|
Afghanistan – More Dead End Proposals Seek Time To Allow U.S. Face Saving Exit
The Doha agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban includes a promise by the Taliban to not attack U.S. troops or major cities. In exchange the U.S. promised to leave Afghanistan by May 1. The problem for the U.S. is that leaving Afghanistan will inevitable lead to a new Taliban regime, likely within a few months. It would make the U.S. look weak. That is something that Washington inherently dislikes.
In early March the Biden administration launched a new Afghanistan peace initiative. It proposed to create a new interim government with participation of the Taliban and under a new constitution. The idea is to uphold some picture of normalcy that can hold for a few months while the U.S. skips out. We said that the idea was unlikely to fly:
President Ghani is furious about Blinken's letter. Other interest groups in the Afghan government also reject it. They think it is a bluff. Unless the U.S. stops the money flow to Kabul and pulls out its troops there is no need for Ghani and other to proceed.
The Taliban will also reject the proposals. They want the U.S. to leave and they feel sure that, after that, they can win the civil war and reinstall their Islamic Emirate. Their backers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are likewise convinced that there is no need to change course.
The new U.S. proposal is a dead end.
Today President Ashraf Ghani made a counterproposal which has a similar chance to be realized:
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will propose a new presidential election within six months, under a peace plan he will put forward as a counter-offer to a U.S. proposal that he rejects, two senior government officials told Reuters.
Ghani will unveil his proposal at an international gathering in Turkey next month, signalling his refusal to accept Washington's plan for his elected government to be replaced by an interim administration, the officials said.
…
"The counterproposal which we are going to present at the Istanbul meeting would be to call for early presidential elections if the Taliban agree on a ceasefire," one senior government official said on condition of anonymity.
Another Afghan government official said: "The president would never agree to step aside and any future government should be formed through democratic process, not a political deal."
A third senior official also said Ghani's proposal would include possible early elections, although he did not specify the exact time frame for the vote. The third official said Ghani had already shared his road map with Khalilzad.
…The Afghan officials said that as part of Ghani's counter-proposal, his government would ask the U.N. to closely observe the new election to ensure it is accepted by all sides.
There is no way that a credible election could happen in Afghanistan within the next few years. If the U.S. wants to get out of Afghanistan while leaving behind some functioning government its must move Ghani out of the way. As The U.S. holds the purse without which Ghani can't do anything that should not be too hard to do.
Meanwhile the Taliban have offered their own plan which would allow for the U.S. to have some time to save face:
The Taliban has confirmed that they have shared a 90-day reduction in violence (RIV) plan with the US, but said there has been no overall agreement on the plan so far.
Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem told TOLOnews that the reduction in violence will not mean a ceasefire, but it will result in a decrease in all operations by the group in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his letter to President Ashraf Ghani referred to this plan and has reiterated that it will stop the Taliban from announcing its so-called spring offensive.
But Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem said the plan was proposed by the Taliban in December and an agreement has not yet been reached.
“We proposed a draft in December, which involved all operations being reduced, but so far a final agreement has not been reached,” Naeem said on Monday.
When the Soviet Union had troops in Afghanistan it trained the Afghan army to a reasonable standard. It also provided weapons that were easy to use and needed little maintenance. After the Soviets left Afghanistan that army held out against the U.S. supported Mujahedins for another three years. It only faltered when the Soviet Union cut off its financial and material assistance.
The U.S. never managed to train the Afghan army and police to any reasonable standard. It also provided weapons and systems that can not be maintained without external assistance. Without U.S. backing on the ground and in the air that army will likely fold within days:
Over the past two decades, the United States has invested more than $88 billion to build, train and equip Afghan troops and police – and yet the Taliban is clearly a superior fighting force.
…
John Sopko, the brutally honest inspector general for reconstruction in Afghanistan, has been sounding the alarm for years about how corruption, waste, and fraud was effectively neutering the U.S. government’s effort to breathe life into the Afghan security forces.
“The Afghan military – and particularly the Afghan police – has been a hopeless nightmare and a disaster,” Sopko warned Congress in January 2020.
