U.S. military policy under Obama has been different, narrower in its scope and more modest in its goals….These are ongoing military actions, not unending wars, and ones that the U.S. can easily afford. They also work. A Whac-A-Mole strategy is no fun for the mole. Just ask the Islamic State as it watches its territory shrink…
“VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.” — VOA Charter
Why the Death of Taliban Leader Mullah Mansour Won’t Bring Peace to Afghanistan
Posted June 22nd, 2016 at 3:24 pm (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
But the idea that the Taliban’s fragmentation and internal weakness will drive it to the negotiating table or to military defeat is far from guaranteed. In fact, internal divisions may actually cause the Taliban to become more aggressive on the battlefield and less likely to come to the negotiating table.
Another Taliban Leader Killed. What Next?
Posted May 25th, 2016 at 5:41 pm (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
President Barack Obama called the killing of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour “an important milestone” in U.S. efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan. Obama’s statement Monday went on to explain that Mansour rejected peace talks with Afghanistan and was plotting attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces.
How the drone strike that killed Mansour was carried out raises as many questions as the act itself. It took place on Pakistan soil, in Baluchistan rather than along the frontier with Afghanistan. It’s still murky whether Pakistan intelligence or military officials helped the U.S. or had advance warning. There’s even an Iran element to the intrigue.
The Taliban has named a successor, someone said to hold the same views as his predecessor about negotiations with the Afghan government. As the U.S. decides how (and whether) to draw down forces in Afghanistan, will the short term success bring long term peace?
The U.S. Has a Special Responsibility to Those Who Helped Americans
Posted April 6th, 2016 at 3:08 pm (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
The United States does not have sole responsibility for Afghan refugees, but it does have special responsibility for some, as a result of our long military intervention there. In particular, it should take responsibility for the safety of Afghans who are in danger because of their association with the U.S. government, its troops and contractors.
Afghanistan War: Just What Was the Point?
Posted February 25th, 2016 at 2:20 pm (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
Fatigue was always going to be the decider. Western fatigue with the horrors their troops saw, and with the violence inflicted daily on Afghans themselves. The fatigue of the financial cost, where a power station that was barely ever switched on cost Uncle Sam a third of a billion dollars.
The Islamic State of Afghanistan
Posted December 23rd, 2015 at 9:17 am (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
[T]he military situation in … much of Afghanistan is getting close to critical, if it’s not there already. Now the Afghan government’s Western supporters and NATO need to show resolve and firmly back up the beleaguered Afghan security forces and do so with a view to a negotiated peace, not an open-ended war.
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan
Posted October 16th, 2015 at 11:58 am (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
The key to ending the Afghan war remains a negotiated truce between the government and the leading factions of the Taliban, which has entered into talks with the Kabul government in recent years, but has not been persuaded to join the political process.
Obama Just Signed a Blank Check for Endless War in Afghanistan
Posted October 15th, 2015 at 7:24 pm (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
While Obama suggested that the Afghan military is “fully responsible for securing their country,” his decision to maintain US troops levels effectively guarantees that the United States will remain deeply involved in Afghanistan until after the president leaves office in early 2017.
Obama Rethinks Afghanistan
Posted October 15th, 2015 at 1:32 pm (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
In what can only be seen as a dramatic reversal in policy, President Barack Obama has decided to delay the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, keeping the current force of nearly 10,000 in place past the end of his presidency, when they will shrink to 5,500. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, he pledged to end U.S. involvement in two costly wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. But with the Taliban’s brief but bold takeover of Kunduz province and the ongoing threat posed by the Islamic State, the president was forced to reconsider his initial plan to finally put an end to America’s longest war. While some say it’s too little too late, others are praising him for acting against his strong belief that the United States must not march into what he calls “open-ended military conflicts.”
Out of Afghanistan? Not yet
Posted October 14th, 2015 at 10:03 am (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
Leaving a significant troop presence in Afghanistan wasn’t part of the legacy Obama envisioned when he vowed to end two wars. But legacy has to take a back seat to facts on the ground. Given the unraveling in Iraq and the recent gains by the Taliban, the U.S. can’t leave Afghanistan yet.
Mr. McCain’s Irresponsible Remarks About Sgt. Bergdahl
Posted October 14th, 2015 at 8:23 am (UTC-5)
Comments are closed
The Army’s decision to prosecute Sergeant Bergdahl for desertion and for violating rules that endangered his comrades was questionable, considering the abuse he suffered in captivity and the military’s failure to recognize that he was not mentally fit to be deployed to a war zone.
Afghanistan: It’s Only Getting Worse
Afghanistan was already one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a civilian, but the findings of the investigation were even worse than observers and U.S. officials expected…After providing nearly $70 billion in security assistance, Washington is still looking at an Afghanistan that cannot sustain itself…