Military Review

Obama changed his mind

The American president "canceled" his next election promise. US troops from Afghanistan will not be withdrawn. Mr. Obama said: “I do not support the idea of ​​an endless war” and immediately announced that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is being postponed. The official explanation for the decision: the White House’s intention to "support Afghanistan and the people of this country." The decision of the "invader" Obama immediately "condemned" the Taliban. Some experts believe that Washington leaves the contingent in Afghanistan for the sake of maintaining influence on Russia and China.

According to Mr. Obama’s new decision, the US contingent in Afghanistan in 2016 will remain at the level of 9800 people, and by 2017 will decrease to 5500 people. Previously it was assumed that by the beginning of 2017, the order of 1000 US troops would remain in Afghanistan, remind "Vedomosti".

Details about B.H. Obama’s statement and his “close friends” appeared on the website. "Voices of America".

“Barack Obama, who came to the White House on a wave of promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the announcement that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was postponed was not easy,” writes Aru Pande. And Mr. President is quoted as saying: "I do not support the idea of ​​an endless war ... I have repeatedly opposed interfering in endless military conflicts that do not threaten the interests of our national security."

The correspondent recalls that Obama, in the presence of Secretary of Defense Ashe Carter, Vice President Joe Biden and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, announced that for most of 2016, the number of US troops in Afghanistan will remain unchanged. Only in January 2017, this number will be reduced to 5500 people.

What is the reason for such a difficult decision for Obama? “I think what happened in Kunduz teaches us a lot. This is a situation where Afghan troops managed to recapture Kunduz captured by the Taliban only with the help of the US military, ”said Michael Kügelman, an expert on South Asia from Woodrow Wilson Center. “I think it would hardly have ended well without the help of the Americans.”

And here are the words of Obama himself: “Although the military mission is completed, we intend to continue to support Afghanistan and the people of this country. As long as I am the commander-in-chief, I will not allow Afghanistan to remain the refuge of terrorists who can once again attack our country. ”

According to officials, the decision to slow down the withdrawal of troops was made after discussions on this issue between the White House, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense, the command of the troops in Afghanistan and the Afghan authorities. The discussion went on for several months.

The Taliban leadership criticized the idea of ​​the White House. According to the leaders of the group, the "occupation" of Afghanistan should be stopped. The Taliban condemned the plans of the US and its NATO partners to continue the military mission in Afghanistan after the 2016 year. recalls that just one day before B. H. Obama’s statement, NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said that the responsibility for the security of Afghanistan completely passes to 350 to thousands of Afghan soldiers and police.

“But NATO allies, along with many partner countries, will continue to prepare, advise and help them. This is what NATO and Afghan leaders agreed upon. This was made possible by the courage and ability of the Afghan national security forces and the dedication of the international forces that helped train them in recent years, ”Mr. Stoltenberg added.

The agency also recalls that at the beginning of this year, Washington announced a reduction in Pentagon’s military operations. In particular, this decision was a consequence of the continued withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. By the end of 2015, about 5,5 thousand troops will remain in Afghanistan, Reuters reported in January.

After the US President’s speech, the NATO Secretary General had to make an urgent statement.

Rosbalt notes that Jens Stoltenberg approved the decision of Barack Obama to maintain the presence of armed forces in Afghanistan after the 2016 year. According to the main person in NATO, this will ensure a stable presence of the alliance and its allies in the country.

“I welcome the announcement made by President Obama that the US will maintain its military presence in Afghanistan at the current level in the 2016 year and leave a substantial contingent there after the 2016 year,” the agency quoted the head of the alliance.

Such a quick reversal of the decision to the opposite (it seems, not even agreed with NATO) did not surprise Russian experts and analysts.

Colonel Anatoly Tsyganok, head of the Center for Military Forecasting, thinks that the Americans are postponing the withdrawal of troops because they could not train the Afghan army. When Soviet troops were in Afghanistan, 30% of Afghan soldiers switched to the side of the Mujahideen; in the current Afghan army, 50% of the military leave for the Taliban.

“Let me remind you, if during the day Soviet troops could control 15% of the territory of Afghanistan and 10% at night, the Americans have even less: they control 8% during the day and 5% at night,” Roma told the newspaper "Sight".

The expert recalled that the Taliban has intensified in recent years. To provide financial support, the grouping increases the flow of drugs from the country.

According to Gypsy, the new dates for the withdrawal of the American contingent are unlikely to be met, because “Afghanistan is an excellent base from which to ideally control Russia and China,” and therefore in the coming years “the Americans will remain there under any pretext.” In addition, there are at least three airfields in the country fully equipped with American communications.

