text:
Editorial Board:
Jeremy Atack, Vanderbilt University
Martha Bailey, University of Michigan
Gerben Bakker, London School of Economics
Bernardo Batiz-Lazo, Bangor University
Dan Bogart, University of California, Irvine
Stephen Broadberry, London School of Economics
Ann Carlos, University of Colorado-Boulder
Youssef Cassis, European University Institute
Colleen A. Dunlavy, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert B. Ekelund, Auburn University
Jeffrey Fear, University of Glasgow
Price Fishback, University of Arizona
Robert K. Fleck, Clemson University
Juan Flores, University of Geneva
Sheryllynne Haggerty, University of Nottingham
Leslie Hannah, London School of Economics
William J. Hausman, William and Mary
Douglas Irwin, Dartmouth College
Naomi Lamoreaux, Yale University
Manuel Llorca-Jaña, University of Chile & Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Joel Mokyr, Northwestern University
Aldo Musacchio, Harvard Business School
Jari Ojala, University of Jyväskylä
Jared Rubin, Chapman University
Peter Scott, University of Reading
Raymond Stokes, University of Glasgow
Janice Traflet, Bucknell University
Patrick Vanhorn, New College of Florida
John Wallis, University of Maryland
Mark Wilson, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
Jason E. Taylor, Central Michigan University
Book Review Editor:
Erik Benson, Cornerstone University
Associate Editors:
Michael Coyne, Fairfield University
Neil Forbes, Coventry University
Salaga: Competitive Balance in American College Football |
Steven Salaga's Competitive Balance in American College Football: The Gi Bill, Grant-in-Aid and the College Football Association, forthcoming in the May 2015 printed volume of Essays in Economic & Business History, is now available on-line. | |
Posted: 2015-01-22 | |
Carson: The Mexican Calorie Allocation Among the Working Class in the American West, 1870-1920 |
Scott Alan Carson's The Mexican Calorie Allocation Among the Working Class in the American West, 1870-1920, forthcoming in the May 2015 printed volume of Essays in Economic & Business History, is now available on-line. | |
Posted: 2014-12-01 | |
More Announcements... |
Vol 32 (2014): Essays in Economic & Business History


text:
Copyright © 1998-2015 Statto Organisation Limited. All rights reserved.
Powered by Statto Server v2.0
Wycombe's appeal against Matt McClure's red card, 70 seconds after he came on against Tranmere Rovers, is rejected.
05 Mar » BBC SportWycombe have confirmed they are to appeal against the red card shown to Matt McClure in Tuesday night's victory at Tranmere.
04 Mar » SkySports.comGareth Ainsworth said Wycombe had no right to be promotion contenders following a 2-1 win over Tranmere.
04 Mar » SkySports.comChairman Mark Palios has said the fans are more than entitled to boo after we suffered our third successive defeat to Wycombe last night.
04 Mar » Vital FootballManager Micky Adams was again frustrated with the way we started in the two one defeat to Wycombe Wanderers last night, but as the game went on he...
04 Mar » Vital FootballAll the stats from Tranmere (1) vs (2) Wycombe, Prenton Park, 3/3/15 Att: 4,161
04 Mar » Vital FootballIan Goodison's testimonial at Prenton Park has now had the details set.
04 Mar » Vital FootballAhead of last night's game against Wycombe Wanderers, manager Micky Adams loaned in Dan Gardner.
04 Mar » Vital FootballTranmere fans were entitled to boo their team after they suffered a third successive loss, says Rovers chairman Mark Palios.
04 Mar » BBC Sport

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Writing Contests, Grants & Awards database includes details about the creative writing contests—including poetry contests, short story competitions, essay contests, awards for novels, and more—that we've published in Poets & Writers Magazine during the past year. We carefully review the practices and policies of each contest before including it. Ours is the most trusted resource for legitimate writing contests available anywhere.
Sponsor and Award | Entry Fee | Genre | Cash Prize | Prize includes | Application Deadline |
Crab Orchard Review Literary Prizes Three prizes of $2,000 each and publication in Crab Orchard Review are given annually for a poem, a short story, and an essay. Using the online submission system, submit a poem of up to five... |
$15 | Poetry, Fiction, Creative Nonfiction | $2,000 | Publication | 4/21/15 |
Poetry International Poetry International Prize A prize of $1,000 and publication in Poetry International is given annually for a poem. Carol Frost will judge. Submit up to three poems with a $15 entry fee ($3 for each additional poem) by... |
$15 | Poetry | $1,000 | Publication | 4/1/15 |
Glimmer Train Press Family Matters A prize of $1,500, publication in Glimmer Train Stories, and 20 copies of the prize issue is given twice yearly for a short story about families of all configurations. Using the online... |
$15 | Fiction | $1,500 | Publication | 3/31/15 |
Colorado Review Nelligan Prize A prize of $2,000 and publication in Colorado Review is given annually for a short story. Lauren Groff will judge. Submit a story of any length with a $15 entry fee by March 14. All entries are... |
$15 | Fiction | $2,000 | Publication | 3/14/15 |
Glimmer Train Press Short Story Award for New Writers A prize of $1,500 and publication in Glimmer Train Stories is given quarterly for a short story by a writer whose fiction has not appeared in a print publication with a circulation over 5,000.... |
$15 | Fiction | $1,500 | Publication | 2/28/15 |
Glimmer Train Press Very Short Fiction Award A prize of $1,500, publication in Glimmer Train Stories, and 20 copies of the prize issue is given quarterly for a very short story. Using the online submission system, submit a story of up to 3... |
$15 | Fiction | $1,500 | Publication | 4/30/15 |


text:
Please enter your details to make it easier for us to help you further.
In all honesty this is not a very good whisky, I suspect the cask selection was not first class. Coupled with the fact that it is only 50cl instead of the normal 70cl then it is very poor value. On the upside however the wooden cases it comes in makes an excellent bird box!
17th October 2014


text:
Over the last four Saturdays, the Hillcrest Resident Association partnered with the Women's Wellbeing and Development Foundation to serve a free breakfast open to all, offering speakers and community announcements along with time for togetherness. (pictured: Angie Young and a volunteer; photos courtesy of WWDF).
Tag: Women's Wellbeing and Development Foundation
Showing 1-2 of 2 results
This weekend on a shoestring
This weekend offers film, music, robots and more. As always, Xpress brings you the best in low-cost entertainment.


text:
We stayed at the Sant'Elia for four nights and used it as a base to see Syracusa, Noto and Ragusa. We also enjoyed being able relax by its lovely pool. Our room was very clean, quiet and comfortable. Breakfast was a very nice. Overall, one of the best places we have stayed in Sicily. Highly recommend it to all.
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Expedia, Booking.com, Priceline, Travelocity and Odigeo so you can book your Agriturismo Sant'Elia reservations with confidence. We help millions of travelers each month to find the perfect hotel for both vacation and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- Agriturismo Sant'Elia Cassibile, Sicily, Italy


text:
Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums? • Intelligent and friendly discussions. • It's free and it's quick. Always. • Enter events in the forums calendar. • Very user friendly software. • Exclusive contests and giveaways. |
Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here |
Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%) |
Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact | Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans. |
Thread Tools |
A Son of Martha
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 7,976
Gender: Male
Member Number: 10438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Pass-happy Steelers please Tomlin in victory
Pass-happy Steelers please Tomlin in victory
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt...s_648716.html# By Scott Brown TRIBUNE-REVIEW Monday, October 19, 2009 The notion that the Steelers are a running team is becoming as outdated as paying bills via the mail. The Steelers had one of their most prolific passing days in years Sunday, as Ben Roethlisberger threw for 417 yards and two touchdowns and continued to torment the team from his native state. The dominance of Roethlisberger and the Steelers' passing game allowed the defending Super Bowl champions to overcome four turnovers and the individual brilliance of Cleveland's Joshua Cribbs to record a 27-14 victory over the Browns at Heinz Field. The Steelers (4-2) have won three in a row and are tied with the Cincinnati Bengals for first place in the AFC North. Roethlisberger, meanwhile, improved to 10-0 lifetime against the Browns, who had a chance to draft him in 2004 but instead took tight end Kellen Winslow Jr. Roethlisberger overcame a slow start to complete 23 of 35 passes and rack up a 113.6 passer rating. "(Ben) frustrates a lot of people," Browns coach Eric Mangini said. "If we bring a bunch of guys, he gets rid of it quick. If we drop a bunch of guys (into coverage), we give him too much time." That conundrum summed up the kind of day it was for the Browns, who didn't stop the Steelers as much as the Steelers stopped the Steelers. When the Steelers weren't playing hot potato with the football, they didn't have trouble gobbling up big chunks of yardage. Eight of Roethlisberger's completions went for at least 20 yards. And for the first time since November 2002, the Steelers had a quarterback throw for more than 400 yards. Hines Ward finished with 8 catches for 159 yards and a touchdown. Santonio Holmes added 5 catches for 104 yards. "Everybody is getting touches," Roethlisberger said after completing passes to seven receivers. "We caught them in a lot of blitzes, and we knew we'd get guys running free," Steelers offensive coordinator Bruce Arians said. "Ben found the guys quickly and got the ball to them. I didn't think we'd get that many (big plays), but we matched it up good a few times." The Steelers figured to do more damage on the ground considering that the Browns entered the game with the worst run defense in the NFL. The Browns bottled Rashard Mendenhall and Willie Parker the two rushed for a combined 88 yards but the emphasis on stopping the run came at a pretty steep cost. While Mendenhall averaged only 3.6 yards per carry, Arians lauded the second-year running back for the help he provided as a blocker when Cleveland blitzed Roethlisberger. As for the Steelers' offensive philosophy, coach Mike Tomlin said: "We don't care about what means we move the chains or put points on the board as long as the job gets done. A lot of times what we do is dictated by what our opponent does, and we're OK with that." Arians said there was one thing he was not OK with after the Steelers piled up 543 yards of total offense. "The points didn't match the performance," Arians said. "When we put it all together, I think we can be pretty daggone good." Scott Brown can be reached at email@example.com or 412-481-5432. |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |


