Good news: U.S. agrees to provide military and financial support to Afghanistan through at least 2024
posted at 8:41 am on April 23, 2012 by Morgen Richmond
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama falsely accused John McCain of calling for a ’100 year war’ in Iraq. With President Obama now on the verge of committing the U.S. to nearly a quarter century of military engagement of one form or another in Afghanistan, will we soon see the reemergence of throngs of protesters marching in the streets against ‘endless war’? Don’t bet on it. Via the Sydney Morning Herald:
The US and Afghanistan have reached a deal on a long-delayed strategic partnership agreement that assures the Afghan people their key American ally will not abandon the country militarily or financially for years after 2014, the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw.
The agreement is key to the US exit strategy in Afghanistan because it provides guidelines for any American forces who remain after the withdrawal deadline and for financial help to the impoverished country and its security forces. For the Afghan government, it is a way to show its citizens that its key allies are not just walking away.
…
Neither Afghan nor US officials would comment on the details of the agreement, but it is believed to pledge a partnership for 10 years beyond the 2014 withdrawal deadline.
All sarcasm aside, this is at least tentatively good news. It remains to be seen what sort of financial commitment was promised (shouldn’t they be paying us?) to ensure that at least U.S. Special Forces continue to receive the access and local support necessary to continue the fight against Al Qaeda. Especially in the areas bordering Pakistan. But this will continue to be the central front in the war for the foreseeable future, and a complete pull-out would likely prove disastrous in the long run. (And the same may be true of Iraq.)
With the latest polls showing more and more Americans in favor of the withdrawal of all U.S. troops as soon as possible, it will be interesting to see how this issue factors into the election in November. I’d bet that most Americans are in favor of continuing Special Forces operations against Al Qaeda, and the Taliban leadership. But I am skeptical that those in favor of winding down the large-scale military presence are looking to wait until 2014 to do so, especially if the situation worsens in the coming months.
Romney is understandably taking some heat for not staking out a clear position on this, but really the smart thing for him to do is to wait and see how the situation evolves in the coming months. Ultimately there probably won’t end up being a lot of daylight between Romney and Obama on this issue. But for now President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and the political consequences of these decisions are his to own.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
House Judiciary Committee to Justice: Explain snooping on AP, please
British troops told not to wear uniforms outside bases after yesterday’s attack in London
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Ha.
Par for the course.
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 11:33 AM
At this stage?
What the rational folks have been saying for a while – that this wasn’t/isn’t some political manipulation by Obama or WH or campaign…but a not atypical process following and event like this…with things unclear in the early days…and some agencies having some turf battles.
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM
You’re right, it’s all so clear to me now. The FBI and CIA knew it was a terrorist attack and State (this is the turf war part) forced them to change the talking points because…turf war!
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM
You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
Do you consistently object to morning news show guests working from and relying on talking points?
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM
How does one differentiate between AQ and AQIM?
al Qaeda, the mother organization, has had a hand in standing up AQIM since before OIF started, camping out in Iraq taking in terrorists from places like… Benghazi. Seems that AQ and AQ in the Magreb have a nice overlap of personnel and outlook because of that, although we did get rid of some really nasty leaders of it. From there AQIM went over to Africa to begin consolidating old Muslim Brotherhood terror organizations under its wing, including the one in Libya. That was camped out with a couple of tribes bordering Algeria and Egypt.
Given that AQ was started by MB members and that AQIM started as a part of AQ and then conglomerated and cobbled together MB fostered terror groups that weren’t doing so hot, exactly where is the distinction? Operationally? AQIM continues in the long tradition of accepting all-source funding which includes KSA. Some of the rich guys in KSA also sponsor AQ and the MB, and started the MB back in the 20′s. It seems that these are just different heads of the same, horrific monster, and that monster feeds from KSA while the various heads grab any funds they can convince/extort/steal/gain by criminal activities and charities. Perhaps it is time to just start treating disparate organizations that come from the same funding source and root stock as just one larger organization. They exchange personnel, shift funding between them and even share resources so trying to say it is this terror group or that terror group or a third newly named old terror group that has taken a new name for confusion just doesn’t accurately describe the situation.
