Trump Monday Prime Time Address: Afghan Strategy

Tillerson on TV right now talking about a peace accord in Afghanistan? Facilitate a peace process is the strategy?

So what was that Trump speech all about?

He needed to fool the establishment into falling in love with him for a couple days again, get those oxytocin levels back up.

Last time he blew up an empty airbase.

This time he gave a speech.

Maybe next time he can just look into the camera funny.
 
He needed to fool the establishment into falling in love with him for a couple days again, get those oxytocin levels back up.

Last time he blew up an empty airbase.

This time he gave a speech.

Maybe next time he can just look into the camera funny.

What is becoming obvious is that Dump pursues ALL options at once until one is more successful for HIS interests, this means we have a chance to get more out of him than any other President in living memory but it does not mean he is on our side, if he thinks it is to his advantage he will invade China or Russia.
 
What is becoming obvious is that Dump pursues ALL options at once until one is more successful for HIS interests, this means we have a chance to get more out of him than any other President in living memory...

What, you can afford his purchase price? Because I can't.

Besides, he doesn't have a purchase price, per se. He takes bids. The auction isn't over until the MIC stops bidding.
 
What, you can afford his purchase price? Because I can't.

Besides, he doesn't have a purchase price, per se. He takes bids. The auction isn't over until the MIC stops bidding.

He still needs votes, that is what he wants from us, that is why we get some good things out of him, THEY wanted Jeb Shrub or Hitlery, they still want somebody else, he needs to get enough votes to force himself on THEM, then he does some of what they want so he can stay alive and keep power as a "lesser of two evils" to THEM.
 
Trump doctrine: "Principled Realism"

Trump used the phrase "Principled Realism" in his speech. IMO, this is the Trump Doctrine.

The same old plan, but more vague and secretive.
 
I have a plan- but can't tell you what it is (the enemy may be listening!) and am here on National TV to tell you all about it.

We will win and win big- but can't define what that means.

We aren't going to do any "nation building"- but if we leave before there is a nation established, there will be a vacuum.

He also hedged himself- by prefacing that his instincts said to leave Afghanistan, if his "new plan" (which sounds a lot like the old plan) fails, he can claim his instincts were right. Either way, there is a win- for Trump if not for America or Afghanistan.
 
Here we go...

People's Daily,China
Pakistan to firmly support China on core interests: Pakistani Foreign Secretary
http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0822/c90883-9258287.html

Pakistan to firmly support China on core interests: foreign secretary
(Xinhua) 08:19, August 22, 2017

FOREIGN201708220818000489786697612.jpg


=========

Asfandyar Bhittani
Pakistan should promptly:

Block NATO supply lines
Ban US funded NGOs/Media
Work with Russia/Iran/China on Afghanistan

#PakistanRejectsTrump

Reuters World
LIVE: Tillerson says U.S. aid, military assistance can be leveraged in discussions with Pakistan on Afghan situation
 
I noticed he 'withheld' on the Taliban.
He said Al-Qaeda and ISIS we will 'obliterate' them...
then
just 'mentioned' the Taliban.

There's been repeated instances of attempts/circumstances
to bribe and 'deal' with the Taliban in the latter years.
My instincts tell me this is 'the plan' cuz w/o it... there's no solution remotely possible.
It's unspoken.

BREAKING: US supports Afghan peace talks that result in Taliban 'legitimacy' - Tillerson
https://www.rt.com/usa/400460-tillerson-afghanistan-taliban-peace-talks-negotiation/


599b9450fc7e930d588b4567.jpg


Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the new Afghanistan strategy may pave way for a peace deal
between Taliban militants and the Afghan government, bringing them “legitimacy,”
while the US leader does not consider it possible in the nearest future.

“Our new strategy breaks from previous approaches that set artificial, calendar-based deadlines,”
Tillerson said in a statement following US President Donald Trump's speech on a new Afghanistan strategy on Monday evening.

“We are making clear to the Taliban that they will not win on the battlefield,”
he warned, calling on the militants to come to the negotiating table.

“The Taliban has a path to peace and political legitimacy through a negotiated political settlement to end the war.
We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions,” Tillerson stated.
 
Last edited:
Now we have THE ISSUE for a primary challenge.

Will someone rise to champion it?

Sen. Rand Paul: 16 Years On, It's Past Time To Bring Our Troops Home From Afghanistan

Sen. Paul said:
The Trump administration is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and, by doing so, keeping us involved even longer in a 16-year-old war that has long since gone past its time.The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war. It’s time to come home now.