text:
this is me bitching and ranting. alright. so on saturday i went to go see my favorite independant artist, Tanner Walle, perform at The C-Note in the village. okay, i get there,and despite his website saying all ages, it was 21 and older. not cool. so i tell him and his reply on his message board is:
Oh Nick, silly kid. I could have got you in. They weren't checking id's. That sucks...
Oh well, there's always next time. We had a great time and a great time will be had once again...
Thanks for the effort!
so of course, my reply was:
well, what a thing to assume. how would i have gotten in touch with you to say ::in my most sarcastic voice:: "hey guy i have no way of getting in touch with that ive never met who also has no clue what i look like! sneak me and my underage friends illegally into a bar, especially when the two of them look 14! yay!" also, when a person blew a day walking around the city, and then couldnt see one of their favorite artists, when they were standing outside the venue, one wouldnt be recommended to refer to the bitter youth as "kid". it was money to get into the city, and money to get home, and 2 hours each ways. not inclined to be thanked for the effort. dont think im evil or anything. just tried to have a good reaction to losing a day and not getting to see an artist, and probably just took to your reply wrong. but im sure glad you had a great time. the bus was sure fun on the way home.
i couldnt believe how he could assume id have a way of getting in touch with him. like i have his fucking cell phone number. what shit is that? im supposed to be able to just magickally telepathically contact him? thats shit. i can believe that. i dont get it. maybe im just a moron but ewww! fuck him. nice guy he seemed, and ewww. what a stupid thing to say to me. i have the power to teleport back stage evidently. just bitchy of him, thats all. im hurt by his assumption. i really am, because i would have had no way of knowing his website was wrong and ugh. screw it. just fucking screw it. screw it screw it screw it screw it screw it. i guess im bitter i didnt get to see him. and he called me kid. kid. hes barely four years older and im kid. i was a freshman while he was a senior. ive fucked older than him. kid. FORGET HIM. im seventeen, not exactly in diapers.
just having a bad day. and he didnt exactly make the sunshine. i dont care though. its just ugh. i dont know. and so of course, i turn to schizofriend for his opinion, like hes soo smart or at least smarter than me. i guess you really cant change on demand what you think of a person. you hold them in high regard, its hard to snap out of it. and of course that "well, im so much smarter than you" attitude he has came out when i asked his opinion on my reply. "he was making jest of you" FUCK YOU MIKE! FUCK YOU! SO FUCKING HOLIER THAN THOU! GOD I WISH I HAD A 1560 ON MA S-A-T-S! SO THEN MAYBE I COULD KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO FUCKING FLY OVER EVERYONE ELSE AND BE A GODDAMNED GOD. FUCK YOU MIKE! FUCK YOU TWICE OVER! GLAD YOURS SO FUCKING PERFECT! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! (if this werent typed, id be crying by now.) SO TERRIFICALLY GLAD YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT THE WORLD AND LIFE AND EVERYTHING IS SO PERFECT FOR YOU EXCEPT THE THINGS YOU GO ON AND ON ABOUT MAKE YOU MISERABLE THAT OUR MISERY CANT COMPARE TO. AND FUCKING VOICE OF REASON YOU ARE! AND WHILE IM ON IT FUCK YOU CHRIX! I WISH I COULD TOTALLY HIDE FROM MY EMOTIONS AND STILL BE A TORTURED CRAZY SON OF A BITCH. LA DE FUCKING DA! AND MRS. MICHNE! FUCK YOU YOU CRAZY BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HATE YOU!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH,
k. done now. sorta.


text:
You've outsourced specific functions so you can focus on your core business. Think your involvement is over? Think again.
Over the last year, we've posted a number of blogs and published some articles on the benefits of outsourcing. We've discussed the reasons why companies choose to outsource specific functions and shown how BPO (business process outsourcing) providers can actually improve operations and save money. What we glossed over was the necessary relationship that has to exist between the company that's outsourcing and its provider. Making a success out of this relationship is a shared responsibility, one that cannot be overstated.
So why do companies decide to turn to outside resources? Each company may have its own specific reasons for doing so; however, here are a few that are common to most decisions:
- Greater efficiencies/reduced costs – Every department within an enterprise is now evaluated by how much it contributes to the bottom line. Even though practically every department plays an important part in the company's success, there are often low value-added processes or tasks that can easily be outsourced. This could mean reduced staff or utilizing existing staff for greater effectiveness.
- Focus on core competency – Companies need to take a long hard look at what makes them special; at the reasons that people continue to do business with them. They need to consider what factors contribute to that success and keep those elements in-house. Then, companies have to identify those areas on which they expend more in time and money than they see in returns. Those are the areas to consider outsourcing.
- Lack of expertise –Changing technology, new forms of communication, ongoing maintenance; all of these are expensive. And most companies don't generate the kind of revenues necessary to keep specialists in these areas as permanent staff. Companies that steer existing staff into these areas often find that this move saves them little money when upgrades fail or are delayed, communication content is lacking, or systems actually crash. Going to providers that specialize in specific areas will save time and money.
Among the areas that many companies outsource are: HR, transportation, advertising, IT, training, and financial process automation.
It's all about relationships
Business people know that every contact, every deal, every negotiation may involve dollars and cents, but deep down, it's often about relationships. If you have something to sell, the best way to acquire and retain customers is to establish a relationship with them. To get the best pricing and terms from suppliers, you need to have good relationships with them as well.
But when it comes to BPO's, it's a little more complex than a traditional purchaser/vendor relationship, because these providers are actually more like strategic partners dedicated, not just to sell you services, but to actually help you grow your business. That means there should be a significant level of collaboration based on effective contract management and trust. The client needs to manage the relationship in a way that heightens performance and productivity. Unfortunately, some companies feel that once they've signed an agreement, their involvement ends. That's a prescription for disaster.
Here are just some of the client-side responsibilities that are required for a successful working relationship:
- Clarity is the first step – Before the contract is even signed, every stage of the process must be planned, defined, and agreed to by both client and provider.
- Establish a hierarchy – Outsourcing is not a "one and done" situation; problems, questions, and issues may arise as work goes on. There needs to be a chain of command on the client side with defined channels and responsibilities, especially if a crisis arises.
- Create an in-house team –This is especially true during the implementation period. Make sure they have an understanding of the job the service provider is undertaking. Provide in-house training that will teach the team how to work with an outsourcing provider. This may sound easy; however, managers often want to actually manage the day-to-day work rather than holding providers accountable.
- Convince the staff that this is a positive thing – The very word "outsourcing" can sometimes send a chill through employees worried about the security of their own jobs. This may result in a lack of collaboration between your client team and the provider. Explain how this frees up employees to focus on ways to actually help the company grow instead of focusing on low value-added tasks.
- Stipulate regular checks on performance – Whether it involves the quality of the work performed, an adherence to deadlines, or oversight of costs, clients need to conduct regular checks and demand accountability reports in cases of non-compliance.
None of the above points mitigate the responsibility of the BPO to provide the services required, and to hold themselves accountable every step of the way. The best-in-class BPO's understand that the client's success is their success as well. That's why it's essential that clients keep the lines of communication open, show a certain amount of flexibility when necessary and have mutual transparency in all their dealings. This will pay off, big time, in the long run.


text:
The USGS Water Science School
Back to previous page
Opinion Surveys:
Challenge Questions:
True/False Quizzes:
How much water do you use when you take a shower? Wash a load of clothes? Flush a toilet? Even brush your teeth? One important measurement of water use is how much water one person uses in one day, or per-capita water use (per is Latin for by and capita is Latin for head). The number is usually expressed as gallons of water used per person per day.
Fill in this form to get an rough estimate of how much water you use inside your home on a typical day.
To make things consistent, let's take a rainy and cold Saturday when you happen to stay home all day. Think of the water-using activities you do: take a shower, brush your teeth, maybe wash dishes and clothes, etc. In the form below, fill in the boxes with your water-use activities, choose the submit button, and we'll give you an estimate of how many gallons of water you used.
NOTE: Our survey here is very general in nature...just to give you a quick idea of your water use. There are some other Web sites that will give you a much more detailed and accurate estimate of your per-capita water use:
Finished? You can or


text:
Advertise On UGHH |
CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-617-262-0200 STORE FRONT: 234 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (Tues-Sat 12PM-8PM) | |
Freddie Joachim: To Remind Us/ Talk7" Vinyl Single Record
Price: $10.97
Sold Out | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Product Details
Featuring: Miles Bonny Producer: Freddie Joachim SummaryHere we have the second single off of Freddie Joachim's upcoming album, "Fiberglass Kisses". This vinyl includes the song "To Remind Us" featuring vocalist Miles Bonny. The B-side of the vinyl also includes the instrumental bonus track "Talk". The full album is set to release in the summer of 2012 via Mellow Orange. |
Track Listing | ||||||
| |||||
Reviews and Comments


