The President of the United States has every right to do whatever he wants to do. If he decides to pull out 500 or ALL American Troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, he CAN. He has that right and he can do it.
In Vietnam, who cared if the North Vietnamese was going to take over the South or even cared? Nixon pulled us out and he had that right to do that.
And if the President decides to Attack Iran’s Nuclear Weapon Grade Building Facility and its Stockpile, he has that right. Everyone KNOWS that North Korea has already sent men there to help them build a Nuclear Weapon and who’s it going to be used on? And on that faithful Day, they will send a coordinated All Out Attack on all American Forces and Ships in the Middle East.
Iran HATES OUR GUTS! But where would they sneak a Nuclear Weapon to?
GUESS! Not where One will be used, but WHEN?
And which City?
New York City or Washington D.C. ? Or a USS AIRCRAFT CARRIER? Or Houston? Or San Diego?
Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy:
Afghanistan was elevated as a significant U.S. foreign policy concern in 2001, when the
United States, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led a military
campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban government that harbored and supported it.
In the intervening 18 years, the United States has suffered around 2,400 military
fatalities in Afghanistan (including four in combat in 2020 to date) and Congress has
appropriated approximately $141 billion for reconstruction and security forces there.In that time, an elected
Afghan government has replaced the Taliban, and most measures of human development have improved, although
future prospects of those measures remain mixed. According to a June 2020 U.S. Department of Defense report,
“The vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from serving as a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks
against the U.S. homeland, U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.”
As of November 2020, U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan appears closer to an end, with U.S. troop levels
decreasing in line with the February 29, 2020, U.S.-Taliban agreement on the issues of counterterrorism and the
withdrawal of U.S. and international troops. Still, questions remain. As part of the agreement, the United States
committed to withdraw all of its then-12,000 forces within 14 months; troops have since been reduced by as much
as two thirds. In return, the Taliban committed to preventing other groups, including Al Qaeda, from using Afghan
soil to recruit, train, or fundraise toward activities that threaten the United States or its allies. The agreement is
accompanied by secret annexes, raising concerns among some Members of Congress. U.S. officials describe the
prospective U.S. withdrawal as “conditions-based,” but have not specified exactly what conditions might halt,
reverse, or otherwise alter the withdrawal timeline laid out in the agreement. Afghan government representatives
were not participants in U.S.-Taliban talks, leading some observers to conclude that the United States would
prioritize a military withdrawal over a complex political settlement that preserves some of the social, political,
and humanitarian gains made since 2001.
After months of delays, on September 12, 2020, Afghan government and Taliban representatives officially met in
Doha, Qatar to begin their first direct peace negotiations, a significant moment with potentially dramatic
implications for the course of the ongoing Afghan conflict. Even as negotiations proceed, they are complicated by
a number of factors, most notably high levels of violence. While the Taliban entering into talks with Kabul is a
momentous step, negotiations are not necessarily guaranteed to lead to a settlement to end the war. Observers
speculate about what kind of political arrangement, if any, could satisfy both the elected Afghan government and
the Taliban to the extent that the latter fully abandons armed struggle. In any event, it remains unclear to what
extent the U.S. withdrawal is contingent upon the outcome of talks or other contingencies, as U.S. officials give
contradictory visions of the future U.S. troop presence. Alterations to the U.S. military posture in Afghanistan and
related changes in the security environment may in turn influence U.S. policymakers’ consideration of future
levels and conditions of development assistance. Former Vice President Joseph Biden, the presumptive winner of
the 2020 U.S. presidential election, has previously expressed an intention to bring home U.S. combat troops, as
well as skepticism of nation building efforts.
Given the outsized role that U.S. assistance plays in supporting the Afghan government, some experts warn that a
prompt, full-scale U.S. withdrawal and/or aid cutoff could lead to its collapse and perhaps even to the
reestablishment of formal Taliban rule over some or all of the country. By many measures, the Taliban are in a
stronger military position now than at any point since 2001, though many once-public metrics related to the
conduct of the war have been classified or are no longer produced. For additional information on Afghanistan and
U.S. policy there, see CRS Report R45818, Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy, by Clayton Thomas. For
background information and analysis on the history of congressional engagement with Afghanistan and U.S.
policy there, as well as a summary of recent Afghanistan-related legislative proposals, see CRS Report R45329,
Afghanistan: Issues for Congress and Legislation 2017-2020, by Clayton Thomas.