If U.S. troops leave Afghanistan, much civilian aid may go too

Comments (14)
RWRR43 wrote:

THE SOONER THE BETTER. WHY NOT NOW?

Dec 26, 2013 5:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
Butch_from_PA wrote:

The USA overstayed there by 10 years. What a big giveaway to companies tied to friends of politicians. What a waste of youth and blood in the sand. I guess any excuse is a good excuse for war.

We’ll be dead and gone with countless more wars draining our pockets and capital around the world in days to come.

Dec 26, 2013 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Waste of American lives. Friends of Bush and Cheney made billions off of these wars. It was all a scam, and it did no good for anyone but themselves.

Dec 26, 2013 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Why hasn’t Obama ended this farce after five years as POTUS? Because it’s not a partisan issue. All of our pols are corrupt, greedy shysters pining for their slice of the pie. You thought Obama was different? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Dec 26, 2013 6:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chekovmerlin wrote:

That sounds like a good deal to me and most of my friends.

Dec 26, 2013 10:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chekovmerlin wrote:

That sounds like a good deal to me and most of my friends.

Dec 26, 2013 10:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
explorer08 wrote:

We’ve already given far too much in terms of US lives and treasure. Time to leave and not look back. It will all turn out to have been a horrible waste. But…..apparently the American just don’t care one way or the other. No one is paying attention. But, then, Americans don’t pay attention to much of anything anymore – - other than their mobile media devices.

Dec 26, 2013 10:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Walking away is forbidden by the Laws of War. By invading a country, the invading state becomes responsible for governing that country. They replace the government they replace. That responsibility ends only when the victim is able to govern themselves. Afghanistan has a long way to go before it becomes a stable country.

Invading in the first place was a stupidly short-sighted decision.

Dec 26, 2013 11:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Bakhtin…kindly post the law that backs up your comment. The Karzi administration has been in power in Afghanistan for years now. They have their own government. The Afghanistan government refuses to sign a deal with the U.S. to maintain the presence of our troops in their country. They are asking us to leave. Looks to me like they are governing themselves pretty well. We should honour their request immediately!

Dec 27, 2013 7:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Sure… I can do that. I am not a bullsh!tter that can’t back up a statement.

The most obvious one is Hague Convention 1907, specifically Hague IV, section III, article 42:”The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”

Also applicable is GCIV, section III, article 6:”In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.”

Additional Protocol 1, article 3, can be brought into play too:” the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol shall cease, in the territory of Parties to the conflict, on the general close of military operations and, in the case of occupied territories, on the termination of the occupation, except, in either circumstance, for those persons whose final release, repatriation or re-establishment takes place thereafter. These persons shall continue to benefit from the relevant provisions of the Conventions and of this Protocol until their final release repatriation or re-establishment.”

The simplified version of all this, started I think by ‘Military Government and Martial Law’, is the frequently quoted “Military government continues until legally supplanted”. (read it here -> https://ia600504.us.archive.org/16/items/militarygovmt00birk/militarygovmt00birk.pdf

On Afghanistan… military activity has not ceased, and large sections are not de facto governed from Kabul, so the US cannot (legally) leave.

Dec 27, 2013 11:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Afghanistan was Bush’s face-saving measure for dropping the ball and letting 9-11 happen under his watch. He had to appear that he was on the job. “Bring it on” were his exact words I believe. Then set out to fight all the same tribes that Reagan armed. Well, a trillion dollars later, and those tribes are still there and still armed.

Dec 27, 2013 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

Karzai keeps spitting in our face. Let’s just pick up all our men, all our toys, and leave. Their entire government is not worth one American life.

Dec 27, 2013 11:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Are we being asked to believe our occupation is about making life better in Afghanistan?

Dec 28, 2013 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:

Why not improve the everyday life of our own people?

Dec 29, 2013 8:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.