text:
Jordanian Prime Minister Maruf al-Bakhit visited Iraq last week for the opening of a Jordanian consulate in Erbil that officials hope will help boost economic ties between the two countries.
Dr. Barham Saleh, prime minister of the Kurdish region, attended the event as did a Jordanian ministerial delegation.
Speaking to journalists on September 12th, al-Bakhit said the consulate will be staffed with advisors on trade and health issues. Other personnel will be provided according to regional needs.
The two sides discussed ways to increase co-operation and exchange expertise in several areas including water resources management, energy, work and training, university education, medicine, pharmaceutical supplies, software, e-government and media.
Majed al-Saadi, an Iraqi businessman and president of the Iraqi-Jordanian Business Council, said, "Reconstruction and building activities are occurring in all parts of Iraq. The consulate in Erbil is important for obtaining visas, facilitating the movement of businessmen between the two countries, and overseeing Jordanian interests there."
He said several factors serve business between the two countries, including geographical proximity and the ease of movement and investment between traders and businessmen. Al-Saadi said flights connect Amman to Baghdad, Basra, and Erbil.
He said he hopes officials will open another Jordanian consulate in Basra to strengthen co-operation between Iraq and Jordan which he said has grown considerably.
Khalid Rababha, a Jordanian economist, stressed the importance of Iraqi investments in Jordan. He said Iraqis are among the leading investors in Jordan as they are involved in several sectors such as real estate and finance.
"Consulates usually play a role in strengthening trade relations," he said. "Amman is considered a leading medical centre in the Middle East and has several advanced educational institutions that Iraq can benefit from."
According to the Jordanian Ministry of Planning, the volume of trade between Jordan and Iraq rose by 29% during the first half of 2011 to a record 412 million dinars ($577 million) compared with 320 million dinars ($448.3 million) for the same period in 2010.
There are 3,234 Iraqis investors in the Jordanian stock market. Iraqi investors own 71 million securities that are valued at 255 million dinars ($357 million).
Jordanian industrialist Thabet el-Wor said the growth in trade between Jordan and Iraq has compensated for the decline in Jordanian exports to other countries.
"The strong relations between the two countries' traders and businessmen have pushed these figures upward," he said.
El-Wor said Iraq benefits from Jordan in terms of reconstruction and development projects and the facilitation of transit trade coming through the port of Aqaba. The Jordanian side benefits from being able to increase exports to Iraq.
Iraq and Jordan are members of the Greater Arab Free Trade Area.
The value of Jordan's imports from Iraq during the first half of 2011 was 75 million dinars ($100 million). Jordan is active in the re-export market to Iraq which amounted to $77 million dinars during the first half of the year.
Jordan and Iraq also agreed on September 11th in Amman to raise the quantities of crude oil Jordan imports from Iraq from 10,000 barrels per day to 15,000 barrels. Iraq also agreed to provide Jordan with about 30,000 tons of heavy fuel oil per month for electricity production.
Jordanian Energy Minister Khaled Touqan and his Iraqi counterpart, Abdul Karim Al Luaibi, announced the agreement following talks in Jordan.


text:
What does MJV stand for?
What does MJV mean? This page is about the various possible meanings of the acronym, abbreviation, shorthand or slang term: MJV.
We've found a total of 5 definitions for MJV:
Sort by:PopularityAlphabeticallyCategory
Filter by:
MJV | Magical Joyous Vision | ||||
MJV | Marc J. Vaughn Janitorial, Inc. | ||||
MJV | Maurice John Vaughn Band | ||||
MJV | Murcia, Spain | ||||
MJV | SATURNS DPL Capital Trust II Series 20 |
Still can't find the acronym definition you were looking for? Use our Power Search technology to look for more unique definitions from across the web!
"MJV." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2015. <http://www.abbreviations.com/MJV>.


text:
Edit Module
Show Tags
The Magazine
Westchester Home
Our Events
Unveiled 2015
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Today Media
Edit Module
Edit Module
Digital Edition
Give a Gift
Customer Service
Eat & Drink
Life & Style
Arts & Culture
Insider Guides
Best of Westchester
Today's News
What To Do
Local Business Guide
Real Estate
Top Doctors
High School Chart
Best of Westchester Voting
Italian Restaurants
Eat & Drink
Life & Style
Arts & Culture
Insider Guides
Best of Westchester
Today's News
What To Do
Local Business Guide
Real Estate
Top Doctors
High School Chart
Best of Westchester Voting
Italian Restaurants
Edit Module
Show Tags
Larchmont's Best Lunches
Stylish eating options in the 10538 ZIP code: upscale Italian, modern Indian, and so much more.
How To Spend Maple Syrup Season In And Around Westchester
Rent your own tap, indulge in syrupy pancake specials, learn what you can do with sap, and more.
Is This The Best Crumb Cake In Westchester?
This sweet shop in Croton has confections to spare, but the crumb cake is what you'll want to try first.
If You've Never Had A Scotch Egg, You Should Really Work On Fixing That
You might have to search a bit to find an establishment serving them, but tracking down the Scotch egg in all its local variants is well worth the effort.
Sicilian Or Plain, Where To Find Mamaroneck's Best Pizza
Discovering and ranking local pizza, one slice at a time.
Hip, Historic Restaurant Iron Vine Opens In Peekskill
Tapas, artisan cocktails, a bargain lunch, and locally sourced...walls?
Edit Module
Storytelling Meets Pie Baking With Pros(e) Of Pie
Bake a pie, bring a pie, tell a story.
Free On A Friday Night? How Does Tuscan Wine Sound?
Joseph Bastianich and Mario Batali's wine store kicks off a new wine series with classes, wine, and food.
Five Courses, Five Wines, One Great Cause
Cedar Street Grill in Dobbs Ferry hosts its first Dine, Wine & Be Kind benefit for Food Bank for Westchester.
5 Superb Recipes For National Margarita Day
Every year on February 22, the nation recognizes the greatness that is the margarita. However you choose to celebrate (responsibly!), these creative recipes are sure to please.
Local Brewers Launch Kickstarter For Ossining Restaurant
The Kickstarter clock is ticking for 6 Degrees of Separation, a proposed brewery, restaurant, and artistic hub.
The Thai Shack: Worth The Stop? Or Drive-By Bad?
Shack-tacular or shabby? We pulled over to find out.
Edit Module
What's For Brunch At MP Taverna
A visual guide to the brunch-time offerings at the Irvington eatery.
Time's Running Out—The CIA's Latest Restaurant Pop-Up Won't Last Forever
Pop-up restaurant Pangea offers a global-inspired, vegetable-centric menu—there's still meat, don't worry—but don't wait to make your reservations.
Soup Du Jour, Right To Your Door
When you think delivery, you think Chinese, pizza, maybe even Thai. Well, here's another one to add to the list: gourmet soup.
Crispy Tart + Sweet Onions + Bacon = Delicious Meal
An easy-to-follow recipe from Balducci's that yields delicious results.
Eat With Your Eyes: Kumo Sushi And Lounge
A visual guide to the offerings at the Scarsdale sushi and sashimi stop.
Taste Test Tuesday: The Best Valentine's Day Chocolates, Local & National
How do Westchester's chocolatiers match up against the national brands? Find out in our first ever Valentine's Day chocolate box challenge.
Edit Module
Authentic Imports Are Front & Center At This Middle Eastern Market
A local treasure trove of Middle Eastern eats and other items.
2 Lovely Valentine's Day Cocktail Recipes
Two sweet holiday cocktails for you and your sweetheart.
Muffins, Milkshakes, Ice Cream & More: Our Favorite Local World Nutella Day Treats
County stops to celebrate everyone's favorite hazelnut-chocolate spread.
These County Croissants Are The Cream Of The Crop
Did National Croissant Day on January 30 sneak by you? Don't fret, Westchester is home to some of the best croissants this side of the Atlantic—here's where to find them.
Big Brew NY Returns To White Plains With A New Cask Session
One of New York's best beer events returns to the County Center, with 20 beers in casks.
Restaurant Week Hits Yonkers With An Exclusive, All-Star Lineup
The top restaurants in the Sixth Borough are serving up substantial discounts and international flair.
Edit Module
Edit Module
Show Tags
Hip, Historic Restaurant Iron Vine Opens In Peekskill
Mamaroneck's Best Pizza Slice, Sicilian And Plain
One-Stop Sweet Shop: The Tavern At Croton Landing's Sidecar
Larchmont's Best Lunches
Edit Module
Show Tags
Beer, Wine, & Cocktails
Best of Westchester Dining Winners
Certified Hudson Valley
Eat. Drink. Post.
Find a Food & Drink Retailer
Find a Restaurant
Restaurant Reviews
Westchester Bar Guide
Westchester Breakfast Guide
Edit Module
Edit Module
Show Tags
Our Blogs
Eat. Drink. Post.
Westchester Home Blog
Westchester Wellness
Edit Module
Westchester Resource Guide & Business Listings
Best Places to Live
Arts & Entertainment
Home & Garden
Best of Westchester®
Meetings & Special Events
2013's Top Doctors
Sports & Recreation
Certified Hudson Valley
Parenting & Kids
2014's Top Dentists
Professional Services
Food & Drink
Edit Module


text:
"Too bad it's the last Stieg Larsson book!"
I'm really going to miss Elizabeth Salander!
Simon Vance really makes the characters come to life, plus you don't have to struggle with how you'd pronounce the Swedish names in your head!
If you can, be sure to read the triology in order: Dragon Tattoo, Plays with Fire, Hornets Nest.
"Does the narrator have a breathing disorder?"
He seems to end most sentences with a gasp. Once noticed this is very distracting (like trying to guess if he's going to do it this sentence, or is it influenced by consonants or vowels, etc.).
"Harry Hole's tortured psyche is wearing thin"
Harry's back from Hong Kong. He's trying to help clear Oleg's name. He finds himself immersed in Oslo's illegal drug melieu. Harry is still a very screwed up (ex)cop.
"62+ hours....maybe get the abridged version?"
Scott Brick is an outstanding narrator!
Ayn Rand's story is excellent, and her characters are engrossing. Her philosophy is in line with mine, but I'm much less radical.
However, Ayn Rand is l o n g w i n d e d !!! Holy cow! The 3 + hour dialog by the main character in the next-to-last chapter is a killer! When Rand makes a point, then goes on and on explaining it in a different light, you just want to scream: "I've got it! Move on!"
I really wonder if she was getting paid by the word? How did this get past an editor?


