Trump's statement on Afghanistan - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14835823
I think we can all conclude that the notion of "Donald Trump" as an Independent political operator- if it ever existed- is finished. In this speech, Trump parrots text that was clearly written by General Mattis (USMC) and General McMaster (US Army). In the address from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, and before young US military soldiers, Trump said basically nothing, acknowledging that he intends to follow the status quo as established in the 2012 Chicago conference, that committed the Alliance to at least another decade in Afghanistan.



http://www.npr.org/2017/08/21/545038935 ... engagement


http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offic ... _87595.htm

Chicago Summit Declaration on Afghanistan

Issued by the Heads of State and Government of Afghanistan and Nations contributing to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
21 May. 2012 | Press Release (2012) 065Issued on 21 May. 2012 | Last updated: 21 May. 2012 19:45
EnglishFrench Russian Ukrainian
Preamble

We, the nations contributing to ISAF, and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, met today in Chicago to renew our firm commitment to a sovereign, secure and democratic Afghanistan. In line with the strategy which we agreed at the Lisbon Summit, ISAF’s mission will be concluded by the end of 2014. But thereafter Afghanistan will not stand alone: we reaffirm that our close partnership will continue beyond the end of the transition period.

In the ten years of our partnership the lives of Afghan men, women and children, have improved significantly in terms of security, education, health care, economic opportunity and the assurance of rights and freedoms. There is more to be done, but we are resolved to work together to preserve the substantial progress we have made during the past decade. The nations contributing to ISAF will therefore continue to support Afghanistan on its path towards self-reliance in security, improved governance, and economic and social development. This will prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorists that threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world. A secure and stable Afghanistan will make an important contribution to its region, in which security, stability and development are interlinked.

ISAF nations and Afghanistan join in honouring all those – civilian or military, Afghan or foreign – who have lost their lives or been injured in the fight for our common security and a prosperous, peaceful and stable Afghanistan. We pay particular tribute to the courage of the armed forces of Afghanistan and ISAF countries who live, train and fight next to each other every day. We are determined that all our sacrifices will be justified by our strong long-term partnership, which will contribute to a better future for the people of Afghanistan.
General principles

Our efforts are part of the broader engagement of the International Community as outlined by the Kabul Conference in July 2010, the Istanbul Process on regional security and cooperation which was launched in November 2011 and the Bonn Conference in December 2011.

We recall the firm mutual commitments made at the Bonn Conference on 5 December 2011, which form the basis of our long-term partnership. In this context, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan confirms its resolve to deliver on its commitment to a democratic society, based on the rule of law and good governance, including progress in the fight against corruption, where the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens, including the equality of men and women and the active participation of both in Afghan society, are respected. The forthcoming elections must be conducted with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and in accordance with the Afghan Constitution. Their transparency, inclusivity and credibility will also be of paramount importance. In this context, continued progress towards these goals will encourage ISAF nations to further provide their support up to and beyond 2014.

We emphasise the importance of full participation of all Afghan women in the reconstruction, political, peace and reconciliation processes in Afghanistan and the need to respect the institutional arrangements protecting their rights. We remain committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on women, peace and security. We recognise also the need for the protection of children from the damaging effects of armed conflict as required in relevant UNSCRs.
Fulfilling the Lisbon Roadmap and building the Enduring Partnership

In Lisbon, in November 2010, we decided on the phased transition of security responsibility from ISAF to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), in order to enable Afghans to take full responsibility for their own security. NATO/ISAF and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan remain committed to this transition strategy which began in July 2011. Irreversible transition is on track and will be completed by the end of 2014. We also recognise in this context the importance of a comprehensive approach and continued improvements in governance and development.

The third wave of provinces to enter the transition process was announced by President Karzai on 13 May 2012. This means that 75% of Afghanistan’s population will soon be living in areas where the ANSF have taken the lead for security. By mid-2013, all parts of Afghanistan will have begun transition and the Afghan forces will be in the lead for security nation-wide. This will mark an important milestone in the Lisbon roadmap. ISAF is gradually and responsibly drawing down its forces to complete its mission by 31 December 2014.

