Global reaction to Trump’s speech on the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan


trump-afghanistanGlobal reaction to President Donald Trump’s speech on the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan:

Afghanistan’s chief executive is welcoming President Trump’s strategy for Afghanistan, calling it a unique opportunity to fight terrorists in the region and insisting that it renews the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan and its people.

Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s second most powerful official behind the president, said during a news conference Tuesday that the U.S. strategy marks a unique opportunity to achieve peaceful objectives in the region.

“The regional aspect of this strategy is very clear. It shows that the problem was very well identified,” he said.

Abdullah noted that the strategy seeks clear measures against safe havens for extremist fighters.

He thanked President Trump for the strategy and said the Afghan National Unity government is committed to reforms, fighting corruption and strengthening its security forces.

China is defending its close ally Pakistan following comments by U.S. President Donald Trump that the country was not doing enough to shut down safe havens for terror groups operating out of its territory.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Tuesday said Pakistan lies on the front line of the anti-terrorism struggle and has made “great sacrifices” in battling insurgents who pose a threat to the region and the world.

In his speech Monday, Trump said the U.S. “can no longer be silent” about terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and that the country gives sanctuary to “agents of chaos, violence and terror.”

China and Pakistan have close economic, political and security ties dating back decades, based partly on their shared distrust of India, with which both have disputed borders.

NATO’s chief is welcoming Trump’s new strategy on Afghanistan and says the U.S.-led military alliance remains committed to the conflict-torn country.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Trump’s “conditions-based approach,” as the president moves to a troop presence based on needs rather than timelines.

More than 12,000 troops from NATO and partner countries have been helping to “train, advise and assist” Afghan security forces since January 2015, after the alliance wound down combat operations there.

While Washington is expected to seek more troops from its allies, Stoltenberg said that “NATO allies and partners have already committed to increasing our presence in Afghanistan.”

He said “our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries.”

India has welcomed Trump’s demand that Pakistan stop offering safe havens to terror groups operating out of its territory, a long-standing complaint that New Delhi has held against Islamabad.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that it welcomed Trump’s “determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges faced by Afghanistan and in confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support enjoyed by terrorists.”

Without naming rival Pakistan, the ministry said, “India shares these concerns and objectives.”

India, the largest regional provider of reconstruction aid to Afghanistan, totaling more than $2 billion, also reaffirmed its policy of extending assistance to the country.

“We are committed to supporting the Government and the people of Afghanistan in their efforts to bring peace, security, stability and prosperity in their country,” said the statement, issued hours after Trump’s speech.

An Australian military analyst says Trump’s speech set a “fairly low bar” in terms of success.

Military strategist David Kilcullen told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that Trump isn’t seeking to promote democracy or counter corruption, but simply noted military outcomes he is trying to achieve. Kilcullen said: “I think this is carefully shrouded in triumphalist rhetoric but it is actually quite a modest set of strategic goals.”

Kilcullen said Trump’s speech sounded as if it had been written by military officers working in the White House. Trump offered few specifics, such as whether more troops would be sent to Afghanistan. The president said the U.S. would shift away from a “time-based” approach, instead linking its assistance to results on the ground.

Kilcullen said Trump’s speech focused on fighting terrorism, rather than fighting an insurgency, and that will require more use of lethal force and a restrained approach to nation-building and economic development.

A Taliban spokesman dismissed Trump’s remarks on Afghanistan.

Spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told The Associated Press, “The whole speech was old.” He said the Taliban will come out with a more detailed response, but he is initially calling Trump’s policy outline “unclear.”

Last week the Taliban issued a 1,600-word open letter to Trump warning against a troop surge, saying it would prolong what is already the United States’ longest war. Trump steered clear of discussing troop numbers, but said U.S. forces are in Afghanistan to win.

The Taliban have also said they aren’t ready for any peace talks, at least not until the U.S. and NATO give a time frame for withdrawal – something Trump says isn’t going to happen.