text:
The founder of the FBI's art crime team writes of his life undercover in search of stolen art.
Writing about art theft, Robert K. Wittman – who founded the Federal Bureau of Investigation's art crime team – paints a portrait of his former employer, and it isn't a pretty one. In recent years, the bureau, along with the Central Intelligence Agency, has been criticized for valuing a lumbering and self-serving bureaucracy over results.
If there ever were an intriguing niche within the FBI, however, it would seem to be the one that Wittman carved out as the bureau's chief investigator of international art thefts. But as Wittman details in his memoir Priceless (written with John Shiffman), the actual work is frustrating more often than it is glamorous.
As crimes go, art theft is especially sensitive because the stolen property is notoriously hard to sell, so the thieves eventually realize that the best option for them is to destroy it. Most stolen art is not recovered, and authorities speculate that much of the missing work ends up in a landfill somewhere. Such losses are almost uniquely wrenching in the annals of crime. Money can be reprinted, but once gone, a Monet is gone forever.
The son of an American airman and a Korean War bride, Wittman developed a crush on the FBI as a child when the family relocated to Baltimore. Young Bob heard the taunts leveled at his mother by locals at the same time that the bureau was beginning to emerge as a champion of civil rights. The idealistic Wittman joined up and soon found himself not only working art theft but also taking a year-long course, learning how to tell the difference between a Gauguin and a Cézanne and how to hold forth on palette, composition, and light.


