1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

What is the downside of setting a reasonable timetable for leaving Iraq?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Zac D, Jun 23, 2005.

Tags:
  1. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19

    This affirms why I shouldn't call myself liberal.

    The previous pro- and anti-war camps are being slowly dissolved. The two schools of thoughts now officially become stay-the-course and get-the-hell-out. Look for love with your new bedfellows, folks.
     
    #21 wnes, Jun 24, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  2. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    That's the problem with facts on the ground. I myself would've preferred we never went into Iraq but there we are stuck with the situation as is. We need to realistically assess what the potential costs vs. benefits of us pulling out are. Right now to me it looks like the costs far outweigh the benefits of simply declaring a timetable to leave. Unfortunately we're in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

    The only way I can see us estabilishing a timetable if we have a clear understanding of what takes our place and a realistic expectation whatever that is can provide stability for Iraq. IMO were not there yet as far as training the Iraqis and this Admin seems unwilling or unable to undertake the type of diplomacy to get a substantial multi-national force there.

    As for a poll in a way the Iraqis already have taken a poll that validated the current US established government and the current situation. I don't know how much more a general referendum on the US occupation would clarify the situation. For one would it call for immediate total US withdrawl? Eventual withdrawl of most forces? Eventual total withdrawl? If it is eventual withdrawl when would that be? Also the insurgents have no impetus in participating in any US organized referendum because the results won't affect whether they fight or not. They will fight either way.

    Just to add even though I agree with the Admin on not setting a timetable that in no way means my opinion of them for invasion and poor planning as changed and I will not hesitate to point that out when I think its deserving.
     
  3. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    I beg to differ. You guys probably have forgotten there actually were stretches of relatively peaceful time in Iraq (however transient they might be), after the toppling of Saddam, when the general Iraqis were at least curious about what US could bring to them, if not all out friendly towards US forces. Thanks to the leadership of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient L Paul Bremmer and the great competence of the men in charge of the Pentagon, the opportunities were all lost. You have perhaps heard in reports that the majority of the participants in resistance (or insurgency if you will) are Iraqis, not foreigners. What they are fighting against? The presence of outside military forces and the so-called democracy forced upon them. Sure there may be civil wars, but so what? There are plenty of examples in world history that civil wars preceded eventual peace and prosperity. Iraqis are proud, smart, and dilligent people, they know how to rebuild their country. US has no business invading and occupying Iraq, period.
     
    #23 wnes, Jun 24, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  4. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,132
    But its ok for Saddam to keep the Iraqis under his boot? The Iraqis are smart and diligent, the Bush admin probably believes that way more than most.
     
  5. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    I think a rigid timetable would create these problems, but a general timetable pointing to not a pullout per se but a handover to a UN/coalition force made up of key stakeholders in the area would be a good transition step IMO.

    One of the key problems here is that there are a multitude of competing interests. Logically the Iraninas and Syrians and probably the Saudi’s will be in there trying to stop the US from being successful. You also have the internal who have interests in either tearing the country apart or dominating it, namely the rebel groups within the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites. This is why it was a virtually unwinnable war before it even started. And we haven’t even mentioned the terrorist groups like Al Qaeda who are there to attack the US and to foster the creation of an Islamic state there. There are other terrorist groups there too.

    And if you think even broader I think it’s even possible that counties like Russia could be meddling or even just supplying some of the destabilizing forces in Iraq because while the US has been trapped in Iraq Putin has had a virtually free reign to expand his power inside and probably outside Russia too. This war is destroying the US’s credibility and power around the world and anyone who has an interest in that will have an interest in keeping the US stuck in this quagmire in Iraq. Most won’t be able to interfere, I suspect, but some might be able to find a way.

    Yup.

    I think any path to a solution must have sealing the boarders as an early step. If that can’t be done then a virtually limitless stream of people with many different interests can come in and we’ll see a continuation of what we have now, or worse. To seal the boarders you’ll need the genuine support of the neighbouring countries and to do that you need to formulate a plan and an end strategy that is a better option for them than the likely outcomes they see now.

