveiled strategy to end the nearly 16-year-old ear in the country.
For years, Afghanistan has been plagued by various persistent problems, including a deadly heroin production and addiction epidemic as well as the centuries-old child sex abuse custom known as bacha bazi (literally “playing with boys”), among others. Afghanistan also suffers from endemic and widespread corruption that is funneling funds to terrorists and has contributed to the death of Americans.
In 2015, SIGAR revealed that the common practice of sexually abusing boys was punishable by death under Taliban rule, but it was “resurrected” after the terrorist group’s regime was overthrown by the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
714 billion dollars and many men killed and wounded over 16 years..
And poppy production is up
And the only winning mcmaster can come up with is let Afghanistan remain a hell hole
....but we will send in more troops
“Winning in Afghanistan means that there are no terrorist groups who are able to control key parts of the territory or population centers there that could be used to mobilize resources, raise funds, use those funds to then organize, plan, and conduct attacks against us and our allies and partners,” he said.
Gen. mcmMaster that is the same losing strategy minus capture or kill Osama Bin Laden since 2001. I don’t even really think it’s a strategy. It’s a tactic?
In other words McMaster has NO NEW STRATEGY in Afghanistan. Just keep throwing troops at it.
It’s A LOT LIKE schools that are failing that say the answer to all their problems is to throw more money at it.
This is not good at all.
We don't need troops there, we have satellites, and drones, and air drop.
And soon, this:
I am so sorry Trump gave this man a larger stage—let alone what he is doing to our servicemen and country.
And so what are we doing there?
Yes, you are right.
“Winning in Afghanistan means that there are no terrorist groups who are able to control key parts of the territory or population centers there that could be used to mobilize resources, raise funds, use those funds to then organize, plan, and conduct attacks against us and our allies and partners,” he said.
Gen. McMaster that is the same losing strategy, minus capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, since 2001. I don’t even really think it’s a strategy? It’s a tactic?
In other words McMaster has NO NEW STRATEGY in Afghanistan. Just keep throwing more troops at it.
It’s A LOT LIKE schools that are failing that say the answer to all their problems is to throw more money at it.
This is not good at all.
Off the rails? Hell, he is in a trackless desert where there never WERE any rails.
All day I’ve faced
the burning waste
without a taste
of water,
cool water.
And you thought fevers were only in swamps.
“Allow Afghanistan to be Afghanistan” is strange phraseology coming from a Swamp creature who reportedly helped sell Trump on his “strategy” by showing 1950s pictures of Afghanis in mini-skirts.
McMaster is NOT the American people’s friend.
“allowing Afghanistan to be Afghanistan”
Nice rhetoric McNasty: “Let Reagan be Reagan.”
Not buying it.
How much more time do you need? How much more blood and treasure?
This is more nation-building, what candidate Trump warned against. Fire this neo-con puppet!
And, calling out Pakistan was a major shift, and long overdue. The useless whiners at State must be howling their heads off.
In the end, Trump will give H.R. his last star, then send him to Afghanistan. When he fails, Trump will hang Afghanistan around his neck.
The general made me uneasy the first time I heard him speak and the lack of confidence in him continues.
Did the Soviets have limited ROE?
Point taken, I will reserve the right to revise my remarks. I just read Micael Yons article, quite the contrast....
I concur
In Iraq we should have established two main bases, one in or all of Basra and one in the interior. We need a major presence in the ME. Then we should have taken control of the oil fields or a major portion of them, again splitting the income with the locals while not interfering with local systems except where they threaten our operations. We don't need impossible democratic governments in Moslem lands and cannot impose or induce them short of forcibly converting entire populations to Christianity.
And we sure as hell don't need rich Moslem countries. Wealth beyond that which is necessary to support a teeny tiny ruling class in splendor and the population in bare subsistence mode ALL goes to Jihad. It has been thus since some time around about AD 632. It is an established tradition.
McMasters seems to recognize the reality there and is stating that. Actual military, as opposed to political, generals are not interested in social work.
This guy is nutz.
All we are doing is protecting the opium trade and the Chinese getting their rare earth minerals, on our dime, and with the blood of our best and brightest.
Salt the poppy fields and GTHO.
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.