text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan | |||||||
Part of the Afghanistan war | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Support: | Insurgent groups: | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Barack Obama Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. | Various |
The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan describes the ongoing draw down of United States Armed Forces in the Afghanistan war and the plans for its post-2014 presence when combat troops have left Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
Troop levels remained roughly constant under U.S. president Barack Obama's predecessor, former president George W. Bush, with around 30,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan.[9][10][11] In January, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush and increased by Barack Obama.[12][13]
On 17 February 2009, Barack Obama ordered 99,000 extra US troops be sent to Afghanistan to bolster security in the country and thereby boosted the 36,000 US troops already there by 50%.[14][15][16] "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said in a written statement.[17] "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border," Obama also said.[18] He recognised "the extraordinary strain this deployment places on our troops and military families", but the deteriorating security situation in the region required "urgent attention and swift action".[18] The new troop deployment was expected to include 8,000 U.S. Marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 4,000 U.S. Army troops from Fort Lewis, Washington and another 5,000 troops from an unspecified branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.[17] Obama also said he was "absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means."[14]
A further decision on sending more troops came after the administration completed a broader review of Afghanistan policy.[14] On 27 March 2009, Obama announced after an intense 60-day White House policy review,[19] in which military commanders and diplomats, regional governments, partners, Nato allies, NGOs and aid organisations were consulted,[20] a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.[21][22][23] "So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you," Obama said.[24][25] For this purpose Obama announced that he plans to further bolster American forces in Afghanistan, increase aid to Pakistan, and set strict standards - like levels of violence and casualties in Afghanistan, Pakistani attacks against insurgents and accounting for U.S. aid[19] - for measuring progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both countries.[25] Part of his strategy was the deployment of 4,000 U.S. troops - beyond the additional 17,000 he authorized in February—to work as trainers and advisers to the Afghan army and police.[19][20][24] The move was accompanied by a "surge" in US civilians to Afghanistan to help rebuild the country's infrastructure.[24] In addition to the renewed focus on Afghanistan, the Obama administration was to step up pressure on Pakistan to tackle the al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens in the tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan. US military and civilian aid was to be increased. The last element of the policy was to try to engage Afghanistan's regional neighbours, including Russia and Iran, in helping to pacify Afghanistan.[24]
"There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum," Obama said with respect to the 2009 situation in Afghanistan. "Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population."[26] On 1 December 2009, Obama therefore announced at The United States Military Academy in West Point that the U.S. will be sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and set July 2011 as the date to begin pulling U.S. forces out of the country.[22][26][27] Promising that he could "bring this war to a successful conclusion," Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.[28] The president said the three core elements to the new strategy are "a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan."[26] The overarching goal was to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future."[26] The West Point Speech concluded a three-month review of war strategy.[29] During the review, Obama asked for province-by-province assessments of the Taliban's strength, the effectiveness of provincial Afghan leaders and the overall security outlook to determine how quickly U.S. forces could leave certain regions.[29] In the months leading up to his West Point speech, more precisely at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 30 Oct. 2009 to discuss his troops surge plan, Obama stated that the Afghanistan War is an American war, but he don't want to it make an open-ended commitment.[30] Obama also was livid that details of the 3 month Afghanistan War Review discussions were leaking out according to the New York Times.[30] "What I'm not going to tolerate is you talking to the press outside of this room," he scolded his advisers. "It's a disservice to the process, to the country and to the men and women of the military."[30] In addition to the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that Obama announced to deploy to Afghanistan Obama sent an additional 22,000 forces (which were earlier announced in 2009 (compare section above)) along with 11,000 troops that were authorized by his predecessor to Afghanistan.[29]
During the London Conference on Afghanistan Afghanistan announced on 28 January 2010 its intention of taking charge of the "majority of operations in the insecure areas of Afghanistan within three years and taking responsibility for physical security within five years".[31][32][33] This combined with the increase of Afghan military strength to 171,600 and police numbers to 134,000 by October 2011 would enable the United States could begin to transition U.S. troops out of Afghanistan in July 2011 according to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[31][34] "It's not an exit strategy, it's about assisting the Afghans" in taking responsibility for their own security, she explained.[34]
Declaring significant progress in disrupting al-Qaeda and combatting the Taliban, Obama said on 16 December 2010 that the United States will start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011.[22][35][36] Obama said "we are on track to achieve our goals" in the Afghan war and to "start reducing our forces next July."[35] He added the drawdown will "conclude in 2014."[37] Obama appeared before reporters to announce the results of the Afghanistan war review,[38][39] which was compiled from reports submitted by military, diplomatic and intelligence officials since mid-October 2010.[35] The president had directed his national security staff to perform a "diagnostic" assessment of the December 2009 West point strategy after one year.[35] They convened eight working-group and deputy-level meetings from 16 Nov. through 1 Dec.. An interagency team also visited Afghanistan and Pakistan from 25 October through 4 November to discuss the situation with key leaders first-hand.[40] The summary document of the review included no specifics as to the potential size or pace of withdrawal, making no assessment as to whether any milestones have been reached and leaving substantial wiggle room for future decisions. "As a result of our integrated efforts in 2010," the report said, "we are setting the conditions to begin transition to Afghan security lead in early 2011 and to begin a responsible, conditions-based U.S. troop reduction in July 2011."[35] The review concluded that the military surge of 30,000 troops has been a success, saying it "reduced overall Taliban influence and arrested the momentum they had achieved in recent years in key parts of the country." It added, however, that successes remain "fragile and reversible."[40]
On 22 June 2011, Obama addressed the nation from the White House and announced that 10,000 troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011 and an additional 23,000 troops will leave the country by the summer of 2012. He said the drawdown would continue "at a steady pace" until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014.[5][41] "We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength," Obama said. "Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11."[5] Asserting that the country that served as a base for the 11 September 2001 attacks no longer represented a terrorist threat to the United States, Obama declared that the "tide of war is receding."[5] The announced drawdown will leave approximately 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the autumn of 2012 according to The Huffington Post,[4] but Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said that 23,000 of the 88,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan will be home by 30 September 2012 and thus 65,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan after the so-called Phase 2 drawdown.[6]
The U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan began 13 July 2011 when the first 650 U.S. troops left Afghanistan as part of Obama's planned drawdown.[42][43][44] The units that left were the Army National Guard's 1st Squadron, 134th Cavalry Regiment, based in Kabul, and the Army National Guard's 1st Squadron, 113th Cavalry Regiment, which had been in neighboring Parwan province.[42]
The United States and its NATO allies finalized agreements on 18 April 2012 to wind down the war in Afghanistan by formalizing three commitments: to move the Afghans gradually into a lead combat role; to keep some international troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and to pay billions of dollars a year to help support the Afghan security forces.[45][46][47]
On 2 May 2012, Afghan president Hamid Karzai and U.S. president Barack Obama signed a strategic partnership agreement between the two countries, after the U.S. president had arrived in Kabul as part of unannounced trip to Afghanistan on the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death.[48] The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, officially titled the "Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America",[49] provides the long-term framework for the relationship between Afghanistan and the United States of America after the drawdown of U.S. forces in the Afghanistan war.[50] The Strategic Partnership Agreement went into effect on 4 July 2012 as stated by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said on 8 July 2012 at the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan: "Like a number of countries represented here, the United States and Afghanistan signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement that went into effect four days ago."[51]
After the signing of the strategic partnership agreement Obama laid out his plans to end the war in Afghanistan responsibly. The plans call for 1) the removal of 23,000 US troops at the summer end of 2012, i.e. at the end of September 2012;[52] 2) Afghan security forces to take the lead in combat operations by the end of 2013 while ISAF forces train, advise and assist the Afghans and fight alongside them when needed; and 3) the complete removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2014, except for trainers who will assist Afghan forces and a small contingent of troops with a specific mission to combat al-Qaeda through counterterrorism operations.[50][53][54][55][56]
On 21 May 2012 the leaders of the NATO-member countries endorsed an exit strategy during the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago. The NATO-led ISAF Forces will hand over command of all combat missions to Afghan forces by the middle of 2013,[57] while shifting at the same time from combat to a support role of advising, training and assisting the Afghan security forces[58][59] and then withdraw most of the 130,000 foreign troops by the end of December 2014.[57] A new and different NATO mission will then advise, train and assist the Afghan security forces including the Afghan Special Operations Forces.[58][60]
The Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan,[61][62] held on 8 July 2012 was the civilian-diplomatic bookend to NATO's 2012 May summit in Chicago, where the alliance confirmed plans to withdraw foreign combat troops by the end of 2014 and pledged about $4 billion a year to pay for ongoing training, equipment and financial support for Afghanistan's security forces.[63] In exchange for pledges from the Afghan government to combat corruption $16 billion over the next four years for civilian projects such as roads to schools or projects aimed to strengthen the rule of law were pledged by the some 70 nations attending the conference.[64] The reconstruction and development aid[65] was pledged for the timeframe through 2015, but under the condition that the Afghan government reduce corruption before receiving all of the money. In the so-called Tokyo Framework of Mutual Accountability foreign governments will assure Afghanistan a steady stream of financing in exchange for stronger anticorruption measures and the establishment of the rule of law. Up to 20 percent of the money would depend on the government meeting governance standards according to the Tokyo Framework of Mutual Accountability.[66]
"We will fight corruption with strong resolve wherever it occurs, and ask the same of our international partners," Karzai told the donors. "Together we must stop the practices that feed corruption or undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of national institutions."[67] The international aid is tied to a mechanism that will regularly review how it is being spent, and to guarantees from Kabul that it will seriously take on its deep-rooted corruption problems - what the conference called a roadmap of accountability. Kabul must also demonstrate efforts to improve governance and finance management, and safeguard the democratic process, rule of law and human rights - especially those of women.[67] US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed the need for reform to safeguard changes achieved in Afghanistan. "That must include fighting corruption, improving governance, strengthening the rule of law, increasing access to economic opportunity for all Afghans, especially for women," she said.[68] A follow-up conference will be hold in Britain in 2014.[68] The meeting in Britain in 2014 will check progress toward "mutual accountability" and a review and monitoring process to assure that development aid is not diverted by corrupt officials or mismanaged - both of which have been major hurdles in putting aid projects into practice thus far.[67]
The U.S. is set to hand over responsibility for security to local Afghans by 2014, and efforts are underway to draw down U.S. forces, but Obama has not specified a date for the withdrawal of all American troops from the country.[69][70] Obama said on 1 September 2012 that he had a "specific plan to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014." [69] On 2 September 2012 White House press secretary Jay Carney then clarified Obama's statement by saying that Obama had "never said that all the troops would be out." Carney noted while the United States would transfer security to Afghan troops by the end of 2014, all U.S. troops would not be out of the country by that date.[69] "Everyone understands what the president's policy is, which is a full transition to Afghan security lead by 2014," said Carney. "We have been abundantly clear about the stages of the implementation of that policy. And as in Iraq, that means that while not all U.S. troops will have withdrawn necessarily by then, the Afghan Security Forces will be in full security transition, I mean, will be in full security lead, and U.S. forces will continue to be drawn down."[69]
The effort to handover security to Afghans has been hampered by a spike in attacks by local forces supposed to be working with American and NATO personnel.[69][71] United States military officials suspended temporarily[72] on 2 September 2012 the training of Afghan Local Police (ALP) in the wake of a deadly series of so-called 'green on blue' attacks[72][73][74] by Afghan soldiers and police on their international allies.[75] The training has been put on hold in order to carry out intensified vetting procedures on new recruits, and 16,000 existing ALP recruits will be re-vetted.[76] ALP training is a U.S. mission, carried out by Special Forces teams who work with Afghan elders and government officials in remote villages to help villagers defend themselves against insurgent attacks and intimidation.[77] Training of uniformed police and army personnel is done under the banner of the NATO operation.[76] The suspension affects not only Afghan Local Police, but also Afghan special operations and commando forces.[78] Special Operations officials said that they anticipate it will take about two months to rescreen all of the Afghan forces and that the training of new recruits could stall for as long as a month.[77]
The Washington Post reported many 'green on blue' attacks might have been prevented if existing security measures had been applied correctly, but according to NATO officials numerous military guidelines were not followed — by Afghans or Americans — because of concerns that they might slow the growth of the Afghan army and police.[77] Despite that the current process for vetting recruits is effective, a lack of follow-up has allowed Afghan troops who fell under the sway of the insurgency or grew disillusioned with the Afghan government to remain in the force.[77] In other instances the vetting process for Afghan soldiers and police was never properly implemented. NATO officials knew it according to the Washington Post, but they looked the other way, worried that extensive background checks could hinder the recruitment process.[77] Also ignored were requirements that Afghans display proper credentials while on base. Many Afghans, even those who were vetted, were never issued official badges, making it impossible to tell who was supposed to have access to any particular facility.[77] Measures specifically designed to curtail attacks (American and NATO service members should for example always carry a loaded magazine in their weapons to save precious moments if attacked by Afghan forces)[79] were also inconsistently applied.[77] The "Guardian Angel" program (The programm calls for one or two soldiers to monitor the Afghans during every mission or meeting. These soldiers, "angels" called and whose identities are not disclosed to the Afghans, must be prepared to fire on anyone who tries to kill a coalition service member.)[79] was often seen as a distraction from NATO's mission. Calls to minimize off-duty time spent with Afghan troops were similarly thought by NATO officials to undermine the goal of relationship-building, but according to a directive from NATO leaders troops are now being advised to stay away from Afghan soldiers and police officers during vulnerable moments, such as when they are sleeping, bathing or exercising.[77] Additional security measures include improved training for counterintelligence agents, a more intense vetting system for new recruits, establishing an anonymous reporting system for soldiers to report suspicious activity; increasing the presence of Afghan counterintelligence teams among Afghan troops; banning the sale of Afghan army and police uniforms to help stop infiltrators posing as soldiers and policemen; and revetting soldiers when they return home from leave.[71][72][78][80]