    The US is universally hated in the region so getting the US out has to be an early objective too. The US forces are bringing a significant part of this war to Iraq and no one trusts them or wants to work with them so they have to leave, but I agree that they can’t be withdrawn without putting in an alternative force. Given the mess that exists and the fact that dozens of American troops are being killed every month convincing someone else to go in will be a tough sell no doubt. To approach this problem you have to think about the long term threats and opportunities that face the key stakeholders. One threat is that Iraq gets radicalized and turns into a radical Islamic state. How probable this threat is I’m not sure. This would be a question to research. But if the neighbouring countries saw this as a real possibility they would likely not be happy about it. If Iraq were to become a breading ground for terrorists, that would pose a thread to Saudi Arabia and probably Syria and even Iran. Even if Iraq descended into a prolonged state of civil war that could lead to some serious negative impacts on the neighbouring countries.

    So a solution to this situation would, IMO, have to start with a coalition, brokered by the UN probably but perhaps the EU in some way, that included prominent involvement by Iraq’s neighbouring countries. The short term objectives would be to seal the boarders and replace the US forces. The long term objective would be to create a stable government that is acceptable to the key countries in the region. (This would also be a motivation to get involved in the coalition. Being involved gives you a say.) Another sub plot here would be that this would be a case of ME countries coming together to solve their own problem. This would be highly symbolic in a region that has been brutally exploited by Europe and the US for close to a century and could be an important motivating factor, both in the rulers and on the street.
     
  6. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    [To my fellow anit-war posters who are now in the stay-the-course camp, this article is something for you to think about. To the pro-war posters, please, don't bother to read - I know you have had enough.]

    A Thirty Years War?
    (link)

    June 25, 2005

    by George Hunsinger

    Back in September 2002 James Webb, assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, raised a specter that has come back to haunt us. "The issue before us," he wrote in the Washington Post, "is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."

    Recently the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a prominent London-based think tank, concluded that the U.S. will be in Iraq until 2010, because of the difficulties in establishing law and order. University of Michigan expert Juan Cole sees this estimate as optimistic. "The guerrilla war," he writes, "is likely to go on a decade to 15 years." But Paul Rogers, a diffident Oxford military expert, now echoes James Webb. His "ostensibly rash" conclusion is that "a thirty-year war is in prospect." On June 19 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that America's involvement in Iraq is indeed "a generational commitment."

    Webb had warned about our not having an exit strategy. In an August 2002 television interview, Charles Krauthammer, the well-connected columnist, explained why not. "We don't speak about exit strategies," he noted. "We are going to stay." Responding to concerns about the cost, he explained, "If we win the war, we are in control of Iraq, it is the second largest source of oil in the world, it's got huge reserves. . . . We will have a bonanza, a financial one, at the other end." Today we can see that while Krauthhammer was wrong about the bonanza, he was right about the prolonged stay.

    Currently the occupation is going poorly. One reason is the indiscriminate tactics used by U.S. forces. Whole towns – from Fallujah to Ramadi and now to the desert villages around Qaim – have virtually been flattened. Analyst Fred Kaplan comments: "Leveling towns, bombing every suspicious target in sight – this is not how hearts and minds are won or how persistent insurgencies are defeated." Indiscriminate tactics, of course, also violate morality and the laws of war.

    It is not surprising that the occupation lacks wide popular support. Civilian casualties – already in the tens, and perhaps hundreds, of thousands – are steadily on the rise. Among children malnutrition has doubled and mortality has tripled. Hospitals still lack basic medicines and equipment, water and electricity are in short supply, half the population is unemployed, and prices for food are inflated. Car bombs, assassinations, kidnappings, deadly roadblocks, stagnant sewage, and strikes from American forces are a daily occurrence. At least one million refugees have fled the country.

