• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

Piecake

Member
I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. I was saying, all an opponent of mass transit has to do, is show an example of the SF strike, use it to generalize to nationwide, and you will then see the more unedcuated public change their mind.

Oh, I know what you meant, and I said its a stupid argument. You should look up Salt Lake City's mass transit system. They actually have a fantastic one because they were able to convince everyone, drivers included, that it was a good idea. It has very popular support there now.

So its entirely possible to get widespread support for mass transit, even in the reddest, most tax hating states. You just have to sell it right.
 
40% (!) percent of American workers make less than $20,000.

This is going to keep getting worse. And we in 20-30 years are gonna look back and wonder how we got here.
The kicker is that people who make shit wages (usually folks without a High School degree, college part timers not withstanding) vote Republican.
 
40% (!) percent of American workers make less than $20,000.

This is going to keep getting worse. And we in 20-30 years are gonna look back and wonder how we got here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

I don't mean to sound dramatic, but literally nearly every single problem we had today is because of what happened in 2010.

Whether it being state governments inhabited by sociopaths, the House being controlled by idiots, and the Senate filled with useless piece of shits like Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman and Ron Johnson.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

I don't mean to sound dramatic, but literally nearly every single problem we had today is because of what happened in 2010.

Whether it being state governments inhabited by sociopaths, the House being controlled by idiots, and the Senate filled with useless piece of shits like Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman and Ron Johnson.

This goes way beyond 2010. This goes back to the dismantling of the New Deal and Civil Rights.
 
This goes way beyond 2010. This goes back to the dismantling of the New Deal and Civil Rights.

Yeah but 2010 made it impossible to reverse the decline, the GOP won the argument and now the topic of the day is deficit reduction and if you don't agree you're not a serious person.
 

Piecake

Member
South Carolina’s Birth Initiative Stirring Up Payment Reform

Payment reform is one of the building blocks of the federal health-care reform law, and moving from a fee-based to an outcome-based model is seen by many as the key to cutting costs. Evidence supporting that comes from South Carolina, which saved millions of dollars by reducing the number of unnecessary early birth deliveries.

Early elective deliveries are performed solely for scheduling convenience -- grandma’s in town or the doctor is heading on vacation. But such deliveries lead to worse health outcomes for mothers, send more babies into the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and incur higher medical costs. So the state’s Medicaid agency and its largest private insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which combine to pay for 85 percent of all births in the state, agreed not to reimburse Medicaid or privately insured patients for early deliveries that are not medically necessary.

South Carolina did this? I'm shocked
 
There is a british guy on hannity literally arguing we can export US/UK liberal democracy anywhere in the world and it will take hold

I feel like I'm in 2002 again

edit:OMG he's bring in a psychoanalysts to examining Alec Baldwin, amazing TV
 

Piecake

Member
There is a british guy on hannity literally arguing we can export US/UK liberal democracy anywhere in the world and it will take hold

I feel like I'm in 2002 again

Perhaps he was in a coma during the Bush years and didnt bother to read up on the important events after he woke up?
 
then you'll have the opponents of mass transit using the recent bay area shutdown as a counterexample.

"want to put your financial stability in the hands of a few hundreds who could stop it on their whim?"

I don't know what it even means to say that the inability of public transit workers and its management to come to an agreement puts one's "financial stability" in the hands of other people. It may disturb public transportation, and that will obviously have some economic repercussions, but I don't know about "financial stability."

Also, strikes aren't caused by workers. It takes two to come to an agreement. Likewise, it takes two to fail to come to an agreement. Strikes aren't caused by workers. They are caused by the inability to come to an agreement.
 
There is a british guy on hannity literally arguing we can export US/UK liberal democracy anywhere in the world and it will take hold

I feel like I'm in 2002 again

edit:OMG he's bring in a psychoanalysts to examining Alec Baldwin, amazing TV
Stuart Varney? He is nothing more than a British limbaugh.
 

Piecake

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/b...maglev-train.html?ref=international-home&_r=0

Japan is offering to build a bullet train from NY to DC for free.