The success of transition has been enabled by the substantial improvement of the ANSF since Lisbon in terms of capability and professionalism. Afghan soldiers are increasingly taking the lead in operations on Afghan soil. Afghan forces, both army and police, have proven able to maintain security in those areas which have already entered into transition.

The completion of transition, however, will not mean the end of the International Community’s commitment to Afghanistan’s stability and development. Afghanistan and NATO reaffirm their commitment to further develop the NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership signed at Lisbon in 2010 in all its dimensions, up to 2014 and beyond, including through joint programmes to build capacity such as the Building Integrity Initiative. In this context, NATO and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will now deepen their consultations towards shaping the Enduring Partnership.

Meanwhile, we welcome the fact that a number of ISAF countries have concluded, or are in the process of concluding, bilateral partnership agreements with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. These bilateral partnership frameworks will form the basis of cooperation and friendship between an independent, sovereign and democratic Afghanistan and those countries on the basis of equality and mutual interest.
Beyond 2014

In order to safeguard and build on the substantial progress and shared achievement, ISAF nations reaffirm their enduring commitment to Afghan security beyond 2014; the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan continues to welcome that support.

ISAF, including the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan, has played a key role in taking the ANSF to the levels they have now reached. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan reaffirms that NATO has a crucial part to play, with partners and alongside other actors, in training, advising and assisting the ANSF and invites NATO to continue its support. As transition of security responsibility is completed at the end of 2014, NATO will have made the shift from a combat mission to a new training, advising and assistance mission, which will be of a different nature to the current ISAF mission.

We agree to work towards establishing such a new NATO-led mission. We will ensure that the new mission has a sound legal basis, such as a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
Sustaining the ANSF

With the support of ISAF nations, Afghanistan is committed to developing an ANSF which is governed by the Constitution and is capable of providing security to all Afghans. It will operate under effective civilian leadership, in accordance with the rule of law, and respecting human rights.

At the International Afghanistan Conference in Bonn on 5 December 2011, the wider International Community decided to support the training, equipping, financing and capability development of the ANSF beyond the end of the transition period. NATO Allies and ISAF partners reaffirm their strong commitment to this process and will play their part in the financial sustainment of the ANSF. We also call on the International Community to commit to this long-term sustainment. The pace and the size of a gradual managed force reduction from the ANSF surge peak to a sustainable level will be conditions-based and decided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in consultation with the International Community. The preliminary model for a future total ANSF size, defined by the International Community and the Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, envisages a force of 228,500 with an estimated annual budget of US$4.1billion, and will be reviewed regularly against the developing security environment.

Sustaining a sufficient and capable ANSF is the responsibility of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan supported by the International Community. As part of the wider International Community, and building upon existing mechanisms, we will play our part in developing appropriate, coherent and effective funding mechanisms and expenditure arrangements for all strands of the ANSF. Such mechanisms will be flexible, transparent, accountable, cost-effective and will include measures against corruption. They will also distinguish between funding for the army and the police as well as for further capacity development within the relevant Afghan ministries and security institutions.

As the Afghan economy and the revenues of the Afghan government grow, Afghanistan’s yearly share will increase progressively from at least US$500m in 2015, with the aim that it can assume, no later than 2024, full financial responsibility for its own security forces. In the light of this, during the Transformation Decade, we expect international donors will reduce their financial contributions commensurate with the assumption by the Afghan government of increasing financial responsibility.

