Jan 27, 2014
The New York Times on Monday reports that high-level officials at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House are coming together to find a set of alternatives if a full military withdrawal in Afghanistan this year strips them of their central launch location for U.S. drones in the region.
Ahead of President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, the reporting says the White house is convening top advisors to look at options for perpetuating drone attacks in neighboring Pakistan if the U.S. is forced to abandon its Afghan military bases.
According to the Times:
The issue is coming to the fore after the Pentagon recently presented Mr. Obama with two options for the end of the year. One option calls for a presence through the end of Mr. Obama's term of 10,000 American troops who could train Afghan troops, conduct counterterrorism raids and protect the American facilities, including those in eastern Afghanistan where drones and nuclear monitoring are based.
Under the other, so-called zero option, no American troops would remain. The United States has said that if it is unable to reach a final security arrangement with Mr. Karzai, it is prepared, reluctantly, to pull out completely, as it did in Iraq in 2011.
As the possibility increases that no troops would be allowed to remain in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014, some of the officials who spoke to the Times admit that keeping a military foothold in Afghanistan is less about Afghan security than it is about maintaining regional dominance.
"You hear about the president's decision of the 'zero option' in the context of the future of Afghanistan, but this is really more about Pakistan," one former senior intelligence official who has consulted with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about the problem told the Times. "That's where the biggest problem is."
______________________________________
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The New York Times on Monday reports that high-level officials at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House are coming together to find a set of alternatives if a full military withdrawal in Afghanistan this year strips them of their central launch location for U.S. drones in the region.
Ahead of President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, the reporting says the White house is convening top advisors to look at options for perpetuating drone attacks in neighboring Pakistan if the U.S. is forced to abandon its Afghan military bases.
According to the Times:
The issue is coming to the fore after the Pentagon recently presented Mr. Obama with two options for the end of the year. One option calls for a presence through the end of Mr. Obama's term of 10,000 American troops who could train Afghan troops, conduct counterterrorism raids and protect the American facilities, including those in eastern Afghanistan where drones and nuclear monitoring are based.
Under the other, so-called zero option, no American troops would remain. The United States has said that if it is unable to reach a final security arrangement with Mr. Karzai, it is prepared, reluctantly, to pull out completely, as it did in Iraq in 2011.
As the possibility increases that no troops would be allowed to remain in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014, some of the officials who spoke to the Times admit that keeping a military foothold in Afghanistan is less about Afghan security than it is about maintaining regional dominance.
"You hear about the president's decision of the 'zero option' in the context of the future of Afghanistan, but this is really more about Pakistan," one former senior intelligence official who has consulted with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about the problem told the Times. "That's where the biggest problem is."
______________________________________
The New York Times on Monday reports that high-level officials at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House are coming together to find a set of alternatives if a full military withdrawal in Afghanistan this year strips them of their central launch location for U.S. drones in the region.
Ahead of President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, the reporting says the White house is convening top advisors to look at options for perpetuating drone attacks in neighboring Pakistan if the U.S. is forced to abandon its Afghan military bases.
According to the Times:
The issue is coming to the fore after the Pentagon recently presented Mr. Obama with two options for the end of the year. One option calls for a presence through the end of Mr. Obama's term of 10,000 American troops who could train Afghan troops, conduct counterterrorism raids and protect the American facilities, including those in eastern Afghanistan where drones and nuclear monitoring are based.
Under the other, so-called zero option, no American troops would remain. The United States has said that if it is unable to reach a final security arrangement with Mr. Karzai, it is prepared, reluctantly, to pull out completely, as it did in Iraq in 2011.
As the possibility increases that no troops would be allowed to remain in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014, some of the officials who spoke to the Times admit that keeping a military foothold in Afghanistan is less about Afghan security than it is about maintaining regional dominance.
"You hear about the president's decision of the 'zero option' in the context of the future of Afghanistan, but this is really more about Pakistan," one former senior intelligence official who has consulted with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about the problem told the Times. "That's where the biggest problem is."
______________________________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.