…
“Based on all the work we’ve done, it seems obvious that the biggest mistake we’ve made was to try to build an Afghan Army in our own image and likeness,” Sopko said. “In other words, an Army that uses the systems and the equipment and the weapons that our army does. And yet, this is a country where a huge portion of the population are illiterate, where there’s very little electricity, and very little internet.”
…
“Currently, the Afghan government has limited capability to move food, ammunition, medical supplies, and so on, to units in the field,” Sopko said. “As SIGAR [the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction] has highlighted recently, the Afghans also lack any capability to maintain their equipment. Without development of these core functions, the ANDSF will never be able to sustain itself.”
…
Despite two decades and billions of dollars of support, Afghan security forces cannot survive without outside assistance. The Taliban can. That advantage will be decisive whenever U.S. troops leave the country.
The money and time was wasted because the U.S. never had the strategic foresight to plan for leaving Afghanistan. But leave it must.
Just a few days ago there was a warning that a renewal of a U.S. fight against the Taliban would likely create high U.S. casualties with little chances of success.
Lotfullah Najafizada @LNajafizada – 8:13 UTC · Mar 20, 2021
Exclusive TOLOnews footage shows the downing of the army helicopter immediately after take off from Behsud where the helicopters were lifting police casualties. Sources tell us that an anti-aircraft missile was used in the attack by AliPoor’s militias. video
Alipoor is a warlord and leader of ethnic Hazaras, a mainly Shiite community. His militia are currently in conflict with the government but also mistrust the Taliban. But if Alipoor's militia have access to man portable air defense missiles (MANPADs) and know how to use them, the Taliban will also have those capabilities. The U.S. military is highly dependent on air transport and air support. A renewed fight would be too costly.
There is nothing left for the U.S. but to leave.
Posted by: vk | Mar 23 2021 19:43 utc | 12
I’m perfectly aware of the date on the article. November 2020 isn’t that long ago. Also, I only linked to that article because it was linked in a more recent article with a much longer URL and I was too lazy to format the hyperlink such that the usual complainers wouldn’t bitch about it ruining their viewing experience on whatever crummy tablet or smartphone they are using.
Here it is:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-team-preparing-up-to-3-trillion-in-new-spending-for-the-economy/ar-BB1eQspQ
Prince Harry’s new job and other working royals
Not Ready to Reopen: Restaurant Chooses to Remain in Purple Tier
WASHINGTON — President Biden’s economic advisers are pulling together a sweeping $3 trillion package to boost the economy, reduce carbon emissions and narrow economic inequality, beginning with a giant infrastructure plan that may be financed in part through tax increases on corporations and the rich.
a windmill next to a body of water: A wind farm in Carbon County, Wyo. Clean energy is among the areas that would see investment under President Biden’s infrastructure plan.© Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York Times A wind farm in Carbon County, Wyo. Clean energy is among the areas that would see investment under President Biden’s infrastructure plan.
After months of internal debate, Mr. Biden’s advisers are expected to present the spending proposal to the president and congressional leaders this week, as well as begin outreach to industry and labor groups. On Monday, Mr. Biden’s national climate adviser, Gina McCarthy, discussed his infrastructure plans — and their role in combating climate change — in a meeting with oil and gas industry executives.
Administration officials caution that details remain in flux. But the enormous scope of the proposal highlights the aggressive approach the Biden administration wants to take as it tries to harness the power of the federal government to make the economy more equitable, address climate change, and improve American manufacturing and high-technology industries in an escalating battle with China.
The $1.9 trillion economic aid package that Mr. Biden signed into law this month includes money to help vulnerable people and businesses survive the pandemic downturn. But it does little to advance the longer-term economic agenda that Mr. Biden campaigned on, including transitioning to renewable energy and improving America’s ability to compete in emerging industries, like electric vehicles. Administration officials essentially see those goals — building out the nation’s infrastructure and shifting to a low-carbon future — as inseparable.
a car parked in a parking lot: An electric vehicle charging station in Baker, Calif. Documents suggest a Biden administration plan would include nearly $1 trillion in spending alone on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, and electric vehicle charging stations.© Philip Cheung for The New York Times An electric vehicle charging station in Baker, Calif. Documents suggest a Biden administration plan would include nearly $1 trillion in spending alone on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, and electric vehicle charging stations.
The package under consideration would begin that effort in earnest.