Can't wait for the GOP to oppose this because socialism.

I really can't believe the governors like John Kasich and Rick Scott killed off high speed rail because high speed trains = Europe = socialism.

Japan says they will build the DC to Baltimore part of the line for free, not the whole thing. As for high-speed rail, I really think it only makes sense in the DC-NY corridor and a few other, highly integrated regions, like SF to San Jose (not LA), Minneapolis-Rochester, etc.

I think individual cities and residents would derive far greater benefit from increasing mass transit within their city and suburbs than creating links to other cities. It would be nice to have it all, but thats not reality (thanks to politics), so I'd choice mass transit and other investment (pre-k/daycare, maternity leave, etc) over high-speed rail any day of the week.

The reason why Japan is trying so hard to export this technology is that it ran way over budget and isn't making money at home.

Quite a convincing case!

To be fair, the article says that the route takes it through/around the Japanese alps and goes to cities that, well, arent very important. I doubt a DC - Baltimore - Philly - New York line would have any issues with low ridership
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Noob question (which I should know but am having a brain fart), but do veto proof majorities in congress have to be 2/3rds in both houses, or can it be majority in the House and 60 in the senate?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/b...maglev-train.html?ref=international-home&_r=0

Japan is offering to build a bullet train from NY to DC for free.

Can't wait for the GOP to oppose this because socialism.

I really can't believe the governors like John Kasich and Rick Scott killed off high speed rail because high speed trains = Europe = socialism.

I'd love this but I'd probably only use it when I get rich. Still cheaper for non-business expense travel to use the Bus. And its not really that much faster. I don't see how it would help the average person as I don't see it lowering costs significantly. Just make the media and rich's lives a bit better. I love amtrak but I really think there is a giant need for super fast trains rather than expanding things like commuter rail, metros, bus systems. Those will actually help people and the economy/environment/traffic

The more I look back on it I don't really think Rick Scott did a bad thing by killing the tampa-orlando train. It was a stupid idea considering where the stops were to be. Nobody would have used it. I don't know how the Ohio train would work but I can see inter-city rail being useful there or in Cali
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Well George Zimmerman's back in the news. There's a thread and it's probably exactly what you think.

Man, what a trooper.



So I was reading this piece by Paul Waldman about the problems the GOP has to deal with after Jan. 1, and the bolded stuck out to me:

Millions of people will begin getting coverage through Medicaid. Repeal would mean kicking these people off their insurance.

* Millions of people will begin getting subsidies to pay for private insurance. Repeal would mean taking away their subsidies, making it unaffordable for them to get insurance.

Denials for pre-existing conditions will be officially over. Repeal would mean that once again, insurers could deny people coverage if they’ve ever been sick.

* Annual limits on coverage will be outlawed. Repeal would mean that people will once again start being forced to pay huge medical bills, in many cases forcing them into bankruptcy, if they have a serious illness or accident.

Now, I know all of these were part of Obamacare, but the last bit in particular is something that I don't hear people (including Obama) talk about nearly enough. I'd imagine that particular provision would arguably be the law's most popular one.
 
(Reuters) - The troubled rollout of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law has hurt the popularity of the initiative, but the decline has been fairly modest, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Monday.

Forty-one percent of Americans expressed support for the 2010 law popularly known as Obamacare in a survey conducted from Thursday to Monday. That was down 3 percentage points from a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken from September 27 to October 1.

Opposition to the healthcare law stood at 59 percent in the latest poll, versus 56 percent in the earlier survey.

Welp, time to repeal.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Welp, time to repeal.

Unless the HealthCare.gov website miraculously gets fixed by next month, there's a growing likelihood that over time, enough Democrats may join Republicans to decide to start over and scrap the whole complex health care enterprise. [...]

Would President Obama sign a death warrant on his own signature legislation? That's almost impossible to imagine, but it's entirely reasonable that he may not have a choice in the matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/democrats-scrap-obamacare_n_4296161.html?1384791920
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
It'd be nice to have a party that stood up for signature policy moves instead of hiding from them and wishing the pain would just stop.
 
