In his first few years in office, Obama dramatically ramped up the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, from a little over 30,000 to more than 100,000 troops at the peak in 2011.
The plan was to cripple the Taliban, train the Afghan military, stabilize government and then withdraw the U.S. forces by the time Obama's second term ended.
But a few things happened along the way.
Obama withdrew the final American combat troops from Iraq at the end of 2011, when that country was relatively stable. But the Iraqi fighting resumed as the Islamic State emerged as a potent force, and Obama sent American forces back into Iraq.
Trump's surrender handjob.The deal required the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners by the start of the talks, in a prisoner exchange for 1,000 government soldiers held by the Taliban.[14]
The provisions of the deal included the withdrawal of all NATO troops from Afghanistan, a Taliban pledge to prevent al-Qaeda from operating in areas under Taliban control, and talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.[15] The United States agreed to an initial reduction of its force level from 13,000 to 8,600 by July 2020, followed by a full withdrawal within 14 months if the Taliban kept its commitments.[16] NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg pledged to bring down NATO's numbers to about 12,000 from roughly 16,000 troops.[17] The United States also committed to closing five military bases within 135 days,[14] and expressed its intent to end economic sanctions on the Taliban by August 27, 2020.[11]
And his lack of commitment to his threats because he wanted Afghan women to suffer.However, in the aftermath of the agreement, the US stopped supporting the Afghan military in its offensive operations, forcing it to take mostly defensive positions around the country. According to the agreement, US military aircraft could not attack Taliban groups waiting more than 500 meters away, giving the Taliban an edge in targeting Afghan military units. The agreement also exacerbated the decline in morale of the Afghan army and police, making them more open to accepting bargains with the Taliban. Due to a lack of information and secret annexes in the agreement, that had not been shared even with the then Afghan government, the Taliban were able to spread propaganda and disinformation about the agreement, including convincing local police and military units that the US had handed over territories to the Taliban and that they should abandon their positions.[51]
In the 45 days after the agreement (between March 1 and April 15, 2020), the Taliban conducted more than 4,500 attacks in Afghanistan, an increase of more than 70% compared to the same period in the previous year.[52] More than 900 Afghan security forces were killed in the period, up from about 520 in the same period a year earlier. Meanwhile, because of a significant reduction in the number of offensives and airstrikes by Afghan and US forces against the Taliban, Taliban casualties dropped to 610 in the period down from about 1,660 in the same period a year earlier. The Pentagon spokesman, Jonathan Hoffman, said that although the Taliban stopped conducting attacks against the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan, the violence was still "unacceptably high" and "not conducive to a diplomatic solution." He added: "We have continued to do defensive attacks to help defend our partners in the area and we will continue to do that."[52]
On June 22, 2020, Afghanistan reported its "bloodiest week in 19 years", during which 291 members of the ANDSF were killed and 550 others wounded in 422 attacks carried out by the Taliban. At least 42 civilians, including women and children, were also killed and 105 others wounded by the Taliban across 18 provinces.[53] During the week, the Taliban kidnapped 60 civilians in the central province of Daykundi.[54]
The Elimination of Women's RightsWhen they took control in 1996, the Taliban initially imposed strict edicts that: Banished women from the workforce. Closed schools to girls and women and expelled women from universities. Prohibited women from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative.
All with full and total support of Davey Boy!
- Forums
- World Politics
- Why is Tim Walz deliberately allowing newborn babies to die?
Why is Tim Walz deliberately allowing newborn babies to die?, page-186
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 41 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)