US may not reduce troops in Afghanistan

[Chef Ramsay]

NEW YORK - Ahead of next week’s visit of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to the United States, a leading American newspaper reported Friday that the Obama administration States is nearing a decision to keep more troops in Afghanistan next year than over five thousand it had intended.

In a front page dispatch from Washington, The New York Times said the move effectively upends its drawdown plans in response to roiling violence in the country and another false start in the effort to open peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

President Ghani, a former World Bank executive, will meet with President Barack Obama as well as Secretary of State John Kerry to discuss possible changes to the U.S. timetable to withdraw the bulk of American troops helping to bolster Afghanistan’s still-struggling military.

More...http://nation.com.pk/international/21-Mar-2015/us-may-not-reduce-troops-in-afghanistan

[TheButterZone]

There will still be US troops in Afghanistan in 2101.

[waterpile]

There will still be US troops in Afghanistan in 2101.

I think, there would be still US troops as long as the belief for a holy war keeps on running for the islamic people. US troops will not be pulled out in Afghan

[NUFCrichard]

NEW YORK - Ahead of next week’s visit of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to the United States, a leading American newspaper reported Friday that the Obama administration States is nearing a decision to keep more troops in Afghanistan next year than over five thousand it had intended.

In a front page dispatch from Washington, The New York Times said the move effectively upends its drawdown plans in response to roiling violence in the country and another false start in the effort to open peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

President Ghani, a former World Bank executive, will meet with President Barack Obama as well as Secretary of State John Kerry to discuss possible changes to the U.S. timetable to withdraw the bulk of American troops helping to bolster Afghanistan’s still-struggling military.

More...http://nation.com.pk/international/21-Mar-2015/us-may-not-reduce-troops-in-afghanistan

Well it's not surprising, especially when America is mobilizing in Eastern Europe and Iraq, they don't seem like they want to reduce their war efforts anytime soon.
The Afghani Army will never be able to control the country, the Soviets couldn't, neither could America, why will they be able to?

Obama has just been a nightmare president.  The fact that he got a nobel peace prize (for what exactly?) should go down in the history books as one of the biggest disgraces of all time.

[shogdite]

Well been as the Trans Afghan Pipeline hasn't been finished (as far as I know),the US are likely to keep troops on the ground in Afghanistan for quite a while yet. Clearly they haven't been reading the history books or they would know the futility of occupying a country called 'the graveyard of empires'.

Meanwhile Afghanistan is probably due another bumper opium harvest.....

[Snail2]

After the fiasco in Iraq I'm not surprised. They spent shitloads of taxpayers money on training and equipping the Iraqi army and then on the first occasion a fistful of furry, camel fuckin' tribesman kicked their expensively trained asses...

[jaysabi]

Obama has just been a nightmare president.  The fact that he got a nobel peace prize (for what exactly?) should go down in the history books as one of the biggest disgraces of all time.

Specifically, for the work he had done to restart the START agreements with Russia, the promotion of dialogue with the Muslim world, and the emphasis he placed on multilateral diplomacy and the United Nations to solve the world's most pressing issues. Keep in mind the prize goes to the person who most impacts the cause of world peace in the year since the last prize was awarded, a particularly narrow time frame.

Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/presentation-speech.html

Now, whether or not the prize was warranted with the benefit of hindsight (my personal opinion is it was not), at least you now know for what exactly it was awarded.   

[Lethn]

After the fiasco in Iraq I'm not surprised. They spent shitloads of taxpayers money on training and equipping the Iraqi army and then on the first occasion a fistful of furry, camel fuckin' tribesman kicked their expensively trained asses...

Just goes to show you technology and weaponry means nothing if your troops aren't clever and brave enough to operate it, meanwhile the Kurds are holding their own against ISIS with nothing but soviet era weaponry.

[Snail2]

After the fiasco in Iraq I'm not surprised. They spent shitloads of taxpayers money on training and equipping the Iraqi army and then on the first occasion a fistful of furry, camel fuckin' tribesman kicked their expensively trained asses...

Just goes to show you technology and weaponry means nothing if your troops aren't clever and brave enough to operate it, meanwhile the Kurds are holding their own against ISIS with nothing but soviet era weaponry.

Well, most of those blokes doesn't seems to be very dedicated indeed.