© 2017 The Associated Press.



54 responses to “Global reaction to Trump’s speech on the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan”

  1. The strategy is to:

    • Continue milking the US industrial-military complex.

    • Continue the multi-billion dollar opium trade.

    • Loot Afghanistan’s resources (worth trillions).

    • Like in Sudan, remove China who, through diplomacy, secured exploration/production rights on oil/gas reserves and who is looking to establish a strong mining foothold.

    • Increase US military bases to continue the encirclement of Russia and get close to China.

    p.s.: the bashing of Pakistan in Trump’s speech is directly related to the Sino-Pakistani partnership in Afghanistan.

    1. Hannibal Avatar

      Trump despite ALL (and there are many if you know who controls the US) the constraints is a good guy. The swamp he refers to often in Washington is of a Zionist make up and he is dead set at clearing it up. Think what you want but he is taking the US in the right direction. He signed the sanctions against Russia reluctantly but came out saying that was the wrong thing to do. He and Putin wanted to bring the two countries closer as the majority of both countries’ citizens share the same values.

      1. Rainbow Sponge Avatar
        Rainbow Sponge

        What Trump meant was “I don’t need your Israeli bribe money, I’m the only U.S. President that has repeatedly refused to endorse a two state solution, my own State Department (per spokeswoman Heather Nauert) says committing to two states would “bias” the outcome, and my ambassador to Israel donates money to settlers.”

        Keep up with the news airhead.

        1. Hannibal Avatar

          Nope… He meant clean the swamp dic#head.

          1. Rudy1947 Avatar

            Now Trump is realizing that the swamp may be him and his ideas.

          2. Hannibal Avatar

            Liberal scum…

          3. Rudy1947 Avatar

            Trump is an over reaction to an under reaction and his pre-election rhetoric is already haunting him. Personally i voted for neither Trump nor Clinton, I figured I was screwed with either.

          4. Rainbow Sponge Avatar
            Rainbow Sponge

            The campaign is over. As POTUS the only thing he’s cleaning is his list of employees.

          5. Hannibal Avatar

            Focus on the word POTUS… He is the President and he lives IN the white house. ;P

      2. If you read or glimpse through my comments addressed to you, others and in general, you should know that I am aware of who runs the USA.

        Trump is definitely someone who comes from outside the Establishment (CFR, Trilateral Commission, RAND, Chatham House, etc) and that is precisely why he is a target of them. Their desperate attempt at linking Russia to his election – while the British Inteligence’s Gestapo (the ADL and APAIC) have done so for decades – is truly lamentable; especially when they still have not provided a single shred of evidence.

        In general, I agree that he is a much better choice for the US and the World than that vile, evil, rotten sack of sh*t; Hillary. I read somewhere she was hired to preach (British) Evangelicalism – question of continuing the destruction of the the USA.

        I’ll reiterate what I quoted to you in another comment. I believe it explains the ordeal appropriately:

        Lyndon LaRouche made the following comment: “The American people must demand that the ongoing treasonous British coup against the U.S. Presidency and the nation itself must be stopped, and the perpetrators prosecuted and imprisoned. The British system must be cancelled, and the President must make every effort to save the people of this country and the rest of humanity from further British-directed depredations against their lives. Cancel the British system; save the people.”
        What I’m going to do today is to present the documentation which shows that what we have here is not a Russian interference in the domestic affairs of the United States of America, but rather a very directed interference on the part of the British empire. This is what should be investigated, as opposed to so-called “collusion” between President Trump’s campaign team and the Russians. This is very important to document, and it’s absolutely critical that this coup be stopped; because we are, at this moment in world history, on the brink of another financial breakdown, far larger than in 2008. We are in a situation where the British, to preserve their bankrupt financial system based in the City of London and in Wall Street, are committed to bringing down the U.S. President to prevent the alternative to that collapse from being realized.
        The alternative to that collapse is what Lyndon LaRouche has called the Four Powers concept, an alliance among the United States, Russia, China, and potentially India, which represent the industrial power on this planet and the vast majority of the world’s population. That combination can solve virtually any problem with which we are faced on planet Earth and beyond. For instance, the Korean Peninsula crisis requires the collaboration of the United States with China, and Russia; both of which are neighbors of North and South Korea. The fight against terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa, which extends even beyond those areas, requires such collaboration. The rebuilding of the world economy requires such collaboration, particularly by the United States joining the efforts initiated by China—the so-called Silk Road or the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have fought for for decades, when it was referred to as the World Land-Bridge.
        All of these problems can be solved with that collaboration, and that collaboration would destroy the British empire once and for all. That is what is at stake right now. I would also point out that the British empire has historically been committed to massive population reduction, genocide, reducing the world’s population from the current level of more than seven billion, to one billion. That empire is willing to bring the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, with its geopolitical strategy against Russia and China. That is the underlying issue which is behind the current attempt to carry out a coup against the President of the United States.