As the Afghan National Police further develop and professionalise, they will evolve towards a sustainable, credible, and accountable civilian law enforcement force that will shoulder the main responsibility for domestic security. This force should be capable of providing policing services to the Afghan population as part of the broader Afghan rule of law system. This will require an adequate plan to be developed by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, supported as appropriate by the International Police Coordination Board (IPCB) or its successor. Both the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police will play a crucial role in ensuring security and stability, and in supporting legitimate governance and sustainable economic growth across the country.
Towards a peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan

A political process involving successful reconciliation and reintegration is key to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. In this context, we reiterate the importance of the principles decided at the Bonn Conference. These are that the process leading to reconciliation must be truly Afghan-led and Afghan-owned, and must be inclusive and representative of the legitimate interests of all Afghan people, regardless of gender or status. Reconciliation must also contain the reaffirmation of a sovereign, stable and united Afghanistan, the renunciation of violence, the breaking of ties to international terrorism, and compliance with the Afghan Constitution, including its human rights provisions, especially on the rights of women.

A peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan will positively contribute to economic and social development in the wider region, and deliver progress in the fight against narcotics trafficking, illegal migration, terrorism and crime. In this context, regional cooperation and support for stability in Afghanistan is key. There are two important events on the way to securing the future commitment of key regional and international partners. The upcoming Kabul Ministerial Conference on the Istanbul Process will launch an initial set of regional confidence-building measures while at the Tokyo Conference the International Community and Afghan leadership will discuss a framework for future development assistance.

Our task is not yet complete. But in the light of our substantial achievements, and building on our firm and shared commitment, we are confident that our strong partnership will lead Afghanistan towards a better future.
#14835887
I am not arguing the righteousness of our intervention, but Trump's views on how we intervene are refreshingly sensible.
#14835890
One Degree wrote:I am not arguing the righteousness of our intervention, but Trump's views on how we intervene are refreshingly sensible.

There doesn't seem to be much difference from previous presidents. What, specifically, did you find refreshing? Or are you saying "refreshing" compared to what Trump used to say?
#14835893
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:There doesn't seem to be much difference from previous presidents. What, specifically, did you find refreshing? Or are you saying "refreshing" compared to what Trump used to say?


I won't pretend to remember it all but...
No intent to change governments.
Country involved must actively take the major burden and expense.
Tactics will not be available for public debate.
Allies must share cost and not just give lip service.
The realities on the ground will determine our next step.
The generals will make the decisions.
We will not tie our hands by initial agreement to limits of combat technology.

Edit: Even the similar goals are different because I believe Trump means it when others did not.
#14835903
I've been saying since 9/11 that American are a bunch of pathetic cowardly beta-cucks. The fact that we Europeans are even more pathetic cowardly beta-cucks is nothing, I repeat absolutely nothing to be proud of. The correct response to 9/11 was to carpet bomb Mecca and Islamabad. The Taliban were a creation of and totally dependant on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda only operated from Afghanistan because they had Pakistani and Saudi approval. Its absurd to imagine that 9/11 went ahead without ISI approval.

If we are going to operate in Afghanistan we should only do it from the north in cooperation with the Russians. The Russians are our real friend, the Saudis and Pakistanis are our enemies (along with Turkey, China and North Korea). The first step in fighting Muslim terrorists is to make friends with Russia, stop the sanctions, recognise Crimea as part of Russia and recognise the Russian right to a land bridge between Rostov and Crimea.
#14835923
Rich wrote:I've been saying since 9/11 that American are a bunch of pathetic cowardly beta-cucks. The fact that we Europeans are even more pathetic cowardly beta-cucks is nothing, I repeat absolutely nothing to be proud of. The correct response to 9/11 was to carpet bomb Mecca and Islamabad. The Taliban were a creation of and totally dependant on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda only operated from Afghanistan because they had Pakistani and Saudi approval. Its absurd to imagine that 9/11 went ahead without ISI approval.

If we are going to operate in Afghanistan we should only do it from the north in cooperation with the Russians. The Russians are our real friend, the Saudis and Pakistanis are our enemies (along with Turkey, China and North Korea). The first step in fighting Muslim terrorists is to make friends with Russia, stop the sanctions, recognise Crimea as part of Russia and recognise the Russian right to a land bridge between Rostov and Crimea.