    Those who insist on "staying the course" overlook the unpleasant fact that the occupation is the main cause of the insurgency, not its cure. Outstripped and illegitimate, it will only bring more death and destruction.

    Although no good options exist, a viable exit plan might include the following:

    * The U.S. should cease all offensive military operations, withdraw from population centers, and announce that it plans to depart in six months.
    * An international peacekeeping force should be established, consisting of UN blue helmets along with forces from the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
    * Iraqi security forces should be trained under international auspices, with special attention to respecting human rights.
    * Plans for permanent U.S. military bases should be abandoned, and the American embassy (now the world's largest) should be reduced to normal size.
    * A generous aid package, with no strings attached, should be offered to rebuild what the war has destroyed.

    As unpalatable as such a strategy may be to our national pride, it is as prudent, principled and ambitious as the quagmire permits. It is arguably more "realistic" than continuing to fight indefinitely against a growing insurgency that is inreasingly sophisticated in weaponry and tactics. Those who believe otherwise should explain to the increasingly disillusioned American public how we can extricate ourselves from the biggest U.S. foreign-policy disaster since Vietnam.
     
  7. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    True but the problem is that we started this war and if civil war breaks out because we pulled out without a plan to stabilize the country then we will be blamed for it and things will get much worse for us.

    We're damned if we do and damned if we don't unfortunately with the reelection of GW Bush we've largely missed the best oppurtunity to find a diplomatic situation that might've brought in a substantial international force to take our place. With GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice still calling the shots it seems very unlikely that we can get more allies or keep the flagging coalition going.
     
  8. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    Major, I can't let this one slip. The turnout in the January election was anything but meaningful for the Sunnis.

    Among all the alternatives, stay-the-course policy is the most costly to US, and the resentment from Iraqis will be the main outcome in Iraq. Look, US has perhaps lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis. There is no war you can win without the support of the people in a foreign country. Yes you may conquer your perceived enemies militarily, but you'll never win the war.
     
    #28 wnes, Jun 25, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2005
  9. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    Hey people, LOOK!

    US 'in talks with Iraq with Iraq rebels'
    (link)

    June 26, 2005
    Hala Jaber

    Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings
    AT a summer villa near Balad in the hills 40 miles north of Baghdad, a group of Iraqis and their American visitors recently sat down to tea. It looked like a pleasant social encounter far removed from the stresses of war, but the heavy US military presence around the isolated property signalled that an unusual meeting was taking place.

    After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies.

    The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq.

    Despite months of American military assaults on supposed insurgent bases, General John Abizaid, the regional US commander, admitted to Congress last week that opposition strength was “about the same” as six months ago and that “there’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency”.

    That work now includes secret negotiations with rebel leaders, according to the Iraqi sources.

    Washington seems to be gingerly probing for ways of defusing home-grown Iraqi opposition and of isolating the foreign Islamic militants who have flooded into Iraq to wage holy war against America under the command of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

    The talks appear to represent the first serious effort by Americans and Iraqi insurgents to find common ground since violence intensified in the spring. Earlier informal contacts were reported but produced no perceptible progress.

    Zarqawi’s group, which has been blamed for many suicide bombings and beheadings, has not taken part.

    According to both Iraqi sources, preparations for this month’s meetings were supervised by Ayham al-Samurai, a Sunni Muslim and former exile who lived in America for 20 years. He returned to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein to become electricity minister in the interim government.

    One of his main challenges was to persuade both sides that they could meet without being ambushed. Both eventually provided pledges that no hostile acts would be attempted.

    The American contingent is said to have arrived in a convoy of four armoured Humvee vehicles and at least two armoured personnel carriers. The military escort remained outside the compound while the four US negotiators were greeted by tribal sheikhs who had agreed to host the meeting.

    The Pentagon had no immediate comment to make on the Iraqi claims despite repeated requests for confirmation.