Our war in Afghanistan began in a proper fashion. We were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban, who then controlled Afghanistan, were harboring al Qaeda, and after being warned, and after an authorization from Congress, our military executed a plan to strike back. Had I been in Congress then, I would have voted to authorize this military action.But as is typical, there was significant mission creep in Afghanistan. We went from striking back against those who attacked us, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. And we do it all now with an authorization that is flimsy at best, with the reason blurred, and the costs now known. We do it with an authorization that was debated and passed before some of our newest military personnel were out of diapers. This isn’t fair to them, to the American people, or to a rational foreign policy.

The Afghanistan war going beyond its original mission has an enormous cost. First and most important is the cost to our troops. Deaths, injuries and unnecessary deployments causing harm to families are certainly the most important reason as to why you don’t go to wars that aren’t necessary.

Then comes the taxpayer. We have spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan, and nearly $5 trillion on Middle East wars in the past 15 years. Would we not be better off with $5 trillion less in debt or using these funds in other, more productive ways?

Nation-building should not be our job, and it has consistently been a fool’s errand for us, particularly in this region. There is no reason to believe we can do it in Afghanistan, and certainly no reason to believe we can do it without a permanent, costly presence in the country.

So I strongly disagree with the administration’s actions here. I’ve spoken to the president, and I know he wants to end this war. We’ve all heard him say it. But talk won’t get it done. Although I’ve been informed that the president rejected larger expansions of troops than the one announced this week, that’s not good enough. He should have rejected this one and stuck to his principles. He knows this war is over, and he – unlike the last two presidents – should have the guts to end it for real, on his watch.

Regardless of the argument over the number of troops, I also will insist my colleagues take up a larger argument over the power to declare war. I believe we have allowed the executive to exercise far too much power in recent years.

This is one of the reasons I objected just before the recess when the Senate moved to consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I have an amendment that I will insist be considered that would repeal the 2001 AUMF on Afghanistan. That AUMF is outdated, overcome by events, and provides a feeble bit of cover for people who still want to be there.

If the president and my colleagues want to continue the war in Afghanistan, then at the very least Congress should vote on it. I’ll insist they do this fall, and I’ll be leading the charge for “no.”
 
But will he run again?

If enough people want him to run and express their support, I think he will. What he doesn't want to do, I'm sure, is repeat the experience of last primary, where he killed himself campaigning only to have his alleged base desert him last minute for an anti-liberty television clown. If the libertarian movement, along with enough genuine conservatives, rallied behind Rand, I think he'd love to have a second go at this creature in the White House.
 
Last edited:
If enough people want him to run and express their support, I think he will. What he doesn't want to do, I'm sure, is repeat the experience of last primary, where he killed himself campaigning only to have his alleged base desert him last minute for an anti-liberty television clown. If the libertarian movement, along with enough genuine conservatives, rallied behind Rand, I think he'd love to have a second go at this creature in the White House.

In one of his more candid interviews he said he would do it again if he was given the chance. Just having an anti war POV on the debate stage was worth it to him probably, if he wasn't there Trump would of never ran on the platform he did.
 
If enough people want him to run and express their support, I think he will. What he doesn't want to do, I'm sure, is repeat the experience of last primary, where he killed himself campaigning only to have his alleged base desert him last minute for an anti-liberty television clown. If the libertarian movement, along with enough genuine conservatives, rallied behind Rand, I think he'd love to have a second go at this creature in the White House.

That seems like an inaccurate statement, considering Rand didn't even run past Iowa. No doubt the writing was on the wall that the media was placing Trump front and center in order to hand him the nomination on a platter but I think it's pretty hard to say everyone deserted Rand for Trump after only a single caucus. Sure, some did after Rand dropped but one caucus does not make a campaign.
 
That seems like an inaccurate statement, considering Rand didn't even run past Iowa. No doubt the writing was on the wall that the media was placing Trump front and center in order to hand him the nomination on a platter but I think it's pretty hard to say everyone deserted Rand for Trump after only a single caucus. Sure, some did after Rand dropped but one caucus does not make a campaign.

He got 5% in Iowa, less than a quarter of what Ron got in 2012. The desertions had already happened.

I don't blame him for dropping out at that point...

Anyway, how about this: let's not argue. Instead, let's try again, and this time let's just win Iowa, as we should have last time.

Deal?
 
He got 5% in Iowa, less than a quarter of what Ron got in 2012. The desertions had already happened.

I don't blame him for dropping out at that point...

Anyway, how about this: let's not argue about. Instead, let's try again, and this time let's just win Iowa, as we should have last time.

Deal?

Meh. At this point, I'm pretty well convinced the entire process is scripted. We'll see what the future holds.
 
[h=1]Pakistan on Trump’s Afghanistan plan: Nope[/h]https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-plan-for-afghanistan-925a9aae10fc/
 
[h=1]China defends ally Pakistan after Trump criticism[/h]https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-defends-ally-pakistan-trump-criticism-080912095.html
 
Back
Top