The US will stand with Afghanistan

[CloudStrife]

It's never going to end...

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...lans-us-world-stand-with-afghanistan/19560722

(July 20) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an international conference in Kabul today that the United States and the world will stand with Afghanistan even after Washington begins withdrawing its troops next summer.

"The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve," Clinton said, referring to the planned drawdown of U.S. troops. "The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely."

"But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement," Clinton told the conference of Afghan officials and their NATO backers in comments reported by The Associated Press. "We have no intention of abandoning our long-term mission of achieving a stable, secure, peaceful Afghanistan."

Today's meeting in Kabul involves delegates from some 70 countries who have troops in Afghanistan or give aid to the embattled country, still mired in fierce battles with the Taliban nearly nine years after Sept. 11, 2001. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the conference marks the "beginning of a very fundamental transition" to Afghan control.

Beforehand, Clinton told the BBC the conference represents a "stock-taking, bringing everybody to the table, asking for reports from the Afghan government and frankly having a very open exchange."

Also today, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the conference that his country's army and police won't be ready to take full charge of security in Afghanistan for four more years -- reaffirming a timeline he first laid out last November.

"I remain determined that our Afghan national security forces will be responsible for all military and law enforcement operations throughout our country by 2014," Karzai told delegates in comments reported by the Los Angeles Times and others.

With the scheduled draw-down next year of U.S. troops -- the largest contingent within the 150,000-strong NATO force in Afghanistan -- and Afghan troops not being ready to take complete control until 2014, the timeline leaves a three-year gap. Some fear the Taliban may try to regroup and reassert control during that period.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen sought to allay such fears. He said there would be no quick withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, and that any transitions would rely on "conditions, not calendars."

"International forces won't leave, they will simply move into a supportive role," Rasmussen said, according to The Guardian. "Transition will be done gradually -- on the basis of a sober assessment of the political and security situation, so that it is irreversible."

Today's conference was held under tight security in the Afghan capital, and comes at a critical time in the 9-year-old war there. Last month was the deadliest ever for foreign forces in Afghanistan, with 103 NATO troops killed, including 60 Americans. The U.S. has infused a surge of additional soldiers into the country, who are taking up positions mostly in the volatile south and making more battle contact with the Taliban and allied militants.

 

[Mjolnir]

You're correct; the plan is to "secure the place" with military bases and troops. It's permanent or the PLAN is to have them permanently in place. Get close to Russia and China, control the existing flow of oil into and out of both and all of that good shtick.

It's not going to work as planned. At least that's my take on it.

 

[Hitman]

This is all about Hillary and Womens rights.

 

[Mjolnir]

This is all about Hillary and Womens rights.

Perhaps, you've just given a deeply informed inside joke but it was one of the reasons that UNOCAL initially backed out of the oil pipeline that was to be run through Taliban territory prior to 9/2001.

I'll host a link in a second.

Here are transcripts from UNOCAL's president before Congress:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html?q=oil.html

This one is a much broader overview but interesting nevertheless:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a021298unocal&scale=2#a021298unocal

For those who are truly interested search "Bridas, Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline"

 

[Hitman]

I'm referring to her own statements being made. She's all about the women over there getting equal rights. She's done the SAME thing here in the states.

Of course there could be some underlying plans as well, not sure, but that's unrelated to my point.
I don’t see this as ALL about the Oil.

 

[Mjolnir]

I'm referring to her own statements being made. She's all about the women over there getting equal rights. She's done the SAME thing here in the states.

Of course there could be some underlying plans as well, not sure, but that's unrelated to my point.
I don’t see this as ALL about the Oil.

There was a women's group who protested UNOCAL (a consortium) because of the way women were treated in Afghanistan.

There are PLENTY of underlying geostrategic reasons: poppy fields, mineral wealth, oil pipeline routes, proximity to Russia and China and Iran. It's euphemistically called "The Great Game" or the "New Great Game" originally it was the Brits versus Russians for control of India (which included parts of Afghanistan and all of Pakistan at that time). Then Sir Halford Mackinder's "Rimland" thesis which was studied by Kissinger and Brzezinski and injected into US Foreign Policy under Nixon, expanded under Carter, made obvious under Bush I and Clinton, further expanded with Bush II and now in the hands of Obama (whose Admin is pushing for opening ANOTHER front with Iran). If this happens I'll say expanded further still by Obama.