The expert is convinced that Afghanistan does not pose a threat to US national security. The matter is different: “The Americans entered there to bring a“ democratic order ”there. During this time, the production of opium poppy has increased tenfold. The only threat to security for the United States is that they are deprived of Afghanistan as a structure that thrusts into both China and Russia. ”

Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Alexander Perendzhiev, an expert at the Association of Military Political Scientists, believes that Washington is acting by virtue of pragmatics dictated by members of the ruling elite: “The United States is afraid of losing influence in Afghanistan. They seriously fear that this vacuum will be filled. Russia has a good alliance in this region with India and Iran, which also seek to influence the situation in Afghanistan. It is clear that this triangle is not yet anti-American, but no longer American. ”

In addition, after the start of Moscow’s operations in Syria, the United States almost ended up on the margins of the fight against international terrorism. If the Americans leave Afghanistan, their image of a fighter against terrorists will suffer greatly: “Once the United States spun the image of its country as the vanguard of the fight against international terrorism. If we now withdraw troops from Afghanistan, then all anti-terrorism projects will fall apart. The fight against terrorism is also an economic project. It is clear that representatives of the ruling circles are simply not able to refuse such a project. Everything taken together leads to the decision voiced by Obama. ”

Thus, we add in conclusion, and here the “hand of Moscow” is seen. More precisely, the influence of her recent actions in international politics. Obama made his difficult decision not so much because the training of the Afghan forces by the US military was ineffective and weak, but because of the success of Russia in Syria. The US establishment, and at the same time the Pentagon, urgently need to lacquer the image of their homeland, worn out since the days of the Cold War. Another reason for Obama’s violation of election promises could have been the White House’s desire to retain influence in the region from which, as experts say, “ideally control Russia and China.”

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 20 October 2015 06: 24 New
    Oleg wrote a “mnogabukaf” ... I’ll try in short: looking at our “lawnmower” in Syria, the states realized that if they leave Afghanistan, they will lose it permanently (and “gerych” how?), Because the fashion went to our VKS, and considerable demand from neighbors, orders went to "mow the lawn"! smile
    1. Russian Uzbek
      Russian Uzbek 20 October 2015 12: 38 New
      "" the states realized that if they leave Afghanistan, they will lose it for good ""
      here is the same thing that happened in Afghanistan with the SA: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCLOSE THE WIPO LOCAL REMAINING LONELY HERE WILL SAME INTO THE "TALIBAN" ...
      as we saw with the capture of Kunduz ...
      the same thing happened in 1988, when parts of the OKSV were withdrawn from Kunduz to the USSR - the city was immediately captured by the "Mujahideen", and there was massive betrayal and a massive shift to the side of the "Mujahideen"
      judging by the snippets of information this time was about the same
      1. Artyom
        Artyom 20 October 2015 13: 48 New
        It’s very wonderful that the states decided to stay longer in Afghanistan! They are for the local bearded like shit for flies. While the Americans are there, the "flies" will not fly apart much, they will have something to do in their homeland too;) Yes, and so far we have not sorted it out with Syria, and Afghanistan has not even been able to make peace.
    2. Mujahiddin777
      Mujahiddin777 20 October 2015 21: 51 New
      I think that if troops withdraw from Afghanistan, then they can no longer help the Taliban. Once at a speech, Putin said: “We need to protect the southern borders ...” So there is a possibility that the Taliban, led by the United States, are preparing to attack Tajikistan, Uzbekistan ... or, more simply, the CSTO. Then the Taliban will need help, military of course. And then it’s not going to drive "50 tons dropped by mistake"
  2. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 20 October 2015 06: 32 New
    It is beneficial for the States to maintain the situation of chaos in different parts of the world, this is their business, and they will support it while they are alive, but they want to live. Therefore, they will feed the Taliban and the Afghan state will also be kept on a short leash. There will not be a quick solution ... unless the GDP says something new and unexpected for everyone.
  3. PlotnikoffDD
    PlotnikoffDD 20 October 2015 06: 45 New
    Naturally, let no holy place be. If the Americans leave, the "bloody puten" will probably annex Afghanistan)
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 20 October 2015 07: 06 New
    The Fuhrer supported her master. She also decided to leave her warriors in Afghanistan.
    Boots do not exist without a pair.
  5. paxil
    paxil 20 October 2015 07: 30 New
    I do not want the United States and Obama to lose a profitable business laughing on whom to leave poppy fields on the Taliban? So they will not share income laughing .
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 20 October 2015 07: 33 New
    The American president “canceled” his next campaign promise..Not a kid Obama, not a kid ... If you don’t keep the word .. Russian guys, for this in the 90s, they wet it ...
  7. Zomanus
    Zomanus 20 October 2015 07: 42 New
    America simply does not want to lose control of the region.
    And from Afghanistan you can easily spoil us in Syria.
    Arrange the same bases for training and arming the IS there and launch them in Syria and Iraq.
    Of course, the Taliban’s future reaction is interesting.
    I won’t be surprised if the IG is set on them.
  8. By001261
    By001261 20 October 2015 07: 49 New
    [quote = Zomanus] Just America does not want to lose control of the region.

