Showing posts with label Troops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Troops. Show all posts

Monday, May 20, 2013

Afghan President Lodges Another Ridiculous Claim Against U.S. Troops

Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, never one to mince words, on Sunday told the press that the United States and Taliban were each colluding to keep foreign troops in Afghanistan, albeit for different reasons.

Several explosions ripped through Afghanistan over the weekend during U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s visit, killing 19 civilians and highlighting security concerns that continue apace ahead of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.

According to Karzai, the attacks by the Taliban were meant to show that international forces will still be required after the 2014 deadline passes. Karzai chose a curious time to air his theory, putting it forward while delivering a speech on Afghan women:

“The explosions in Kabul and Khost yesterday showed that they are at the service of America and at the service of this phrase: 2014. They are trying to frighten us into thinking that if the foreigners are not in Afghanistan, we would be facing these sorts of incidents” he said.

Defense Department officials quickly cancelled a planned joint press conference after Karzai’s statements, denying the cancellation had anything to do with Karzai’s statements. The head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — the coalition headed by the U.S. in Afghanistan — strongly denounced the idea that the U.S. would work with the Taliban to keep U.S. forces in the country. “We have fought too hard over the past 12 years. We have shed too much blood over the past 12 years. We have done too much to help the Afghan Security Forces grow over the last 12 years to ever think that violence or instability would be to our advantage,” said Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford.

Karzai has a lengthy history of inflammatory statements, usually intended to provide himself some form of leverage when dealing with his Western counter-parts or bolster himself domestically. In 2010, Karzai threatened to join Taliban after coming under pressure to launch reforms in the Afghan government. Karzai also warned against the continuation of NATO airstrikes in 2011, saying that NATO risked becoming an occupying force, adding that “history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.”

Tensions between the U.S. and Afghans stretch beyond difficulties in relations with Karzai. Reports on Monday say an Afghan police officer opened fire killing two U.S. troops and three of his fellow officers. These “green on blue” attacks — in which Afghan allies turn on their Western counterparts — have proved to be an ongoing impediment to lasting trust between U.S. and Afghan forces. Gen. John Allen, then the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told 60 Minutes that coalition troops were willing to sacrifice for the Afghan campaign, but unwilling to be murdered.


View the original article here

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Dempsey: No one talking about 'zero' US troops in Afghanistan post-2014

Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey disputed reports the Obama administration is considering removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by next year, saying “no one has suggested zero to me.”

The U.S. and NATO are slated to hand off security responsibilities to local forces by the end of 2014, but the White House is weighing how many troops to keep in the country past that date to assist in other operations, including training their Afghan counterparts.

During an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, Dempsey said “the ultimate number will be based on the mission and how deeply we want to be involved with their continued development and also what … the sovereign nation of Afghanistan wants.” 

Asked about whether it is possible no U.S. troops will post-war, Dempsey said “no one has ever suggested zero to me.” 

He added, however, that “I can't give you a number because … I'm not going to announce a number on CNN on Sunday afternoon.”

Plans to maintain a sizable U.S. presence could face opposition from Democratic lawmakers who have pushed for Obama to stick with the current drawdown timetable. But GOP lawmakers have expressed concerns that withdrawing troops before Afghans are ready to handle security could plunge the country into turmoil.

View Comments

View the original article here

Thursday, January 24, 2013

France Sends Troops To Mali As U.S. Mulls Drone Strikes

A 2012 map showing rebel-held territory in Mali

France has responded to a request for help from Mali by sending military forces to aid in the Malian government’s push back on an offensive launched by rebel forces in the north of the country.

The initial forces on the ground are there to take part in a United Nations-authorized mission to boost training of the Malian Army, ahead of an international force due to be deployed in the fall of this year. Several other European countries have also pledged to send trainers to Mali, but France surprised many with the swiftness of its action. President Francois Hollande laid out the thinking behind France’s decision in a speech on Friday:

France, like its African partners, cannot accept this. I have decided that France will respond, alongside our African partners, to the request from the Malian authorities.

“We will do it strictly within the framework of the United Nations Security Council resolution. We will be ready to stop the terrorists’ offensive if it continues.”

France — which has a history of intervening in the region, such as in Cote d’Ivoire in 2011 — had previously indicated publicly that it would wait for a further clarification of U.N. resolutions before taking action. While these forces are not necessarily mandated to engage in combat with the coalition of rebels and Islamists in control of Northern Mali, French diplomats are now arguing behind closed doors that previously passed U.N. resolutions give them the authority to do so, should France choose. Given the ease in which the rebels, whose make-up include groups thought to be affiliated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), took a key town on Thursday, Hollande may make that call relatively soon.

France’s speedy response may help make U.S. decision-makers coming to a conclusion regarding the region far easier. After the Sept. 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, reports floated the possibility that the U.S. was considering launching drone strikes against AQIM. Those strikes never came to fruition, but remain a distinct possibility, as J. Peter Pham, director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, sees U.S. counter-terrorism officials being increasingly open to air strikes. “Drone strikes or airstrikes will not restore Mali’s territorial integrity or defeat the Islamists, but they may be the least bad option,” said Mr. Pham, a senior strategy adviser to the U.S. military’s Africa Command.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has confirmed that France has already used its air force to halt the southern advance of rebels in Mali.


View the original article here