“President Biden’s plan represents a stunning shift in priorities, addressing many of the nation’s most pressing challenges,” said Seth Hanlon, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank, contrasting the plan with the priorities of Mr. Biden’s predecessor President Donald J. Trump. “As reported, the plan is very wide-ranging, reflecting the fact that we’ve underinvested in so many areas.”
Just how to approach the legislative strategy is still under discussion given the size of the proposal and the thin majority that Democrats hold in the House and the Senate.
Mr. Biden’s advisers plan to recommend that the effort be broken into pieces, with Congress tackling infrastructure before turning to a second package that would include more people-focused proposals, like free community college, universal prekindergarten and a national paid leave program.
Some White House officials believe the focus of the first package may be more appealing to Republicans, business leaders and many moderate Senate Democrats, given the longstanding bipartisan push in Washington for an infrastructure bill.
That plan would spend heavily on clean energy deployment and the development of other “high-growth industries of the future” like 5G telecommunications. It includes money for rural broadband, advanced training for millions of workers, and one million affordable and energy-efficient housing units. Documents suggest it will include nearly $1 trillion in spending on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, ports, electric vehicle charging stations, and improvements to the electric grid and other parts of the power sector.
Whether it can muster Republican support will depend in large part on how the bill is paid for.
Officials have discussed offsetting some or all of the infrastructure spending by raising taxes on corporations, including increasing the 21 percent corporate income tax rate and a variety of measures to force multinational corporations to pay more tax in the United States on income they earn abroad. That strategy is unlikely to garner Republican votes.
“I don’t think there’s going to be any enthusiasm on our side for a tax increase,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, told reporters last week. He predicted the administration’s infrastructure plan would be a “Trojan horse” for tax increases.
The overall price tag of the package could approach $4 trillion since it includes several tax incentives, like credits to help families afford child care and to encourage energy efficiency in existing buildings. It could also extend temporary tax cuts meant to fight poverty, which could increase the size of the proposal by hundreds of billions of dollars, according to estimates prepared by administration officials.
Mr. Biden supports all of the individual spending and tax proposals under consideration, but it is unclear whether he will back splitting his agenda into pieces, or what legislative strategy he and Democratic leaders will pursue to maximize the chances of pushing the effort through Congress.
His advisers have debated the merits of aggressively pursuing compromise with Republicans and business leaders on an infrastructure package, which would most likely require dropping or scaling back plans to raise taxes on corporations. Another route would be to move the sweeping bill through a special parliamentary process that would require only Democratic votes, as Mr. Biden did with the stimulus package.
“President Biden and his team are considering a range of potential options for how to invest in working families and reform our tax code so it rewards work, not wealth,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. “Those conversations are ongoing, so any speculation about future economic proposals is premature and not a reflection of the White House’s thinking.”
Mr. Biden said in January that his relief bill would be followed by a “Build Back Better Recovery Plan,” which would include investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy, skills training and other areas.
LOL, note that, at no point is a drawdown of the USA’s foreverwars mentioned as a means of financing these plans. Also note the obligatory (but true when talking about infrastructure and the public good) China scare. China IS in fact investing heavily in everyday infrastructure, utilities (incl. broadband internet/cellular) and other things that benefit both their people and the businesses in that country.
Posted by: _K_C_ | Mar 23 2021 20:50 utc | 18
I pretty much agree with migueljose. I’m 77 years old, US native-born citizen and life-long resident. The main problem at the USA is the intense interracial animosity of all against all, and the deliberate race baiting by our ruling class. Race relations were better in the 50’s despite segregation (worse in the North).
The second problem is the collapse of our educational system K-post doc, and the resulting incompetence of our Ruling Class. The attempt to actually destroy important Russian and Chinese companies and institutions, like Huawei, is an actual act of war. When that game was run against Japan in the late 30’s, we got the Pacific War. Our current policies will give us a war with Russia-China. After the Biden interview and Alaska meeting fiascos, it is clear Russia and China are now coordinating their future actions. One fears the worst. by: bob sykes @ 6
I think MR. Sykes, you have a <=wrong view of=> how the Oligarch used the USA to destroy America.. America used to be a competitive place.. the smallest person just out of prison, off the farm or an experienced Phd whatever could go to his or her back yard or garage and invent a market disruptive something or other (no license was needed). Presto the big men in the then existing market were out of business as the small guys back yard invention replaced the then-existing market providers and his products. Overnight everyone wanted the new thing, and the old was out.. What changed that: copyright and patent and license law destroyed it.
