PDA

View Full Version : Secretary of State Pompeo Travels to Afghanistan, Calls for Peace Talks




shakey1
07-09-2018, 12:59 PM
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in Afghanistan for a surprise visit, where he is calling for peace between government forces and the Taliban.
Pompeo arrived in Kabul Monday to meet with the country’s president and top diplomats.


He urged both groups to come to the negotiating table, adding, the U.S. would be willing to help facilitate the discussions.


Pompeo said the Afghan people deserve peace and the government should do more to end the 17-year war despite the Taliban repeatedly rejecting calls for peace talks.


“An element of the progress is the capacity that we now have to believe that there is help, that many of the Taliban now see that they can’t win on the ground militarily,” stated the secretary of state. “That is deeply connected to the President Trump’s strategy.”


Pompeo went on to say he’s hopeful for peace going forward, but knows the four-decade conflict will not be solved overnight.


http://www.oann.com/secretary-of-state-pompeo-travels-to-afghanistan-calls-for-peace-talks/

Swordsmyth
07-09-2018, 02:53 PM
Bring them home!

kpitcher
07-09-2018, 03:17 PM
It would seem like if we started bombing the poppy fields they'd realize we're serious about change over there. Of course that'd never happen.

DamianTV
07-09-2018, 03:41 PM
It would seem like if we started bombing the poppy fields they'd realize we're serious about change over there. Of course that'd never happen.

And with that exactly, it should be obvious there is ZERO intent on winning the War on Drugs, only sustaining it. Just like Cops whose sole purpose is to hand out speeding tickets as a source of revenue, the intent is to give more speeding tickets so they can hire even more cops to give more speeding tickets. The industry supports itself by validating its purpose. In the War on Drugs, the intent is to maintain the production of drugs. They validate their existence by going after a few of the middle men and really go after the low level dealers. They never go after the sources. They know if they win the War on Drugs, they are out of a job. How many other industries are just as predatory as Drugs? Healthcare keeps people sick so they use more healthcare. Welfare keeps people poor so they use more welfare. Debt keeps people broke so they use even more debt.

Belief, Money, Violence.

First, we have to Believe that drugs are bad, m'kay? Once we believe that, that belief is used to validate their sustained purpose by supposedly going after "bad drugs". I'd like to say they are funded by tax money, but too often that isnt the case, especially at higher levels. They print their own money by borrowing from the Fed, and the value comes from stealing the value of your money without touching the quantity. And if YOU dont "pay your taxes", then they come after you and take your property. Thats a form of Violence. If you resist or are found guilty, they throw you in jail. Another form of Violence. And those prisons are far too often backed up by the circle of demanding more money by making everyone Believe you are bad and they need to spend money on applying various forms of Violence to you.

The good news is if you break one block in that vicious circle, the whole thing comes falling down. They want violence because that is what they are geared toward. So you cant take them out using Violence alone. Now, if you are faced with an army about to kick in your front door, and they know if they do, they bite the hand that feeds them, and will no longer receive a Paycheck because they kick in your front door, that entire army is defeated. That army also may Believe they are doing the "right thing". Destroy that belief and free them of obedience to Money, and they may stand there ready to attack, order to attack is given, and they say "meh" and walk away and leave you alone. If they did not Believe that being an enforcer of Violence was the right thing to do, they may not become cops or soldiers at all. Many do it because of the Power of Money. But, if they also Believe that the Money had its value based on how much Violence they do not conduct, they may choose to not attack in order to keep their own Money. Take away their weapons, the army runs away. Cut off their Paychecks, they walk away. Alter their Beliefs, and they choose to ignore their bosses and walk away. Thus, you always have someone in govt telling you to "Take our Money and conduct Violence on our behalf, or we will pay someone else to be Violent toward you also".

Successful Revolutions do not rely on Violence alone. The other methods are far more effective.

enhanced_deficit
07-09-2018, 05:46 PM
Bring them home!

Already has been promised at the highest level.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521272-How-much-trust-do-you-put-in-current-President-s-promises-and-statements&p=6616086&viewfull=1#post6616086

Zippyjuan
07-09-2018, 05:59 PM
https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/trumps-strategy-in-afghanistan-the-beginning-of-an-indefinite-end/


Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan: The Beginning of an Indefinite End


a year after the strategy was introduced, the outcomes are inconclusive.

As we approach the one year anniversary of U.S. President Donald Trump’s unveiling of his South Asia strategy in August, it’s worth reflecting on the policy’s outcomes to date. The outcomes remain inconclusive and the verdict on the policy remains divided. While General John W. Nicholson, the Commander of NATO’s Operation Resolute Support chose to refer to the current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan as “talking and fighting,” U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis explained the situation in Afghanistan as the “co-existence of violence and progress.”

One pillar of Trump’s strategy in Afghanistan was “the integration of all instruments of American power-diplomatic, economic, and military- toward a successful outcome.” However, in the same speech, Trump also put forth a high-on-military, low-on-diplomacy strategy by saying that a political settlement could be considered “after an effective military effort.” While “attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror acts against America” were seen as the parameters of a successful outcome, the specifics of what constituted this seemingly open-ended and condition-based “victory” were not clearly defined. They have remained indefinite since.

Since Trump announced his South Asia strategy, the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan is said to have risen to 15,000 despite the lack of specific official data in this regard. However, the number of civilian casualties in the first three months of 2018 are as high as the same period in 2016 and 2017. In addition, 1,500 casualties were attributed to anti-government elements, a 6 percent rise as compared to the same period in 2017. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s “unconditional peace proposal” in February to the Taliban — including a ceasefire, legitimate recognition of the Taliban as a political group, scope for new elections and a constitutional review — was believed to be receiving some consideration from the Taliban, despite the uncanny quiet from their end.

The Taliban’s announcement of its spring offensive in April 2018 added much credibility to doubts about the Taliban’s non-responsiveness to the proposal, at least in the immediate period. Also, more recently, the Taliban leader Sheikh Haibatullah Akhunzada marking the end of Ramadan, stated that Afghanistan’s salvation lay in the departure of American and other occupying forces and if America wants peace, it must be willing to negotiate directly with the Taliban. Taliban’s unwillingness to engage with the Afghan government throws a wrench into U.S. efforts to push the Taliban and the Afghan government toward reconciliation with a supporting role for itself. Quite interestingly, Nicholson in a recent NATO Press Conference stated that “the objective of the U.S. South Asia strategy has been reconciliation.”

Nicholson on May 30, stated that 80 percent of Taliban attacks had been defeated or the Taliban failed to take control, and the remaining 20 percent of successful attacks were defeated in a time-frame that ranged from a few hours to 10 days. He has also claimed that the Taliban “has not sought to gain and hold new ground.” However, according to the Long War Journal, 41 districts in Afghanistan remain under Taliban control while 201 districts remain contested, placing Taliban controlled and contested territory at approximately 60 percent.



More than 17 years after U.S. forces entered Afghanistan, many envisioned endgames have come and gone but the prospects for peace and stability remain as elusive as ever. What transpires in the Washington, D.C., beltway regarding Afghanistan not only impacts the individual strategies of major players like India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Iran but also the dynamics of amity and enmity among them.

More at link. Article from three weeks ago.