An index is just a certain cross section of a stock market weighted a certain way. The most common index is the S&P 500, which is just 500 large companies listed on US stock exchanges weighted by the relative worth of the companies stock (their "market cap"). If it helps try thinking of an index as "all XBLA games" or "all FPS games" amongst the universe of all video games. It's just a curated list who's value changes based on the day-to-day rise and fall of the underlying stocks. Sorry, I'm terrible at explaining things so I hope that's a little more understandable. You'll know if a fund is an index find either in the name of the fund or in its prospectus and semi-annual report detailing what the fund holds, its investment strategy and how it's performed recently.

If your company offers a 401k you usually have a select group of investments to choose from but you're free to allocate as you wish within those confines.

Contribute enough to your 401k to at least capture of the matching funds your company may offer, which most do. Otherwise you leave "free" money on the table. Anything after that can go to either your IRA or 401k up to their yearly maximums fairly interchangeably depending on how much flexibility you want in your investment options.

Vanguard and Fidelity are broad investment services companies as opposed to traditional banks. They'll manage your stock portfolios, run mutual funds and so forth. Many banks have a subsidiary that does similar things, but I think most would agree that dedicated brokers are a better option to manage your money.

A minimum in mutual find parlance is the smallest amount that a fund will allow to be initially invested from any given person. So if a fund has a $3500 minimum then you can't invest in it at all until you have at least that amount. This is something you need to worry about in an IRA, not so much in a 401k where you can generally invest any amount into anything.


Hopefully this helps somewhat. If not I'd encourage you to stop by the Stock thread where a lot of very helpful people reside that probably explain this stuff much more clearly than I do!

Like other's have said, index funds and actively managed funds are different because one follows an index, which could be the biggest 500 companies in America (SP 500) or the Total Stock Market of the US. There are no managers or stock pickers, it passively follows whatever the biggest 500 companies are, etc.

Actively managed funds have a fund manager who picks stocks to put in the mutual fund.

The easiest way to tell the difference between the two is the name and the expense ratio. Total stock market or SP 500 is definitely going to be an index. Mid cap, small cap, whatever, is probably going to be an index too. You should also look at the expense ratio as well. If its .05-.2% then its definitely an index fund. If its .8 - 2% its definitely an actively managed fund.

Why is that important? Well, we can use my example from my previous post to show you the difference

The 5k a year plan for 40 years will only net you 670k instead of 1.1 million if your fund has an expense ratio of 2%. That's because it drops your annual rate of return from 7% to 5%. Expenses are a HUGE deal, so that is why every sane person recommends investing in index funds
Thanks. :)
Not gonna happen.
 
NEWS

President Obma's third term is in jeopardy.

More bad news for Obama:
WASHINGTON — Despite the disastrous rollout of the federal government's healthcare website, enrollment is surging in many states as tens of thousands of consumers sign up for insurance plans made available by President Obama's health law.

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.​
 
NEWS

President Obma's third term is in jeopardy.

More bad news for Obama:
WASHINGTON — Despite the disastrous rollout of the federal government's healthcare website, enrollment is surging in many states as tens of thousands of consumers sign up for insurance plans made available by President Obama's health law.

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.​
2010 redux is inevitable...

This is great news!

I'm actually seeing a few local success stories of Obamacare. As the more far sighted posters have said the freak out in the very beginning was way to overblown. It still is iffy for a few redstate dems but we have a Long way to go.
 

bonercop

Member
NEWS

President Obma's third term is in jeopardy.

More bad news for Obama:
WASHINGTON — Despite the disastrous rollout of the federal government's healthcare website, enrollment is surging in many states as tens of thousands of consumers sign up for insurance plans made available by President Obama's health law.

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.​

what does this mean for kay hagan, republican landslide imminent etc. etc.
 
When the administration announced that the website would be working on Dec. 1, they are now saying it will work for the "vast majority of users." By that they mean 80% of users.

