troop withdrawal

As an interpreter for the U.S. Army and NATO during the last eight years in Afghanistan, I recognize that the Afghan government, despite receiving billions of dollars in U.S. assistance, is now a failed state.
Iraqis head to the polls for the first election since U.S. troops left the country.
The United States is considering speeding up its planned withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including a possible "zero option" that would result in no U.S. forces in that country after 2014, the New York Times reported on Monday. Zach Carter joins Ahmed to discuss.
The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan - now around 63,000 - already is set to decline to 34,000 by next February, the
The Taliban vowed to continue fighting against American troops remaining in Afghanistan after 2014, demonstrating the need for larger number of U.S. troops to support the fragile Afghan security forces defend their nation and to prevent al-Qaeda gain grounds in the country.
"This was not just bad decision-making, this was bad decision-making that cost the lives of over 4,000 service members," Richard
It remains to be seen what pretexts the Obama administration will rely on to continue a failed policy -- one that seems certain to make the world more volatile and put American citizens at greater risk.
"It's probably not the time to bring this up, but Abu Ghraib and the torture of prisoners hurt us a great deal and did provide
British MP Rory Stewart walked across Afghanistan after 9/11, talking with citizens and warlords alike. Now, a decade later
In a real sense, there were no surprises in the president's announcement, or in the reactions. What is troubling, however, is that the debate focused on numbers and dates and not on the war itself and what really needs to be done to end it. In this, I have problems with both sides.
The last president's legacy was tarnished when he declared "Mission Accomplished" too soon. It would be tragic if this president declared victory too late.
Obama is the last one that the GOP could gripe about when it comes to the willingness to use American might in Afghanistan. Just ask Obama's Democratic critics.
Get troops down to Bush levels by 2012, and then run against Bush!
On Monday, the United States Conference of Mayors is expected to pass a resolution calling for a speedy end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars so we can use those funds here at home. The mayors are exactly right.
Should we exert force abroad for the national interest? (And how do we define national interest?) When and where should we use force for a humanitarian cause? Or should the U.S. withdraw from the international theater to focus on challenges at home?
WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of eight lawmakers is the latest to demand the United States leave Afghanistan, raising
The U.S. cannot continue to jump from one perceived "central front in the war on terror" to the next, nor should we invest our resources this way. There are other, better ways to address the al Qaeda threat.
Adhering to the July 2011 drawdown of US troops and strengthening the Afghan government will save American lives and dollars, and will place firmly in Karzai's lap the responsibility for developing Afghanistan.
Rather than having over a hundred thousand troops engaged in an unending and unwinnable war, would we not be better served by having them here saving our cities rather than saving (or possibly destroying) those in Afghanistan?
There are quite a few positive things scheduled for 2010. This doesn't automatically mean the president is guaranteed to have a great year, but it certainly sets the scene.