        1. Rudy1947 Avatar

          Wonderful choice of mentors. Explains a lot.

          1. (laughing)

            And again!

            Attack the messenger when you can’t the message.

          2. Rudy1947 Avatar

            I’d laugh at LaRouche as well.

          3. I laughed at you but you knew that.

            Besides, quit pretending you knew or heard of LaRouche before I brought it up here (before and now).

          4. Rudy1947 Avatar

            The guy who ran for President for decades?

          5. Once again: you attack the messenger when you can’t the message.

          6. Rainbow Sponge Avatar
            Rainbow Sponge

            Another boring platitude.

          7. Do you ever write to say something or only make noise – like Rudy?

          8. Rudy1947 Avatar

            The humble messenger again. Geez, what a bore and totally inaccurate.

          9. I am not the messenger here; LaRouche was. Either way, you always go after it, not the message. That’s what the uneducated, the ignorant, the coward, the sophist, the liar, etc does.

          10. Rudy1947 Avatar

            You posted it, you own it.

          11. Won’t post it if I don’t own it.

            You still went after LaRouche (the original messenger) and not the message.

          12. Rudy1947 Avatar

            The reliability of the messenger is in question. LaRouche was a failed politician, mental patient and a conspiracy theorist.

          13. If you think/believe the messenger is a “failed politician, mental patient and a conspiracy theorist” (claims that anyone can make about everyone and something you found on the internet in less than 60 seconds), then you should have no problem in refuting the analysis he presented about Trump, the alleged Russian link (I hope you realize that to date, no evidence exists) and the British Empire’s known and proven history at discarding competitors.
            Besides, it’s not like LaRouche’s claim is aimed at hurting the USA – the contrary actually. Your problem seems different: that Trump (and some behind him) are not bent over enough to Britain’s Israel.
            Your argument approach (if it can be called that) is typical of you. When you don’t respond with non sequitur, it’s irrelevant generalizations or opiniated extrapolations. When all fails, you resort at going after the messenger.

    2. Rudy1947 Avatar

      “Continue milking the US industrial-military complex.”
      The Russian, German, French and Chinese are benefiting from the sale of various weapons and arms. The demand from many countries unable to produce their own are world wide. It’s ironic that China is also one of the largest importers as well.

      “Continue the multi-billion dollar opium trade and Loot Afghanistan’s resources (worth trillions).”
      Since the Afghans would prefer plants over mining the opium trade will continue. The trillions in mineable ores will remain part of the geology as long as Poopies are easier.

      “Like in Sudan, remove China who, through diplomacy, secured exploration/production rights on oil/gas reserves and who is looking to establish a strong mining foothold.”

      Like Afghanistan the resources require the hard work to mine the ore.

      “Increase US military bases to continue the encirclement of Russia and get close to China.”

      The bases have been around for decades.

      1. The Russian, German, French and Chinese are benefiting from the sale of various weapons and arms. The demand from many countries unable to produce their own are world wide. It’s ironic that China is also one of the largest importers as well.