    I would say over drug trafficking.
  9. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 20 October 2015 07: 55 New
    Where is the criminal business? They (B. And m.) Are right there. From the European side they are encircling, then they are creeping from Afghanistan.
  10. ararat
    ararat 20 October 2015 08: 28 New
    Obama once again proved that he is the last H-MO and listens to his hawks, pushing for the continuation of the war.
  11. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 20 October 2015 09: 17 New
    I think that without the help of the Americans it would hardly have ended well. ”

    Oleg, perhaps, but the Afghans fought on earth, though at the great "request" of the United States. And sometimes it seems to me that if there weren’t any "help" to the Americans, it is not yet known how the card would go down. Americans mostly interfere (personally, their specific results with a gulkin nose), but do not forget about drug trafficking.
  12. slizhov
    slizhov 20 October 2015 10: 15 New
    Why do they ..?
    Do not get puffed, like at a resort, with a circus in their teeth ...
    And so they fight in Iraq and fought AGAINST Isil, approving of their terror.
    What if Obama and Putin are Afghans, for whom we are shuravi, asking you to kick out? and?
  13. Shurik70
    Shurik70 20 October 2015 14: 19 New
    troop withdrawal from Afghanistan postponed

    I am an opponent of the United States, I consider him an international terrorist.
    But I approve this decision.

    I believe that our government committed two crimes there (not to be confused with the army - the army fulfilled its duty fully and efficiently). Firstly, we didn’t have to come there. Secondly, it was impossible to leave without leaving behind a properly equipped and trained local army and normal power. Those who trusted us and actively supported us died.

    Therefore, I support the decision of the Americans to continue to bomb the Mujahideen.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 20 October 2015 16: 41 New
      And I believe that the fate of their country should be decided by the people themselves, without the advice of an outsider, if these decisions do not interfere with their closest neighbors living in their own way ... what
  14. demo
    demo 20 October 2015 14: 56 New
    If the Americans leave Afghanistan, their image as a fighter against terrorists will suffer greatly.

    "Thirst is nothing, image is everything!"
    1. Insurgent LC
      Insurgent LC 20 October 2015 17: 06 New
      what about democracy
  15. Belousov
    Belousov 20 October 2015 15: 43 New
    Well, who would doubt it! But what about maintaining "controlled chaos"? But what about drug trafficking?
    It’s time to already burn poppy fields. Well, or infect with some insects.
  16. yuriy55
    yuriy55 20 October 2015 16: 36 New
    After Obama’s speech at the anniversary meeting of the UN, he can only perceive him as an adequate, sensible, independent politician.
    Change your mind? He said that those who amuse the world with dollar illusions ordered. Recently, he appears in public with the face of a teenager, whom his parents found once again for some obscene occupation.
    And in less than a year, his thoughts will interest only his wife. yes
    1. Dimy4
      Dimy4 20 October 2015 19: 30 New
      Yes, just Obamych wants to get another peace prize, but without war it is impossible. So you have to go to the Afghans and poor excavators with hospitals.
  17. Insurgent LC
    Insurgent LC 20 October 2015 17: 05 New
    all that mattresses have achieved is an increase in heroin production
  18. Bolhevik
    Bolhevik 20 October 2015 19: 53 New
    Drug trafficking of Afghan heroin is a sponsor of world terror and its owners, therefore, every heroin addict or heroin addict becomes a victim and sponsor as well as an accomplice of the enemy. While the youth will be equal to the "heroes" of the films Smoked, Smoked in the trash, On the needle, etc. nothing good will come of it. While all this continues, the war can be considered lost. Tens of thousands who died in Afghanistan and hundreds of thousands who die a year from heroin without war speak about everything. Yes, the victims of that war have a price, and as it now turns out, at least a thousand for every victim. And where are the sobbing funds of the "Soldiers' Mothers" - for those who die before the call?
    Apparently their tears are paid from those fields on which the bones of the wars of the Internacionalists who did not let Datura into the countries of the Soviets did not make bones. Let them cry on the draftees of the striped flag.
  19. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 20 October 2015 22: 10 New
    If democracy has come, it no longer leaves. laughing
  20. _GSVG_
    _GSVG_ 23 October 2015 00: 42 New
    Obama simply can’t get his Jedi out of Afghanistan, he behaved badly (bad monkey, bad!), That’s probably the GDP and closed the flight to Ulyanovsk laughing . And on the ground, the Jyday are dumb, full of frames in nete, local basmachi burn columns for hundreds of cars laughing So, you don’t really take a walk either, and you don’t really take a walk on the spot, the FRS also gets tired of stamping bucks that the Jidai give to the Basmachi for that, well, so that they wouldn't shoot very hard at the bases in Afghanistan.