The Afghan army has detained or sacked hundreds of soldiers for having links to insurgents, the Defence Ministry said on 5 September 2012 as it tried to stem the rising number of so-called insider attacks. "Hundreds were sacked or detained after showing links with insurgents. In some cases we had evidence against them, in others we were simply suspicious," Defence Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told reporters in Kabul.[81] "Using an army uniform against foreign forces is a serious point of concern not only for the Defence Ministry but for the whole Afghan government," Azimi said, adding that Karzai had ordered Afghan forces to devise ways to stop insider attacks.[81] Azimi declined to say whether the detained and fired soldiers were from Taliban strongholds in the south and east, saying they were from all over the country. He said his ministry started an investigation into the attacks, called green-on-blue attacks, within the 195,000-strong Afghan army six months ago.[81]
On 18 September 2012 General John Allen suspended all joint combat operations between Afghanistan and American ground units in Afghanistan. Under orders from the General interaction between coalition and Afghan forces would take place only at the battalion level. Allen made the move, along with suspending American-led Afghan training missions, due to growing concern over "insider attacks" against U.S. troops by members of the Afghan National Security Forces.[82] Less than a week after the order U.S. and NATO combat troops resumed joint operations with Afghan forces.[82][83]
On 18 June 2013, the handover of security from NATO to Afghan forces was completed.[84][85][86][87] The International Security Assistance Force formally handed over control of the last 95 districts to Afghan forces at a ceremony attended by Karzai and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a military academy outside Kabul.[84] Following the handover, Afghan forces will have the lead for security in all 403 districts of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. Before the handover they were responsible for 312 districts nationwide, where 80 percent of Afghanistan's population of nearly 30 million lives.[85] "Our security and defense forces will now be in the lead," Karzai said. "From here, all security responsibility and all security leadership will be taken by our brave forces. When people see security has been transferred to Afghans, they support the army and police more than before."[84] Rasmussen said that by taking the lead in security on Tuesday, Afghan forces were completing a five-stage transition process that began in March 2011. "They are doing so with remarkable resolve," he said. "Ten years ago, there were no Afghan national security forces... now you have 350,000 Afghan troops and police, a formidable force."[84] he security transition signaled an important shift. The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force is slated to end its mission by the end of 2014, and coalition forces are in the process of closing bases and shipping out equipment.[87] Rasmussen stated that the focus of ISAF forces will shift from combat to support and that by the end of 2014 Afghanistan will be fully secured by Afghans. After the handover, 100,000 NATO forces will play a supporting and training role, as Afghan soldiers and police take the lead in the fight against armed groups.[85] "We will continue to help Afghan troops in operations if needed, but we will no longer plan, execute or lead those operations, and by the end of 2014 our combat mission will be completed," Rasmussen added.[84]
Plans by the US to engage in peace talks with the Taliban have resulted in suspension of bilateral security discussions between the US and Afghanistan on 13 June 2013.[88][89] "In a special meeting chaired by President Hamid Karzai, the president has decided to suspend talks about a security pact with the U.S. because of their inconsistent statements and actions in regard to the peace process," spokesman Aimal Faizi told Reuters.[90] Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the flare-up with Karzai in phone calls on 19 June 2013, Afghan and U.S. officials said, part of the latest round of crisis diplomacy between Washington and Afghanistan's mercurial leader.[89] Negotiations on the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) began earlier 2013 and, if completed, will define the shape of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for years to come.[90] The security discussions between the U.S. and Afghanistan would provide for a limited number of military trainers and counterterrorism forces to remain in the country. The talks have been complicated by several disagreements, including over the immunity that U.S. troops would enjoy from Afghan laws.[89] Speaking to reporters days before the suspension, U.S. Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition, said, "The bilateral security agreement is critical to any post-2014 presence. So it needs to be taken seriously on both sides."[89] It was not clear how long Karzai would withdraw from the security talks with the US, meant to finalise arrangements for keeping a small US presence in the country after the last of the NATO troops leave 2014.[91] Karzai has said the negotiations would not resume until the Taliban met directly with representatives of the Afghan government, essentially linking the security negotiations to a faltering peace process and making the United States responsible for persuading the Taliban to talk to the Afghan government.[92]
The United States and Afghanistan reached an agreement on the final language of the bilateral security agreement,[93] which according State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki wasn't the final document and which U.S. officials were still reviewing it,[94] on 20 November 2013.[94][95][96][97][98] A letter written by Obama[99] said U.S. forces will be "cooperating in training, advising, and assisting" Afghan forces "in a targeted, smaller, counterterrorism mission."[100] There is no limit on how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan[95] The accord also has no expiration date.[101] The agreement says that "unless mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan." It states the parties' "intention of protecting U.S. and Afghan national interests without U.S. military counter-terrorism operations" but does not specifically prohibit such operations.[95] United States Special Operations forces will retain leeway to conduct antiterrorism raids on private Afghan homes[96] American counterterrorism operations will be intended to "complement and support" Afghan missions[96] and that US forces will not conduct military operations in Afghanistan "unless mutually agreed" the text says.[102] It underscores that Afghan forces will be in the lead and that any American military operations will be carried out "with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes."[96][97] It also notes that "U.S. forces shall not target Afghan civilians, including in their homes, consistent with Afghan law and United States forces' rules of engagement."[95] Obama wrote in a letter to his Afghan counterpart: "US forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of US nationals. We will continue to make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes and in their daily lives, just as we do for our own citizens."[103]
The agreement does not spell out the number of U.S. forces who will remain, but Karzai said on 21 November 2013 that he envisions up to 15,000 NATO troops being based in the country. According to several estimates, the United States plans to maintain a force of no more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014. The draft agreement allows an indefinite U.S. presence, but Karzai said on 21 November 2013 it would be in place for 10 years.[100] The agreement also includes language on the U.S. government's continued funding for Afghan security forces, funneling such contributions through the Kabul-based government.[97]
The agreement text grants the United States full legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians working in Afghanistan.[95] On troop immunity, it says that Afghanistan agrees "that the United States shall have the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction" over members of the force and its civilian component "in respect of any criminal or civil offenses committed in the territory of Afghanistan.",[95] and that "Afghanistan authorises the United States to hold [civil and criminal] trial in such cases, or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan.",[98][102] but Afghan authorities can ask that anyone be taken out of the country.[97] Afghan authorities are prohibited from detaining American troops or U.S. civilians working with them. In the event that happens "for any reason," however, those personnel "shall be immediately handed over to United States forces authorities."[95] The agreement also specifies that American troops and civilians cannot be surrendered to any "international tribunal or any other entity or state" without express U.S. consent. Afghanistan, it says, retains legal jurisdiction over civilian contractors, and contractors are prohibited from wearing military uniforms and "may only carry weapons in accordance with Afghan laws and regulations."[95]
The document has a clause committing the United States to consulting with the Afghan government in the event of external threats, but not the sort of NATO-style mutual defense pact the Afghans originally wanted. "The United States shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression against the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Afghanistan," the proposed agreement states. There is a later clause saying they would "consult urgently" in the event of such aggression.[96] Obama added in a letter to his Afghan counterpart: "The US commitment to Afghanistan's independence, territorial integrity, and national unity, as enshrined in our Strategic Partnership Agreement, is enduring, as is our respect for Afghan sovereignty."[103]
In a preamble, the draft specifies that "the United States does not seek permanent military facilities in Afghanistan, or a presence that is a threat to Afghanistan's neighbors, and has pledged not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks on other countries."[95] It says that "unless otherwise mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan" and makes no promise of U.S. military support in the event of an attack or other security threat to Afghanistan. If there is such a threat, it says, the United States will regard it with "grave concern," consult and "shall urgently determine support it is prepared to provide."[95] But the United States stated the U.S. will regard any external aggression with "grave concern" and will "strongly oppose" military threats or force against Afghanistan after 2014.[94]
The draft agreement says that U.S. military and Defense Department civilian personnel are exempt from visa requirements and taxation. Afghan taxes and other fees will not be imposed on the entry or exit of goods specifically for the use of U.S. forces.[95] An annex to the draft lists locations where Afghanistan agrees to provide facilities for U.S. forces, including Kabul; Bagram, north of the capital, where the United States has its largest current base; Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan; Herat in the west; Kandahar in the south; Shindand in Herat province; Sharab in Helmand province; Gardez, south of Kabul; and Jalalabad, to the east.[95] The draft document gives the U.S. the right to deploy American forces on nine bases, including the two biggest, the airfields in Bagram and Kandahar. It also allows U.S. military planes to fly in and out of Afghanistan from seven air bases, including Kabul International Airport.[94] U.S. forces would be permitted under the document to transport supplies from five border crossings, described along with the air bases as "official points of embarkation and debarkation."[94] All bases in Afghanistan would revert to Afghan ownership and sovereignty after 2014, according to the draft.[94]
The draft of the agreement was finalized early on 19 November 2013 after Obama wrote Karzai a letter assuring him that U.S. forces will continue to respect the "sanctity and dignity of the Afghan people."[100] The agreement must as of 21 November 2013 be ratified by an Afghan grand council of elders[96] and by ratified by the parliaments of Afghanistan and the United States.[95] The agreement, according to the draft wording, takes effect 1 January 2015 and then "it shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless terminated with two years' advance notice.[96] Karzai said that the agreement would not be signed until after 2014 elections in Afghanistan,[104][105] but U.S. officials have said unequivocally that the agreement must be signed by the end of the year 2013, if not sooner, to allow the Pentagon to prepare for its role after the American combat mission ends.[100][105] White House Press secretary Jay Carney said the agreement under consideration by the loya jirga is the Obama administration's "final offer." If not enacted by the end of the year, Carney said, it "would be impossible for the United States and our allies to plan for a presence post-2014."[106] Karzai, who earlier stated he would sign what he had agreed to sign, stated later, after the announcement of the Bilatereal Security Agreement (BSA) draft textthat, he wouldn't sign it until 2014, after a presidential election to choose his successor, but before he leaves office. Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, stated that Karzai wanted to wait until after the election in April 2014 to test further conditions: whether American forces would stop raids on Afghan homes, whether the Obama Administration will help stabilize security in Afghanistan, help promote peace talks and not interfere in the election.[107][108] Officials of the Obama Administration consider the signing date to be nonnegotiable, citing the need for at least a year to plan future deployments and to allow coalition partners, including Germany and Italy, to plan for a residual troop presence that they have offered.[108]
The text of the BSA was approved by the delegates at the Loya Jirga on 24 November 2013 and must now be signed by the Afghanistan president, who rejected the final recommendation of the Loya Jirga promptly to sign the BSA with the United States, and sent to the parliament for final ratification.[109][110][111][112][113][114] If approved, the agreement would allow the U.S. to deploy military advisors to train and equip Afghan security forces, along with U.S. special-operations troops for anti-terrorism missions against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Obama will determine the size of the force.[112][115] The jirga set a few conditions before expressing approval for the agreement among them a 10-year time limit on the post-2014 troop presence and reparations for damages caused by U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan.[110] It also voted attach a letter by Obama; pledging that U.S. troops would enter Afghan homes only in "extraordinary" circumstances and only if American lives were at direct risk, to the BSA.[112] The elder assembly also demanded the release of 19 Afghans from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay and a stronger U.S. pledge to defend Afghanistan from any incursion from it neighbors, particularly Pakistan. The loya jirga also voted to request that the U.S. military add a base[113] to the nine bases that would be occupied by U.S. troops under the proposed security pact after combat forces depart Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The base is in Bamian Province in central Afghanistan, where the NATO-led military coalition has maintained a presence. Bamian is a population center for Hazaras, a Shiite minority whose members were massacred by the Taliban prior to the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the militant group. Afghan analysts said Hazara delegates proposed the additional base.[112] At least five of the 50 jirga committees raised objections to the article addressing "status of personnel" which "authorises the United States to hold [civil and criminal] trial ... or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan" when a US soldier is accused of criminal activity.[113] Spokespeople from at least two committees directly stated that Afghanistan should have jurisdiction over any US soldiers accused of crimes on Afghan soil. Several committees also stated that if trials are held in the United States, families of victims should have access to and presence in US-held trials at the expense of Washington.[113]
The 2012 pullout of 23,000 American troops from Afghanistan was on 22 July 2012 at the halfway mark according to U.S. Gen. John Allen, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and would accelerate in the coming months.[116] "August will be the heaviest month," Allen said. "A lot is coming out now and a great deal will come out in August and early September. We'll be done probably around mid-September or so."[116] Up to one half of the 23,000 troops being pulled out 2012 are combat forces, he said. Small numbers are being pulled from the relatively stable northern and western parts of the country. Some will be withdrawn from the east and the south "and a good bit in the southwest," he said.[116] U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced on 21 September 2012 that the 33,000 additional U.S. troops that Obama had sent to Afghanistan in 2010 to counter the Taliban attacks have left the country.[117][118][119][120] A phased withdrawal plan was developed where 10,000 troops would leave Afghanistan by July 2011 and the remaining 23,000 would leave Afghanistan by the end of September 2012. The removal of the 23,000 U.S. troops began in July 2012.[7] In a statement announcing an end to the surge Panetta stated:
"As we reflect on this moment, it is an opportunity to recognize that the surge accomplished its objectives of reversing Taliban momentum on the battlefield, and dramatically increased the size and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This growth has allowed us and our ISAF Coalition partners to begin the process of transition to Afghan security lead, which will soon extend across every province and more than 75 percent of the Afghan population. At the same time, we have struck enormous blows against al Qaeda's leadership, consistent with our core goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda and denying it a safe-haven."[7]
Once the United States and its allies agreed on the timing for the shift in the Afghanistan mission — under which American troops would step away from the lead combat role to a supporting mission focused primarily on counterterrorism and training Afghan security forces (according to the 2012 NATO Chicago Summit this shift is planned for the middle of 2013 (see section above)) — the Obama administration must decide exactly when the remaining 68,000 troops will come home according to the New York Times.[121] In September 2012 the United States withdrew then the last of the 33,000 "surge" forces from Afghanistan that Obama ordered in West Point 2009 to try to bring the Afghanistan war under control. With the reduction over the next two years of the remaining 68,000 American troops, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan would lead a force that is to operate from fewer bases and will train Afghan forces to take the lead in combat.[8]