Now it is not possible for backyard inventors, to disrupt existing markets with new what-evers because the USA by its laws, has granted to the existing market providers anti-competitive monopolies. The patent grant or the copyright grant are nation state grants which enable private owners market and technology monopoly powers. Monopolies issued to private persons or entities protect existing technology and or market providers from backyard inventors. These same monopoly laws allow existing technology owners or market providers to sue for copyright or patent infringement; hence the backyard inventor is often forced to sell out to the existing market providers because the back yard invention cannot be produced or sold without a license to include in the new product what is a single part in the old product. .
Privately owned patents, copyrights, real estate, and license are operation of law guaranteed no competition grants designed to deny outsiders the right or ability to compete. If there were no nation state there would be no patent protection, no copyright protection, no private real estate ownership and no requirement of license to compete. Without the nation state there would be no lawmaker to make the law, no policeman to enforce anti competition laws, no office to register the claim of private ownership. Competition would establish the free market so trade agreements would not be needed. Also and even bigger than inhibiting disruptive inventions or protecting ancient technology that is enabled by copyright and patent monopoly power is the flexibility the patent and copyright gives to the producers to remove and relocate the productive facilities that generate the products or technologies protected by these competition-quashing copyright and patent and license monopolies.
Because the monopolies have been globalized and internationalized, it is now possible for a owner and producer located in say America to relocate the American factory to say cheap labor, environment negligent Taiwan or wherever. Why, because the owners and producers of monopoly protected products have nation state and international community guarantees that no one can produce a monopoly protected product or use a monopoly protected technology but the owner who has been granted a monopoly against competition by his nation state.
Value added is denied by copyright, patent and license monopolies. This is true even when a competitive product requires a small piece of the monopoly protected item. No one can incorporate that monopoly protected small part in a competitive product. So the private monopoly owner is free to relocate his facilities to the cheapest labor and most environment negligent place to be found. He can then hire the locals in that area as employees with government guarantee no one will be allowed to compete with the production or sale of privately owned monopoly protected products or technology. Hence the copyright and patent laws made everyone on wall street trillions[90% of the balance sheet is intangible property) but these same laws drained America and Americans of their wealth, prestige and economy.
Makers of washing machines for example, fired their American employees, moved the production of washing machines to Cheap labor China, and hired and trained Chinese to produce washing machines for the American Market, but the oligarchs who held the patents made all of the money. The copyright and patents are grants of monopoly powers given by the nation state to private persons. These grants are similar to the land grants the oligarch got from kings and queens during colonial days. The government of a foreign country gave [granted] ownership [title] to large vast land masses in their colonies to a few of its insider Aristocrats. The land grant empowered Aristocrats to move commercial operations to the colony (claimed by the foreign government) and the Aristocrat then brought slaves from yet another foreign country to be used as free slave labor to make or produce, in the colonies, the products that were sold back (for a massive profit) to the citizens of the foreign government and others. The claims made by the local (in the case of America were the native Indians) to the land was not recognized by the foreign home governments; hence the foreign government would pass laws that title to land in the colonies would stem from the original land grants made to Aristocrats by foreign colony owning governments).
Yes, Mr. Sykes @ 6, it was the private monopoly power enabled Oligarch who imposed top down control over the political system in America ( the USA (congress and its competition inhibiting bureaucracies) that did away with our once proud, always competitive, often better educated American citizens, and reduced prosperous America to struggling America. Look in your own backyard to find the answers.
The two things you list (inter-race migration) and (demise of the educational system) are both applications of divide the masses to keep them conquered principles. The MSM, also a private oligarch controlled affair, helps keep Americans divided and confused over who it is that is actually responsible for the wasting of America. In case there is doubt, the oligarch used the government to destroy America, laws allowed the wealth of American citizens to be taken and the livelihoods of Americans to be irradiated.
Posted by: snake | Mar 24 2021 0:57 utc | 32
|