        What on Earth are you raving about? The milking of the US MIC in Afghanistan only benefits the US MIC and has nothing to do with other MIC dealings with Russia, China, Germany or France. Your irrelevant extrapolations are only an attempt – emphasis on attempt – at sounding semi-inteligent.

        Since the Afghans would prefer plants over mining the opium trade will continue. The trillions in mineable ores will remain part of the geology as long as Poopies are easier.

        Good God, you truly are the King of dumb extrapolations. How do you know what the Afghans want? Did you personally go to Afghanistan to survey the people? The Afghans do not prefer plants over mining. First and foremost, get a clue: mining is very, very, minor in Afghanistan – not to say nonexistent. The trillions worth of minerals (lithium and gold being the most important) in Afghanistan have only been explored and are undergoing feasility studies. In regards to opium, the Talibans had eradicated most of the fields before the US stepped in (on the bogus pretext of 9/11) to revive the multi-billion dollar illicit market. The Afghans work the fields due to the supply the US created – no the Afghans.

        Like Afghanistan the resources require the hard work to mine the ore.

        HAHAHA!!! WTF?

        The bases have been around for decades.

        No sh*t Sherlock. Ever heard of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory?

        British policy is a policy of geopolitics, and this is a longstanding policy. In 1919, Halford Mackinder wrote a paper entitled “The Geographical Pivot of History.” What he wrote there, in summary, is as follows: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island. Who rules the World Island commands the World. Russia is the pivot area, the heartland. Surrounding it is an area which is called the Inner Crescent, which today would be called the Arc of Crisis, as defined by another geopolitician, Bernard Lewis, who was born in Britain but later became an American citizen. That’s the policy that we’ve been carrying out. Who rules East Europe? Think about the move eastward by NATO to the very borders of Russia. Think about the policy of regime change in the entire Arc of Crisis area surrounding Russia.

        The British geopolitical view of the world as described by Halford Mackinder. This is the policy that was implemented under Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter Administration. It’s continuing today, with the regime change policies in Libya, and in Egypt, before it was reversed by el-Sisi against Morsi. We see it in Iraq beginning in 2003; we see it today in the attempt in Syria. Before that, we saw it in Afghanistan, and that’s still a crisis today. We see it in Ukraine, today. This is the geopolitical policy of the British, which led to World War II by the way, because this was the policy of Hitler. The Mackinder policy was picked up by Haushofer, who was instrumental in defining Hitler’s policy of marching East to Russia—the Soviet Union at that time. So this is the geopolitical policy which is operative today.

        1. Rudy1947 Avatar

          Not raving. The MIC is part of many countries that supply such weapons to countries that are unable or unwilling to manufacture their own. Basic supply and demand. Lebanon has benefited as well. Also the MIC is just one of many industries that supply parts of the world unable to manufacture products that are necessary to their development or very existence. Much of the ME is a one resource economy and can buy anything they wish and have to because they have no other resources.

          Afghanistan has the potential of wealth, but not the desire. It’s like Saudi Arabia saying they have the largest oil reserve and not the means to extract it.

          Now what are you ranting about? Do not the the Islamic countries have a Caliphate geopolitical plan? The Russians don’t take a dump without a plan. Communism had a plan. The Chinese have a plan.