The number of US troops to remain in Afghanistan during 2013 was still being decided as of March 2012, but it appeared that three options were considered. These three options were:[121]
According to two American officials who are involved in Afghan issues said that the senior American commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen wanted to keep a significant military capability through the fighting season ending in fall 2013, which could translate to a force of more than 60,000 troops until the end of that period.[123] The United States has not "begun considering any specific recommendations for troop numbers in 2013 and 2014," said George Little, the Pentagon spokesman. "What is true is that in June 2011 the president made clear that our forces would continue to come home at a steady pace as we transition to an Afghan lead for security. That it still the case."[123]
During the 2013 State of the Union Address, Obama said that the U.S. military will reduce the troop level in Afghanistan from 68,000 to 34,000 US troops by February 2014.[124][125][126][127] According to an unnamed U.S. official Obama made his decision "based on the recommendations of the military and his national security team," consultations with Karzai and "international coalition partners."[127] The United States has adopted a withdrawal schedule which U.S. General John. R. Allen called a "phased approach."[125] According to the new withdrawal schedule, as reported by the New York Times, the number of troops is to go down from 66,000 troops to 60,500 by the end of May 2013. By the end of November 2013, the number will be down to 52,000. By the end of February 2014, the troop level is to be around 32,000.[125] The Washington Post reported a slightly different withdrawal plan which calls for the U.S. forces figure of 68,000 troops to drop to about 60,000 by May 2013 and 52,500 by November 2013. The largest exodus will occur in December 2013 and January 2014, when about 18,500 troops will leave Afghanistan.[124] The White House intended to allow the military to determine the pace at which the 34,000 troops are withdrawn over the 12 months until February 2013. Top U.S. military officers have said they hope to keep as many forces as possible in Afghanistan through summer 2013, when combat with the Taliban is usually at its highest.[124] "Commanders will have discretion on pace of this drawdown which will allow them to maintain the force they need through the fighting season," according to one U.S. official.[127] The drawdown announcement generated mixed reactions in Afghanistan: While Afghan officials like Karzai and the Taliban welcomed Obama's decision, many Afghans worried that a quick drawdown will destabilize the country. Afghans also expressed their concern that Afghan security forces were not ready to take the lead for security.[128][129]
As of September 2013 the U.S. military is flying out a large amount of gear instead of using cheaper overland and sea routes, while U.S. officials declined to elaborate on the reasons for their heavy reliance on the more expensive methods of transport.[130]
The US force level will drop to between 10,000 and 20,000 troops according to the Long War Journal. They will consist of Special Forces, counterterrorism forces, and military training personnel. They will be deployed to a small number of bases around the country. US/ISAF troops will continue their training of Afghan National Security Forces soldiers. Counterterrorism forces will concentrate mostly on high-value targets.[122] U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated on 12 November 2012 that the Obama Administration will cease combat operations by the end of 2014, but it is still refining its timeline for withdrawing the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The administration was also debating how many trainers, Special Operations forces and military assets it will keep in the country after that to support Afghanistan's army and police.[131]
During a surprise trip to Afghanistan in May 2014 Obama stated that the United States wanted to sign a bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan for the purpose of continuing training/advising Afghan forces and assisting in specific counterterrorism missions. The winner of Afghanistan's presidential runoff election — between former Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah and onetime World Bank economist Ashraf Ghani — will be asked immediately to sign the security agreement that will help determine how many U.S. forces, as of May 2014 numbering 32,000, will remain in Afghanistan after the end of the year 2014. U.S. officials said the security agreement must be endorsed as soon as possible to give U.S. military planners time to complete drawdown schedules — including decisions on what bases to close — and make arrangements for the next phase of the U.S. military presence after nearly 13 years of war.[132][133] Pentagon general counsel Stephen Preston said in May 2014 before the U.S. Senate that the 2014 drawdown planning and the post 2014 presence planning will concentrate on "what the circumstances, the mission and presence in Afghanistan will be."[134]
On 27 May 2014, Obama announced that U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan would end in December 2014 and that the troops levels will be reduced to 9,800 troops by this time.[135]
On 5 August 2014, a gunman dressed in an Afghan military uniform opened fire on a number of U.S., foreign and Afghan soldiers, killing a U.S. general and wounding about 15 officers and soldiers including a German brigadier general and eight U.S. soldiers. For the U.S. Armed Forces, it was the first death of a general on foreign battlefields in 44 years.[136]
After 13 years Britain and the United States officially ended their combat operation in Afghanistan on October 26, 2014. On that day Britain handed over its last base in Afghanistan, Camp Bastion in the southern province of Helmand, to Afghanistan, while the United States handed over its last base, Camp Leatherneck in the southern province of Helmand.[137][138][139][140][141][142]
During the 2012 Chicago Summit NATO and its partners agreed to withdraw its combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.[57] A new and different NATO mission will then advise, train and assist the Afghan security forces including the Afghan Special Operations Forces.[58][60] Final decisions on the size of the American and NATO presence after 2014 and its precise configuration have not been made by the United States or its NATO allies as of 26 November 2012, but one option calls for about 10,000 American and several thousand non-American NATO troops according to the United States.[123] The presence shall include a small American counterterrorism force consisting of less than 1,000 American troops, while in a parallel effort, NATO forces would advise Afghan forces at major regional military and police headquarters. According to the New York Times, NATO forces would most likely have a minimal battlefield role, with the exception of some special operations advisers.[123]
An important question for the NATO mission after 2014 was what level of the Afghan military hierarchy they would advise. It was generally expected that they would advise seven regional Afghan Army corps and several regional Afghan police headquarters. The arrangement would largely insulate the NATO advisers from the battlefield, though officials said advisers might accompany Afghan brigades on major operations. It was unlikely that NATO officers would advise Afghan battalions on the battlefield, because that would require many more advisers than NATO was likely to muster and would entail more risk than most nations seem prepared to assume, though some American experts believed it would make the Afghan military more effective. Still, NATO special operations advisers would be likely to accompany Afghan Army commandos and police SWAT-type units on the battlefield.[123]
A major challenge was that Afghanistan would not have an effective air force before 2017, if then. As a consequence American officials said that NATO airpower would remain in Afghanistan after 2014 but will likely only be used on behalf of NATO and American troops and perhaps Afghan units that are accompanied by NATO advisers. NATO forces relied heavily on airpower for airstrikes, supply and medical evacuation since Afghanistan's roads are in poor condition and often seeded with bombs. To compensate for Afghanistan's limited airpower, the United States was working on a number of fixes, including providing Afghan forces with armored vehicles that would be equipped with mortars and assault guns. The United States was looking into expanding the purchase of turboprop planes for the Afghans. In addition the U.S. was also trying to help Afghan pilots learn to fly at night.[123] Equally troubling was according to the New York Times the problem of medical evacuations. Because after 2014 the Afghans would almost certainly need to rely on a system that depended more on ground transportation than helicopters the United States wanted to help Afghanistan forces develop more field hospitals.[123]
Plans for the follow-on military presence are being formulated in the Pentagon, where the largest of several preliminary options calls for about 10,000 troops, with several other NATO governments penciled in for several hundred each. According to these preliminary plans, ISAF's successor would be based in Kabul, with most U.S. training and counterterrorism troops probably stationed in Kandahar and at the air base at Bagram. Both locations are to be converted to Afghan ownership. Smaller counterterrorism units of the Joint Special Operations Command would be positioned primarily in the eastern part of the country, where most of their activities take place. Italy, in charge of the ISAF mission in Herat in western Afghanistan, would remain there to train Afghans. Germany would do the same in Mazar-e Sharif in the north. It is unclear what would happen at Camp Bastion, the British headquarters in Helmand province.[143]
The size of the American military presence after 2014 will help determine the size of the American civilian footprint. As of December 2012 the United States are reducing its plans for large civilian force in post-2014 Afghanistan, because the U.S. military is certain to curtail or stop the security and other services it provides U.S. government civilians in Afghanistan.[143] Firm decisions on civilian numbers and locations cannot be made "until we resolve exactly what the military follow-on numbers are going to be," one unnamed U.S. official said. "That will determine . . . where we locate, what kind of security, medical and other support we might be able to get."[143] According to the New York Times the U.S. military wants to retain 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while the Obama administration wants a force of 3,000 to 9,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.[144]
During a meeting with Karzai on 11 January 2013, Obama stated that he will determine the pace of U.S. combat troops drawdown and their withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 after consultations with commanders on the ground.[145] He also said any U.S. mission in Afghanistan beyond 2014 would focus solely on counterterrorism operations and training Afghan security forces.[145][146] According to Obama any agreement on troop withdrawals must include an immunity agreement in which US troops are not subjected to Afghan law.[147] "I can go to the Afghan people and argue for immunity for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in a way that Afghan sovereignty will not be compromised, in a way that Afghan law will not be compromised," Karzai replied.[148]
During his 2013 State of the Union Address Barack Obama announced that 34,000 US troops will leave Afghanistan by February 2014, but did not specify what the post-2014 troop levels would be. "Beyond 2014, America's commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change," Obama said.[126] "We're negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions - training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al-Qaeda and their affiliates," he added.[126] As of 12 February 2013, Barack Obama has not made a decision on the post-2014 U.S. force.[125] The Obama Administration intends to keep some troops in the country in 2015 and beyond, but the number is still being debated at the White House and must be approved by the Afghan government.[124] Unnamed U.S. officials said there was a reluctance to go public with a final number of troops and a description of their missions while still in the early stage of negotiating a security agreement with the Afghans over retaining a U.S. military presence after 2014.[125] The New York Times reported that the post-2014 force is likely to number no more than 9,000 or so troops and then get progressively smaller.[125] The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep about 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2015, but significantly shrink the contingent over the following two years, perhaps to fewer than 1,000 by 2017, according to senior U.S. government officials and military officers.[124] As the result of the suspension of the bilateral security agreement discussions and increasingly frustrated by his dealings with Karzai, Obama was giving in early July 2013 serious consideration to speeding up the withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan and to a "zero option" that would leave no American troops there after 2014.[92] At the end of 2013 the United States backed away from its thread to initiate a complete American withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, if Karzai refuses to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement by the end of 2013. However the United States stood by its warning that a total military withdrawal is still possible if delays continue.[149][150] The U.S. Department of Defense proposed to Obama to leave behind 10,000 US troops when their combat mission and that of their allies end there at the end of 2014, or none at all.[150] Caitlin M. Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said that absent an agreement with respect to the B.S.A. between the America and Afghanistan the U.S.A. "will initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan.",[150] while the British Ministry of Defense said that until the pact is signed, no decision will be made on the contribution from other nations.[151]
By May 2014 no agreement on the bilateral security agreement had been reached. Obama on a trip to Afghanistan in late May 2014 said he was about to make decisions on the transition and was in the country to meet with Afghanistan's leaders prior to making those decisions final.[152] On 27 May 2014, Obama announced that U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan would end in December 2014.[153][154] A residual force of 9,800 troops would remain in the country which includes a group of troops to train and advise Afghan security forces and a separate group of Special Operations forces to continue counterterrorism missions against remnants of al-Qaeda.[155][156] These forces would be halved by the end of 2015, and consolidated at Bagram Air Base and in Kabul. Obama also announced that all U.S. forces, with the exception of a "normal embassy presence," would be removed from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.[135] These remaining forces would be a regular armed forces assistance group, largely to handle military sales under the authority of the U.S. ambassador,[155] but also guard the US embassy, train Afghan forces and support counter-terrorism operations.[154] These troop will not exceed 1,000 troops, akin to the security presence that is currently as of May 2014 in Iraq.[156] The president's plans were subject to the approval of the incoming Afghan government and its willingness to sign the bilateral security agreement providing immunity for U.S. troops serving in the country, which outgoing president Karzai had refused to sign.[157][158][159] The U.S. post 2014 presence plans were welcomed by outgoing Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai saying the Afghanistan was ready to take responsibility for its own security and the move could pave the way for Taliban peace talks.[160] While Afghanistan military forces reacted to Obama's plans with skepticism arguing among other things that Afghan military's lack of air support and heavy artillery couldn't be overcome by 2016 or 2017 and NATO welcomed the announcement, U.S. politicians split along party lines to Obama's drawdown and post 2014 presence plans, Afghanistan lawmakers consired those plans a blow to Afghan morale and American think tanks questioned the post presence limitation to the end of 2016 pointing out to experience in Germany, Britain, Korea and Japan, where U.S. forces remain long after wars have ended but the need to support strong allies remains.[135][153][155][156]
Afghanistan and the United States signed the bilateral security agreement through U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham and Afghan national security adviser Mohammad Hanif the bilateral security agreement on September 30, 2014 in a cordial ceremony at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afhanistan.[161][162][163] On that day the NATO Status of Forces Agreement was also signed, giving forces from Allied and partner countries the legal protections necessary to carry out the NATO Resolute Support mission when International Security Assistance Force comes to an end in 2014.[164] Under both agreements 9,800 American and at least 2,000 NATO troops are allowed to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on December 31, 2014[161] while also enabling the continued training and advising of Afghan security forces, as well as counterterrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaeda.[162] Most of the troops will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counterterrorism missions.[161] The Nato-led ISAF mission will transition to a training mission headquartered in Kabul with six bases around the country.[161] Under the BSA the United States are allowed to have bases at nine separate locations across Afghanistan.[162] A base in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, could also remain a launching point for armed drone missions in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan.[161][162] The agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crimes they may commit; instead, the United States has jurisdiction over any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action involving its troops inside the country. The provision does not apply to civilian contractors.[162] The troop number of 9.800 Americans is to be cut in half by 2016, with American forces thereafter based only in Kabul and at Bagram air base. By the end of 2017, the U.S. force is to be further reduced in size to what U.S. officials have called a "normal" military advisory component at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, most likely numbering several hundred.[162] The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and remains in force "until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless it is terminated by either side with two years' notice.[165]