As for the remaining 20%...
According to a government official familiar with the new target, the 20 percent who are unlikely to be able to enroll online are expected to fall into three groups: people whose family circumstances are so complicated that the Web site cannot determine their eligibility for subsidies to help pay for health plans; people uncomfortable buying insurance on a computer; and people who encounter technical problems on the Web site.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
NEWS

President Obma's third term is in jeopardy.

More bad news for Obama:
WASHINGTON — Despite the disastrous rollout of the federal government's healthcare website, enrollment is surging in many states as tens of thousands of consumers sign up for insurance plans made available by President Obama's health law.

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.​
Also, NYT reports sign ups on the federal site have more than doubled in two weeks. Granted, doubling from 27k isn't amazing, but the pace is what matters.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/opinion/krugman-a-permanent-slump.html?_r=0

So Krugman's latest column is about whether we're in permanent depression, that being we 'll always live in a time of poor economic growth, with a few years of average growth in between.

He cites the example of the housing bubble, which by all means was a huge bubble but only produced average growth for the country.

Basically, we're fucked. It's kinda depressing that this slump could go for decades with no way out.
 

teiresias

Member
Posted already?

Former VA governor candidate Creigh Deeds in critical condition after being found found stabbed in his home and his son dead from a gunshot wound.
 
According to a government official familiar with the new target, the 20 percent who are unlikely to be able to enroll online are expected to fall into three groups: people whose family circumstances are so complicated that the Web site cannot determine their eligibility for subsidies to help pay for health plans; people uncomfortable buying insurance on a computer; and people who encounter technical problems on the Web site.

Is it just me or is that sentence hilarious?
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
So all indications is that sign-ups are increasing, states that have their own websites will hit enrollment targets, Medicaid is expanding effortlessly, and healthcare.gov is slowly being put together.

Excellent.

It's a failure!

REPEAL! REPEAL!

OBAMA LIED. PEOPLE DIED.
 

Sibylus

Banned
Official releasing what appears to be original court file authorizing NSA to conduct sweeps (Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, WashPo)

The order, signed by the then-chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was among nearly 1,000 pages of documents being released by James R. Clapper Jr. in response to lawsuits and a directive by President Obama. The documents also describe the NSA’s failure to abide by court-imposed rules to protect Americans’ privacy, and show that the agency was more interested in collecting cell site location data than it had previously acknowledged.
The judge said the NSA could use two methods to search the data. One is “contact-chaining,” or using computer algorithms to identify all e-mail accounts that have been in contact with the suspect’s e-mail account, as well as all accounts that have been in contact with an account in that first tier of results. The second method was redacted.

Kollar-Kotelly said Americans do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the metadata they generate, citing Supreme Court cases, including a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland .
The two groups whose Freedom of Information Act lawsuits helped force disclosure of the documents expressed dismay about the court’s interpretation of the law.
“On the logic of these opinions, almost every digital footprint we leave behind can be vacuumed up by the government — who we talk to, what we read, where we go online,” said Patrick Toomey, American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney. “Like previous releases, these materials show the danger of a government that sidesteps public debate and instead grounds its surveillance powers in the secret opinions of a secret court. The more we learn, the clearer it is that our surveillance laws and oversight rules are in dramatic need of reform.”

Mark Rumold, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the latest release mirrored previous releases of documents by the director of national intelligence in which the court “signed off on constitutionally questionable orders that affected the privacy rights of millions of Americans.”
In particular, the NSA admitted that it had improperly allowed about 200 analysts from the CIA, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center to have access to sensitive reports that were largely based on trails of e-mail communications among millions of Internet users, many of them Americans. The reports did not include e-mail content, according to the notice sent to the committees, but disseminating the data “was not consistent with” orders from the surveillance court.

That violation became part of a broader pattern of NSA problems, prompting the FISA Court to express “grave concern over the lack of apparent NSA compliance with the Court ordered minimization procedures,” according to the notice sent to the committees.

The memo also pointed to another significant compliance issue: a practice adopted by the NSA in which it deemed a series of “selectors,” or search terms, as legitimate targets for further scrutiny in its massive databases as long as the terms were somehow related.
In effect, the NSA was going beyond the FISA Court’s rules that the agency only search selectors when it could demonstrate a “reasonable articulable suspicion” of a link to terrorism or other legitimate foreign intelligence purpose.