That would be a considerable geo-strategic pivot. Pan/post Christendom vs Islam just like the Crusades except with Russia standing in for Byzantium.

We needn't suffer for lack of access to petroleum products either, I guess, given Russia's reserves. Suez would still need to be secured though so we'd still want Israel in with this. Russia will want the straight of Bosphorus also, so Turkey will be toast.

It would be a very one sided fight mind: US + CANZUK + EU + RUSSIA + Israel = 90% of the world's high tech military might (the remaining 10% is basically China which will probably stay out of it). Even if the Islamic world firmed up into a pan-Islamic alliance from Morocco to Malaysia in response they would be hopelessly outgunned. During the crusades the odds were more even. Pakistan has some nukes though...
#14835996
"You must be smoking hope in an opium pipe"

Gotta control the opium poppy production, narcotics fuel part of the black-market.
#14836013
Meh, maybe. I am more concerned with his alliance with the Republican establishment than with the military. I realize from a historical perspective this could appear bad. But, It is also the best ally he could select without selling out to the establishment. A very fine path, but it could end up being advantageous for America. My confidence was waning, but I liked the new Trump I saw last night.
#14836066
Well, it didn't work the first time, and Trump seems to be really attracted to the worst possible option in most cases.

In all serious, more of the same is not going to be a good approach to the issue that has been intractable so far. We need to get the Taliban to the table and cut our losses.
#14836069
So the Trumpites are now rallying to Obama's policy; which was simply a continuation of Bush's constant fail.

No doubt they'll all continue to blame each other for doing the exact same way for the same reasons.
#14836129
The Immortal Goon wrote:So the Trumpites are now rallying to Obama's policy; which was simply a continuation of Bush's constant fail.

Well I'm certainly not, but then I guess I was never a Trumpite. His comments to Meygn Kelly and John McCain were utterly disgraceful, and the passing of time has not made me think any better of him. No I would have supported Hilary until she jumped off the Neo Con deep end. On Russia and Syria Trump's not brilliant but he's way, way better than Hilary would have been.

As for not winning the Afghan war, no that's not the problem. Jesus give it a chance, its only just started. It took the Romans one hundred and eighteen years to defeat the Carthaginians. The problem with Afghanistan is that it makes us dependant on Pakistan. Our strategy is like if we had allied Adolf Hitler to attack Vichy France. We need to deal with the mechanic not the oily rag (as Morecambe and Wise said to James hunt). The funny thing is that so many Libertarians seem to idealise the Roman Republic, but on the other hand seem to oppose wars and the taxes to support war.
#14836130
mikema63 wrote:Well, it didn't work the first time, and Trump seems to be really attracted to the worst possible option in most cases.

In all serious, more of the same is not going to be a good approach to the issue that has been intractable so far. We need to get the Taliban to the table and cut our losses.



maybe you should as well get ISIS on the table :lol:

The only difference between Taliban and ISIS is that Taliban is currently not exporting terrorism to the west
#14836141
I quite frankly don't care if there's one islamist state or another islamist state in the middle East. The region is a tarpit for empires and it should be dealt with in the most practical manner possible.

If it weren't for oil I'd say we should abandon the region entirely.
#14836143
mikema63 wrote:I quite frankly don't care if there's one islamist state or another islamist state in the middle East. The region is a tarpit for empires and it should be dealt with in the most practical manner possible.

If it weren't for oil I'd say we should abandon the region entirely.



I doubt US is going to give up on Afghanistan soon since its an important strategic location right next to China,Iran and central Asia
makes it easier to monitor whats going on from there

Not quite. I am instead claiming that capitali[…]

What is happening in Iran?

^ :lol: https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/1[…]

I only tell the truth. Nope. Flat wrong. I a[…]

I haven't seen it reported anywhere else besides p[…]