text:
Mon-Fri: 7am-1am EST / Sat-Sun: 7am-11pm EST
If you placed an order on ApplianceHelp.com the order is still valid and you can check on its status and make changes here on PartSelect.com. Click here for more details.
ApplianceCaloric Range
Level of DifficultyEasy
Time to do repair30 - 60 mins
Age of ApplianceMore than 10 years
Tools NutdriverScrew drivers
1 out of 2 people found this instruction helpful
For the third time in less than a year I had to replace the broiler igniter. The range is 27 years old and has given us excellent service. When the igniter failed it's replacement lasted 3 months. The next replacement lasted about 6 months. This last replacement has been in service about 1 week. We shall see. The last one had an open wire within the ceramic mould. There was continuity from one wire, through the black portion, but not to the second wire. It seems like it was a fault in manufacturing.
Help other customers find the most helpful instructions.
Were these instructions helpful?
Part Number: PS387058


text:
Let us admit it—if your Chevrolet C20 air filter is totally blocked, there's a great possibility that it can leadto major engine concern. As soon as the air filter of your Chevrolet C20 doesn't work properly, dust, dirt, and debris can quickly enter into your engine, terribly affecting not only the combustion process but also leading to wear and tear to its components. Luckily, you'll be able to still salvage your ride from the condition by means of changing your wornout stock.
Even though there are many stocks of air filters for your Chevrolet C20 offered in the market, the majority of them happen to be faulty. A direct-fit air filter for your Chevrolet C20 will definitely make life lessdifficult, for you can justdirectly install it to your car or truck. Select a Chevrolet C20 air filter that's constructed from premium-class materials that features flexibility and durability, making it last longer in your ride.
When you'refinally completed installing the Chevrolet C20 air filter, you can have a relaxed mind knowing that your motor can perform at its optimum performance. You can select from our range of high-quality and reasonably-priced air filters—from APN to AC Delco and Full—and the best part is they all come with very, very low price tags! So grab our amazing deal and place your delivery right now!
Market Price :$699.33
Discount Price :$401.40
Total Savings :$297.93
Market Price :$436.97
Discount Price :$436.97
Total Savings :$0.00
Market Price :$252.76
Discount Price :$243.53
Total Savings :$9.23
Market Price :$679.13
Discount Price :$641.21
Total Savings :$37.92
Market Price :$157.42
Discount Price :$157.42
Total Savings :$0.00