The Justice Department filed a notice of non-compliance with the FISA Court after discovering the practice, according to the documents.

The files also reveal that in recent years the NSA was actively “exploring the possibility” of building a database that would include detailed information on the locations from which people including U.S. citizens made cellular phone calls.

In a memo sent to a staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the NSA made clear that it believed it had the legal authority to track such location information in addition to the existing metadata it was already collecting on the number and durations of billions of phone calls.
In the wake of the Snowden leaks, NSA Director Keith Alexander has said that the NSA briefly conducted a test program to collect a sample of location data from one cellular service provider, but emphasized that the effort was abandoned.

The newly released memo, which was written in response to questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, said however that the NSA was considering “acquiring such mobility data under this program in the near future under the authority currently granted by the [FISA] Court.”

You should be comforted to know that while the NSA claims it has abandoned efforts to geolocate all your call data, it also claims it has the legal authority to do that anyway. I'm slightly amused that FISA compliance almost seems to be included as an afterthought.
 
Official releasing what appears to be original court file authorizing NSA to conduct sweeps (Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, WashPo)



You should be comforted to know that while the NSA claims it has abandoned efforts to geolocate all your call data, it also claims it has the legal authority to do that anyway. I'm slightly amused that FISA compliance almost seems to be included as an afterthought.

The FISA court is what is authorizing the NSA's programs right? Why is that court okay with authorizing pretty much any program no matter how much a violation of the Constitution it is?
 

Sibylus

Banned
The FISA court is what is authorizing the NSA's programs right? Why is that court okay with authorizing pretty much any program no matter how much a violation of the Constitution it is?
FISA at the present time only sees a representative arguing in the affirmative for permissions and rulings the NSA wants, there is no party present that argues in the negative. On top of of that, it has yet to demonstrate actual binding restraint over what the NSA can actually do (at least to my knowledge).
 
The FISA court is what is authorizing the NSA's programs right? Why is that court okay with authorizing pretty much any program no matter how much a violation of the Constitution it is?

Modern American courts, particularly as they have been taken over by radical conservatives, traditionally rubber stamp executive action. It's a systemic problem. And it doesn't help that the FISA court's proceedings are ex parte and that it acts in secrecy against all norms of democratic governance.
 
And the war drags on...pullout in 2024 at the earliest.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...e-and-funds-flowing-perhaps-indefinitely?lite

KABUL – While many Americans have been led to believe the war in Afghanistan will soon be over, a draft of a key US-Afghan security deal obtained by NBC NEWS shows the United States is prepared to maintain military outposts in Afghanistan for many years to come, and pay to support hundreds of thousands of Afghan security forces.

The wide-ranging document, still unsigned by the United States and Afghanistan, has the potential to commit thousands of American troops to Afghanistan and spend billions of US taxpayer dollars.

The document outlines what appears to be the start of a new, open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan in the name of training and continuing to fight al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be ending, but renewed under new, scaled-down US-Afghan terms.

“The Parties acknowledge that continued US military operations to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates may be appropriate and agree to continue their close cooperation and coordination toward that end,” the draft states.


The 25-page “Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” is a sweeping document, vague in places, highly specific in others, defining everything from the types of future missions US troops would be allowed to conduct in Afghanistan, to the use of radios and the taxation of American soldiers and contractors.

The bilateral security agreement will be debated this week in Kabul by around 2,500 village elders, academics and officials in a traditional Loya Jirga. While the Loya Jirga is strictly consultative, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he won’t sign it without the Jirga’s approval.

The copy of the draft is dated July 25, 2013. As a working draft, it is particularly revealing because it shows the back and forth negotiations, as US and Afghan officials added words and struck out paragraphs. The changes are marked by annotations still revealed in the text. The document is a work in progress. US officials say there have been more changes since July. The draft, however, does indicate the scope of this possible agreement with major implications for Washington, Kabul, US troops and the continuation of America’s longest war.