Of course if you did that you would have to point at KSA and stop kissing the Saudi’s. You know the people putting radical mosques in the US to encourage terror bombers, like those in Boston? Those guys. KSA. Terror Inc.
ajacksonian on May 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Gee,it’s pitiful how Toria Nuland was so concerned how Chris’ death would reflect poorly on the State Department.
BigAlSouth on May 16, 2013 at 11:44 AM
If only…
So your theory is what exactly…
What was the plot here as far as the talking points?
Who directed it?
Who was in on it?
What was Obama’s involvement in all of it?
How was his campaign involved?
Who from CIA/STATE/FBI/WH/Campaign worked together to put together and execute this inaccurate talking points strategy…to achieve what exactly?
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM
That’s a good point. Was Rice privy to the fact that the CIA and FBI had already determined this was a terrorist attack, or was she just repeating the lie she had been told. Regardless, Rice is just a bit schmuck in all of this anyways. The real players are State and the WH.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Yep.
She was probably included in the intragency loop cleared by the WH as the Talking Points were developed.
Might try to read those e-mails in yesterday’s dump.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM
She was in on it…UN
Duh!
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Let’s ask verbaluce:
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM
What was not released were transcripts of the teleconferences between the agencies coordinated by Ben & Jake as the talking points were spontaneously evolving….among other things.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:51 AM
PSSST … there’s a rumor going around that CARNEY is out !
We’ll see.
pambi on May 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Isn’t that the point of the investigation?
You know, you really aren’t any fun anymore on this subject. The excuse making is so far behind the truth at this point that all anyone is doing talking to you is wasting their time. Your major problem is that you can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious because doing so will require asking difficult questions. And the obvious, of course, is that State (and probably the WH) were very interested in not admitting this was a terrorist attack. Why?
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM
I haven’t read all of the emails. Was she part of the fact massaging?
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM
I think the administration knowingly let her tell the lie. CIA, FBI, and even people at State knew it was a lie.
Now, ask yourself why State wanted this lie told.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Ha ha. This is funny.
bayam and verbaluce are so far behind in this story that we merely need to “catch them up” in order to counter their outdated claims.
They also want to cling to the “mistakes were made” claim instead of admitting that the lies were told for political purposes because Obama was weeks away from an election.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 11:57 AM
This isn’t rocket science, verbaluce. In fact, it isn’t science (which I know liberals hate) at all. The answer is objectively obvious.
They needed to portray the illegal Libyan war as a big Obama success. They couldn’t do this without blaming the video – so they blamed the video despite the intel pointing in the other direction.
That’s despicable.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Que Dan Savage!
Diversity!
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Sure it was.
Maybe generating lies is typical for an Obama admin, but it most certainly shouldn’t be typical.
Things weren’t so unclear as to definitively blame a video, though. Square that circle (if that math reference isn’t too difficult for you – I know liberals hate math).
This wasn’t a turf battle between State and agencies with active intel efforts. The emails make it clear that people wanted these changes made for political purposes – NOT because of any difference in opinion regarding intel.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 12:05 PM
I’m well aware that I’m not going to convince you to in any way even consider the possibility that the narrative you’re buying is wrong.
But if it’s not fun for me to continually point out that your narrative is fed purely by dis-proven theories…then I guess I am indeed a wet blanket.
Also, don’t think that my challenging all of this in any way reflects some position that nothing went wrong in Benghazi. A sh*tload did (obviously). Would be great if congress could focus on that…instead of this.
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Read them.
Jake Tapper made it easy on his CNN link.
The e-mails confirm intragency teleconferences approved by the WH as this was rolling along…Also mentions including Justice by request of FBI.
Doesn’t name all the agencies in the e-mails released but UN always goes hand in hand with State on this stuff.
That’s one reason UN Amb. Rice was selected…coordinated with Obama’s 9/25 UN appearance.
The transcript of those intragency teleconferences hasn’t been released even to congress.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM
There, there, now. We’ll use more Baby Powder next time.
Tsar of Earth on May 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM
You can choke that chicken until your get blisters if you want, but the rest of us have moved on to wanting to know why State and the WH invented the video lie.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM
BINGO!
Totally Coordinated…
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Maybe, but Rice is pretty stupid. I can see her being handed a piece of paper with talking points and running with it no questions asked. I would also suggest that our UN reps are last to hear about interagency discussions because they really have no say in anything. They are technically nothing more than mouth pieces for American interests.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:16 PM
This is incredibly ironic.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 12:20 PM
I’d question that you’ve ‘moved on’.
And I’ll welcome your well tested blister remedies, should I need.
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Susan Rice very clearly claimed, on each one of those Sunday morning shows, that Benghazi was “in fact” caused by protests over that lame YouTube video. Yet nobody on the ground in either Tripoli or Benghazi, nobody at all, ever mentions any protests. I’d like to know who first cooked up the idea to blame the whole thing on a non-existent protest over an incredibly lame, cheaply made, and very poorly dubbed (it looks and sounds like the word “Mohammed” was clumsily added over the original dialogue) five minute clip on the web? No doubt in my mind that story came from Cankles.
Stu Gotts on May 16, 2013 at 12:24 PM
I have no doubt that you want to focus on apolitical mistakes made in Benghazi instead of the political cover-up that was attempted by the Obama administration.
Be careful, those apolitical mistakes may have their roots in political posturing. Denying necessary security might have been a political decision to make Libya look like a safe, happy place.
See Les Aspin.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 12:25 PM
If you don’t know by now you are hopeless.
Basilsbest on May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Second request. Please answer.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM
It’s about establishing facts. The fact that an attempt to cover up Benghazi was a terrorist attack has been established. Now we need to established the facts for why.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM
What is your point…Do you even have one?
Read the e-mails and get back to us.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Here’s a place to start…There was a presidential election happening in about 6 weeks.
That would be one motive.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:35 PM
You guys are missing the point here. We know what the Fluke the score is. But we need to establish proof. That’s my point. And really, that’s my point to verbalidiocy. He can’t accept the established facts. We are moving on to establish the facts (proof) for why.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:40 PM
No, I don’t have a point. Fluke off and go talk to someone else.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM
She was either intentionally and knowingly lying, or she was a feckless dupe parroting a line that nobody could substantiate. Yeah, just the kind of person I would have wanted as Secretary of State.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM
You know, except for the bits in black and white, and in English, mind you, where they say items are being changed to keep information away from Congress who might use it to beat up the State Department (with open references to the House committee for good measure).
That’s nothing *but* political, you a$$wipe.
Midas on May 16, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Or head of the NSA. As a bobblehead she’s fine at the UN, but not anywhere else.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Why? We now know that what we said they were doing … they were doing. There can be no good explanation, and historians will debate the “why” for the next 50 years, as they do with Nixon and Watergate. All I care about right now is that heads must roll … starting with the rotten head at the top.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:49 PM
I sit corrected.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:50 PM
No free condom dispensaries down here yet…But I’ll be sure to Fluke off when they do…
Didn’t mean to pi$$ you off…But your comments can be sorta opaque.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Of course I’ll have to find a local Fluke and get blindly drunk…
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Seriously, WTH is wrong with you people? Why? Why?? Because it rubs the lotion on its skin? Give me a Fluking break. Of course we want to establish proof for why!
Why buries Obama. What we have now does not. If the country was nothing but Hot Air posters Obama would have not won in 2008 let alone 2012. Why needs to be proven to bring the support needed to, at the very least, make this administration totally impotent.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM
You know what? I’m sorry. Maybe I’m not clear enough. Rice is dumber than rocks and may not of been involved in creating the talking points. She isn’t good for anything but winding up and unleashing on the public with preset gum flapping commands. That’s my point.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Facts in a chain of evidence buries Obama…Why aids the prosecutors argument unless the Why of it shows up in testimony.
So we’ll see…
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Nothing wrong with talking points provided they resemble a fact and/or truth.
Either she’s a bit time liar or a big time dimwit. Not sure which is preferable.
Dunno about you, but if I’m going to hit the news circuits, be on every TV station and be the face of “The Administration’s Talking Points”, then be d*mned sure I’m going to vet them myself.
But then again, I’m not a big time dimwit nor a bit time liar.
YMMV, however.
kim roy on May 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM
S’alright…Most of my smartass comments are meant to be offered in sportsmanship.
I think maybe we’re both right.
You’re right that she’s an idiot incapable of providing valuable imput…I’m right that being involved doesn’t mean she had to do anything other then occupy a chair and say yes.
either way…Her talk show appearances were coordinated with Il Duce’s epic defense of our Bill of Rights at his 9/25 UN Wave his presidential wanker speech.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Oh and might I add if I were left to hang on faulty talking points after being bald faced lied to and given bad documentation (and that’s what it would take to shill the talking points Rice did), then be sure I’d be singing that tune of who told me and when.
But then I have ethics. Again, YMMV.
kim roy on May 16, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Where’s the illegal act though? That’s the problem. Why is very important here because this is political. Maybe the other shoe to drop that may make why unnecessary will be evidence that a stand-down order was given. Of course that may be part of why we have the invented video meme to begin with.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM
…my building leadership.
The building: State Department
The leader: Any Guesses?
This stuff isn’t rocket science; it’s basic investigative work and, at this point, only involves the ability to read and understand the English language (a calendar and clock wouldn’t hurt, as well).
Another question, still not answered (and, maddeningly, not asked):
Where was the Commander in Chief?
Hicks in-person phone call with SOS Clinton was at 3 a.m. Libya time, only 9 p.m. in the White House. Where was the President? Watching Modern Family (it was a Tuesday), or Criminal Minds? Working out? Hanging with Beyonce? Working on his putting stroke?
Does this not interest anyone? The President appoints Ambassadors. Where is the photo-op from the “Situation Room?” Was this not important enough to be a “Situation?”
Who told the military not to head to Benghazi with all due dispatch? Forget whether or not they would/could have made it — when the scramble call comes, you go. Besides, terrorist attacks don’t stop when the whistle blows; there’s no game clock telling you when it’s over. Besides, do you not try to save your child when the house is on fire?
Where was the President? This is a man who can personally oversee the hit list for every terrorist in the world, can personally direct the Bin Laden raid (lol), and can find a friendly photographer seemingly anywhere. But, on 9-11-2012, he’s nowhere to be found and nobody asks the question.
Where was the Commander in Chief and what was he doing, personally, while his friend (and only coincidentally, Ambassador to Libya) was under attack and killed?
Since when is CIC a day job?
IndieDogg on May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM
BTW
Well played:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/09/benghazi-whats-new/comment-page-3/#comment-6967160
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 1:10 PM
\
What’s wrong with relying on the State department’s own reasons for changing the talking points? What more evidence do you need? State appointees knew that the White House and campaign wanted. State appointee would lose their jobs if Obama lost the election. They knew the score.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Off the top of my head and Not in any particular order…
The Stand Down Order.
The Policy Incompetence of not planning strategically for 9/11 anniversary.
The Denial of requested increased Security especially after the attempted assassination of the British Ambassador.
How States budget or any budgets in the executive are spent.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying…
Who knew Monica would make a fetish souvenier out of that blue dress…certainly not Bill Clinton.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM
If Obama were to abandon an entire brigade of Marines he should obviously be impeached, but I still don’t see what is illegal in that. What law is broken? That is not to say this administration has not done anything illegal (IRS scandal for example), but on this specific issue I don’t know what law was broken. Impeachment itself is a political process, not a legal process beyond the rules governing it and the results of a successful conviction.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM
This from NRO Campaign Spot from the emails released yesterday;
Very interesting when you consider this post from The PJ Tatler from 9/10/12, sorta destroys the video for being the reason for the Cairo protests and elsewhere;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/
crazywater on May 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Once again, this POS blamed a lack of sufficient funding for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi….
Ironically, Obama called on 2 US Military personnel sacrifice for his @$$ by standing out in the rain holding up umbrellas so he wouldn’t get wet!
When it benefits HIM, when he needs a human umbrella holder or a raid to get OBL, he calls & the miltry answers! When Stevens was BEGGING for additional security – after 2 previous terrorist attacks – Obama REFUSED! While Amerians fought for 8 hours and waited for Obama to provide cover for them, his @$$ told rescue forces to STAND DOWN, sentencing them to die!
What a POS!
easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 2:16 PM
I kinda agree with you.
After the House impeaches, the Senate is supposed to use “high crimes and misdemeanors” (IRRC) as the legal standard when they vote to remove from office.
Making bad/incompetent military decisions doesn’t meet this, and I doubt there is any evidence that assistance was deliberately withheld in the hopes that Americans would die. Nobody would be stupid enough to leave such a paper trail – even if it was true – which I doubt it is.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM
I think the key is Patreus…The way they got rid of him.
That was too clever by half
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2