          1. And the silly extrapolations continue. This time, coupled with idiotic non sequitur.
            You may not have noticed but the topic in hand is, very much, and strictly: Afghanistan.
            The thousands of US troops, their gears, weapons, food, vehicles, etc and the overall logistics associated with it benefit only the US defense contractors and companies (not Russia, China, Germany or France). I am skipping the hundreds of billions of US taxpayers’ money wasted in supposedly rebuilding Afghanistan. Now Lebanon has benefited from the US presence in Afghanistan?
            Claiming that Afghanistan does not have the desire to exploit its ressources is another one of your abysmally stupid extrapolation (not to say abberrant lie). According to a Pentagon memo, the US became aware of Afghanistan’s vast minerals ressources in 2007 (maybe before) but for some reason, they exploit the illicit opium trade – why? Rethorically, what happened to the “war on drugs”? I’ll tell you what happened: it’s as horseshit as their “war on terror”. For the record, both Russia and China knew of Afghanistan’s ressources back in the 1970s but obviously couldn’t do anything about it. I am sure you heard of the turtle and rabbit story.
            On the other hand and to show you how much of a stupid liar you are, China, through diplomacy and cooperation (not an illegal invasion) since 2012, secured exploration/production rights in Afghanistan for its oil and minerals. Were you saying the Afghans have no desire?
            Which “Islamic countries” have a Caliphate geopolitical plan? Do tell, I am curious. IS, ISIS, ISIL and their lies is not a country – not will they ever dominate anything – you cretin. Russia and China – both demolished by Britain with Bolshevism and Maoism initially – rose from the ashes and will make of the Anglo-Americans (and their financially and morally bankrupt system) their sharmutas.

          2. Rudy1947 Avatar

            There are various topics included in your cliche ridden rant and your last response was an overture to that. Now tell me the exploits of the Afghan people in exploiting their resources rather than another scatter brained rant.

          3. Lying imbecile, I am tired of your silly diversions, extrapolations and generalizations – all to cover up your lack of knowledge, low IQ and mendacious character.

            You addressed none of the many topics I initially brought with facts but with opiniated extrapolations, irrelevant generalizations and false claims.

            Get a clue, educate yourself and then we can talk.

          4. Rudy1947 Avatar

            Why thank you Hind. I feel as if I belong now.

          5. Wrong person.

          6. Rudy1947 Avatar

            You sounded the same.

          7. Attack the messenger when you can’t the message. Typical of you.

          8. Rudy1947 Avatar

            Cliche ridden again.

          9. Yet perfectly suited in your case.

          10. Hannibal Avatar

            That is their motto exactly. They cannot hold an argument without calling you names. That is telling of paid teenagers by Israel to improve its image online however, that strategy is not working as the educated rich does not need the money but the trash of their society trolls to get paid.

          11. You edited your comment but malice was detected

          12. Yes, I edited the ending of my comment but how is it malicious cretin.

          13. Not end, but start, “lying imbecile”. Hateful lying cretin is you

          14. Ah yes, that. You’ll forgive me, I am rather buzzed. How is removing an unnessecary ad hominem malicious? The contrary should be.

          15. You owe nobody to be snake

          16. Rudy1947 Avatar

            What about the “lying” part?

          17. That remains. You are a liar.

          18. Rudy1947 Avatar

            You edited out. Why don’t you put it back?

          19. When you write all sorts of nonsense …

            • Do you so unwillingly? If so, you could just be an uneducated/ignorant person.

            • If you do so willingly, then you’re a liar.

            • If you do so unwillingly but still refuse to acknowledge presented facts, then you’re an imbecile.

            Please pick one , or a combination, so I can edit accordingly.

            Based on your comments, so far, I deduce you are an ignorant imbecile.

          20. Rudy1947 Avatar

            What nonsense? BTW, you should learn the lesson of oversharing like saying your “buzzed”.

          21. All the bs you wrote in response to my initial comment is nonsense. Nothing but opinionated extrapolations, irrelevant generalizations and mendacious claims.

            Didn’t know there was such lesson. Don’t be antisocial.

          22. Rudy1947 Avatar

            What BS?

          23. I need your mailing address to bill you my time. Quit milking, lonely fool.

          24. Rudy1947 Avatar

            Are you a paid troll. Normally, when asked for my address I give Wrigley Field(the Cubs and a movie reference).

          25. No clue what that means.

          26. Rudy1947 Avatar

            Paid troll or Wrigley Field?

          27. Asking the same question won’t get you a different answer.

Leave a Reply