Taken as a whole, the document describes a basic US-Afghan exchange. Afghanistan would allow Washington to operate military bases to train Afghan forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda after the current mission ends in 2014. For that foothold in this volatile mountain region wedged between Pakistan and Iran, the United States would agree to sustain and equip Afghanistan's large security force, which the government in Kabul currently cannot afford. The deal, according to the text, would take effect on January 1, 2015 and “shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond.” It could be terminated by either Washington or Kabul with two years advance written notice.

There is however what US officials believe is a contradiction in the July draft, which would effectively ask American troops to provide training and confront al-Qaeda from the confines of bases. While it says operations against al-Qaeda may be necessary, it also says US troops will not be allowed to make arrests or enter Afghan homes.

“No detention or arrest shall be carried out by the United States forces. The United States forces shall not search any homes or other real estate properties,” it says.

“[The contradiction] was a matter of serious consternation at the highest levels” of the Obama administration over the weekend, according to one senior defense official. “It is the one remaining issue that could ultimately kill the deal." However, US officials believe that in a more recent draft, which was circulated among key Pentagon officials and US lawmakers on Monday, the US has won its position on this point.

The document doesn’t specifically say how many US and NATO troops would remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Afghan officials tell NBC NEWS they hope it will be 10 to 15 thousand. US officials tell NBC NEWS the number is closer to seven to eight thousand, with an additional contribution from NATO. Factoring in troop rotations, home leave, and breaks between deployments, the service of tens of thousands of American troops would be required to maintain a force of seven to eight thousand for a decade or longer. The anticipated costs would likely run into the billions quickly.

Afghan officials tell NBC NEWS the agreement is critical to Afghanistan’s future stability. Without ongoing military assistance, training and funding, those officials say the government could collapse and Afghanistan would enter a civil war. If the agreement passes, the draft says Washington would commit to a long -term, indefinite military involvement in this land-locked Asian nation.

The agreement circulating this week is unlikely to be the the last. It first must pass through the Loya Jirga, then go onto parliament for final approval. “We’re looking at 60-days or more” before the US and Afghanistan sign any agreement, defense officials said.

Here are highlights of the July draft of the bi-lateral agreement:

US BASES
While the document specifically says the United States would not seek “permanent bases” in Afghanistan, the US military would have “access to and use of the agreed facilities and areas.” Some of these areas would be for the “exclusive use” of US troops.

“Afghanistan hereby authorizes United States forces to exercise all rights and authorities within the agreed facilities and areas that are necessary for their use, operation, defense, or control, including the right to undertake new construction works,” the document says.

US troops would be allowed to carry weapons, wear uniforms and guard the perimeter of those areas. The agreement does not say how many “exclusive use” sites there would be in Afghanistan. The United States also would also be permitted to keep vehicles and aircraft in Afghanistan, take off and land from Afghan soil, and fly though Afghan airspace. The facilities would be provided the US government “rent free,” but significant costs would mount in other ways.

US PAYMENTS
The draft agreement says the Afghan government should “eventually” pay for all of its defense and security personal. But until then, “so long as the strategic partnership agreement so provides, the United States shall have an obligation to seek funds on a yearly basis to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), so that Afghanistan can independently secure and defend itself against internal and external threats, and help ensure that terrorists never again encroach on Afghan soil and threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world.” The specific amount of payment is not stated. The money would be “managed by relevant Afghan institutions.”

STICKING POINTS
The document shows a long and hard series of negotiations, particularly on the issue of legal jurisdiction. The draft initially insisted that US military personnel be subject to Afghan laws and, if accused of a crime, be tried in Afghan courts. This section in the July draft is crossed out. Afghan officials tell NBC NEWS the jurisdiction dispute appears to have been overcome, with US troops only being subject to American laws.

ENDLESS AFGHANISTAN?
The document suggests Afghan negotiators want a long-term US presence, with US forces and contractors providing intelligence, training and funding, but also to keep American forces as confined as possible. It shows Afghans want to keep their US partners, but on their terms. It also suggests the United States is not confident that without a long-term commitment, the Afghan government can bring stability or effectively fight terrorism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom