Afghanistan – balance of NATO forces needed

Facing the face of Soviet Union is out of question.There is no another power to train and arm and finance Talibans.What was Jihad against Soviets,is terror against American empire led NATO forces.This is the one difference.

What generals spit,Obama licks.His promised agenda of withdrawl of troops was meant to be broken like other promises.Withdrawl now depends on how many soldiers are killed by Afghan insurgents.

Personally my opinion is that the strategic and national security interest of the USA will require a physical present of the United States of America in the middle east from now on. That issues of paramount political importance to the US, and regional security of the middle east in interest of our national security will require it. Countries currently of specific 'national security interest' to the U.S. include; IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, IRAN, ISRAEL, LEBANON, SAUDI ARABIA, SYRIA, YEMEN, INDIA, TURKEY The 'cost' both financially and in human value is high. The question then becomes at what cost concerning groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iran do we draw a line. How do we manage or balance our international and national security interest with global terrorism. It's influence, rogue nuclear nations, rogue militia's. and extremist groups bent on the destruction of American influence, values, way of life, and national secure globally ?  1

It is not strategic or security interests of US empire which render presence of US troops in Middle-East or Afghanistan and Pakistan necessary;it is part of long term stragey of global hegomony,control of energy resources,furthererance of  economic interests of US empire by all means,peaceful or armed intervention and occupation.How small countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan can pose any threat to US security?That itself is a big question.

Rogue states are which states?Was Chile a rogue state?Is Cuba a rogue state?IsVenezuela a rogue state?Pakistan is a failed state,but still US supports her militarily and economically.Why countries with gross voilation of human rights are best friends of US empire?US qualifies to be only rogue country in the world now.A country which has flouted all international laws,has undermined UNO,Security Council,abused financial institutions like WB and IMF for its own political and economic interests.

Bottom line:US empire is right because might is right.

Anyone who thinks that the world is going to contract upon itself hasn't been taking in world events over their lifetime but, rather have adopted or cling to regionalism as a defensive measure to stave off foreign influence. The real and material issue isn't influence. It is the demarcation of influence as foreign. The greatest social disability in the 21st century of mans recorded history is that we still consider ourselves foreign to one another, and that there are those wishing to maintain that condition.

'Nato endorses Afghan exit strategy''

english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/11/20101120131146401315.html

@the 1(not verified)US empire's all out support to Suharto,Batista and Pinochet in the past,to Saudi Arabia,Egypt,Isreal at present does speak of the hypocracy,double standards of the US empire.Saddam was not as brutal as is Saudi monarch.Why Bush didn't talk of effecting regime change in Saudi Arabia?Can you answer this question?The only justification is US empire's strategic and economic interests are paramount,democracy or dictatorship or military rule doesn't matter.Voilation of human rights is acceptable as long as it suits interests of the empire.

Secondly,if another country,for example India,attacks Bangladesh or Nepal to effect regime change,would it be acceptable to so-called international community.Would you accept the silly argument of Indian government,in such an eventuality,that fundamentalists in bangladesh or Moists in Nepal are serious threat to India's security or interests?Although India has common borders with both these countries.Iraq and Afghanistan don't border with US empire.

"Saddam was not as brutal as is Saudi monarch"
I don't think that Saudi brutality is well known.

A double standard exist not because we condone specific actions foreign governments may take on there own people. The U.S. must work with other countries governments within the political framework foreign governments present to there people in their own countries.

Iraq became a threat to the national security interest of the U.S. by not allowing the U.S. specific political engagement in an international forum or specific weapons inspection and verification. The threat to that region was beyond U.N. international acceptance. Sadam was given numerous opportunities to comply with U.N. and the US request for weapons inspections and international standards compliance.

Saudia Arabia is currently allied with U.S. security interest in that region.

Your statement that,

"The only justification is US empire's strategic and economic interests are paramount, democracy or dictatorship or military rule doesn't matter. Voilation of human rights is acceptable as long as it suits interests of the empire."

is not specifically accurate.

U.S. interest can include political, strategic, economic or humanitaren interest. The U.S. is willing to work with any government regardless of it political status. The U.S. doesn't condone human rights violations and can't dictate or always politically change other governments actions on their own people.

Any actions by a country against another country goes through the U.N.
As per your example, India attacking any country would be subject to the same international standards that the U.S. is subject too; whether they share common borders or not.
Current military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has to do with regional stability and national security interest of the U.S. These specific middle east U.S. military actions have been currently agreed upon by the international community.

1

The same "regional stability and national security interest of the US and "US military actions have been currently agreed upon by the international community" are going to be disastrous for the humanity. I am not sure how long it will take to happen but the current behavior of the US and the so-called "international community" will one day definitely cause annihilation of the humanity on the face of the earth.