RT
Barack Obama has reportedly approved broadening the role of US troops in Afghanistan; a decision that once again contradicts his promises to end America's war in the country.
Clips from Obama's Speeches
2013 - We would consider a train and advise mission that would extend beyond 2014.
2014 - America's war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end, and by the end of this year, the transition will be complete, and Afghans will take full responsibility for their security, and our combat mission will be over.
RT
Almost ten thousand US troops are still in Afghanistan; the original plan, call to withdraw all soldiers except those based in the US ambessy by the end of this year, but under the new extended mission next year, five and half housand troops will still be stationed in the country. To discuss this, let's now cross live to a polital journalist and writer Dan Glazebrook.
RT
Hello there Dan, why do you think American President keeps making promises he can't keep?
Dan Glazebrook
I think that the context we will have to understand is the goal; the key goal for the US in Afghanistan is to keep it weak, destabilized, prevent it from becoming a peaceful, stable country, at peace of its neighbours. Because if it's that were ho happen, that would mean very likely it would be making agreements with Russia, with China; it's a very important country geostrategically, potential for being a gas supply route, and its geographical proximity to Russia, China, India and so on means that the US does not want to risk it becoming a stable, peaceful country. So, that's the context, I think that they have kept it destabilized, kept it at war. The danger were the strategy, the danger of just completely leaving the Afghan Government to its fate, and so on; the real danger of that is that the Afghan Government then actually (will) turn to Russia, turn to China for military support against the Taliban, and they lose all influence whatsoever. So I think what we are seeing is they want to keep terrorism and war on the boil, but they need to present themselves an indispensable ally without actually giving enough support to defeat the Taliban and this they have been achieving very successfully and the thing is, they have been doing this in Iraq, they have been doing this in Afghanistan and also in Nigeria. And it's intetesting that in Nigeria they got the balance slightly wrong; and actually last year Nigeria got sick and tired of US promise of support in the war against Bokoharam that never materialized, and actually kicked out the US military advisers, and have been moving closer to military and security cooperation with indeed Russia and China. So, they don't want this to happen with Afghanistan, (so) they need to provide some modicum of support to the Afghan Government but not enough yo actually defeat the insurgency. And they have been doing that successfully and this is the latest development of the over-all strategy.
RT
Well, Dan, let's look at (say) "broader context" I mean some of the reasons that you just told us as to why Americans want to keep their soldiers there. That's on the one hand, but on the other, America is somewhat at the brink of the elections and the new president will be comung in. So do you expect things to get changed and policies towards Afghanistan to change with the new person in the white house?
Dan Glazebrook
Not really because I dont think the US foreign policy really is ultimately decided at core, at root, by the president. Personally I think that there is deeper forces at work and a kind of deep state of the US military and security establishment that do this long term planning and come up with the strategies and so on. Presidents and Congress can think over that a little bit hete and there, but the overall trajectory, I think, will not change. I don't think that generally ever has changed between Democrats and Republican presidents particularly. So, I dont think that would particularly change.