    The Iraqi sources, who have proved reliable in the past, said the American team included senior military and intelligence officers, a civilian staffer from Congress and a representative of the US embassy in Baghdad.

    On the rebel side were representatives of insurgent groups including Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings and killed 22 people in the dining hall of an American base at Mosul last Christmas.

    Also represented was the so-called Islamic Army in Iraq, which murdered Enzo Baldoni, an Italian journalist, last August; the Iraqi Liberation Army; Jaish Mohammed and other smaller factions. According to an Iraqi commander, one of the Americans introduced himself as “a representative of the Pentagon” and declared himself ready to “find ways of stopping the bloodshed on both sides and to listen to demands and grievances”.

    The US officer also indicated that the contents of any discussion would be relayed to his superiors in Washington.

    The Americans were then said to have launched into a lengthy session of questioning about the structure of the insurgency, which is far from a unified entity.
    Coalition military intelligence has identified at least four separate strands of anti-American opposition, including Zarqawi’s jihadists, former members of Saddam’s regime, Sunni Arab nationalists and criminal gangs.

    The links between these groups remain murky and the American team began to irritate the Iraqis with what some saw as a crude attempt to gather intelligence. They asked questions about the “hierarchy and logistics of the groups, how they functioned, how orders were dispatched, how they divide their work and so on”, the Iraqi source said.

    “It was a boring line of questioning that indicated an attempt to discover more about their enemy than about finding solutions,” one of the sources added. “We told the translator to inform them that if they persisted with this line we would all walk out of the meeting.”

    The Iraqis had agreed beforehand to focus on their main demand, “a guaranteed timetable of American withdrawal from Iraq”, the source said. “We told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless.”

    The demand did not meet with a favourable response from the American team, perhaps because a timetable is the one thing that President George W Bush has declared he will not agree to.

    Both Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, insisted last week that setting a timetable would be an invitation to the insurgents to “wait us out”, as the president put it.

    Ibrahim al-Jafaari, the Iraqi prime minister, also rejected a timetable during his first visit to the White House on Friday. Bush reassured him: “This is an enemy that will be defeated . . . You don’t have to worry, Mr Prime Minister, about timetables.”

    The insurgents went on to demand US compensation for the damage caused by the American military occupation. One group put in a bid for Saddam to be restored to power, but not even his colleagues appeared to be taking that seriously.

    The original discussion is said to have lasted for an hour and a half and to have broken up with the US team explaining that it would need to consult Washington. But one American official apparently asked whether the insurgents would be interested in disarming in return for a release of all Iraqi prisoners in US military camps.

    The Iraqi side immediately reverted to its demand for a timetable and the only agreement of the afternoon was to meet again.
    At the second meeting, the Iraqi sources added, two little known insurgent groups were present. They were introduced as Thawarat al-Ishreen and the Shoura Council of Mujahideen.

    This meeting did not go well. “The tone of the Americans was different,” the Iraqi insider said. “They were talking with a tone of more superiority, arrogance and provocation.”

    After a discussion about Al-Qaeda activities, the Americans bluntly advised the Iraqis to “cease all support, logistics and cover for Zarqawi’s group”. Only if links to Al-Qaeda were severed would the Americans be ready to discuss Iraqi demands.

    “Our response was that we will never abandon any Muslim who has come to our country to help us defend it,” the commander said.

    “That was a right and prerogative of ours, just as they felt they had the right to ally themselves with other foreign nations in a coalition force to invade Iraq.”

    The meeting reached another inconclusive end but the two sides agreed to keep talking, the Iraqi source said. The insurgents said they had asked for a United Nations representative to attend the next round.

    US spokesmen in Baghdad said they were unable to comment yesterday and al-Samurai did not return calls. But if confirmed, the talks could indicate a new willingness by American officials to negotiate a breakthrough in the conflict, in which 1,735 US soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died. At least 12 Iraqi policemen died in the latest attacks yesterday.

    Time magazine reported in February that a meeting had taken place between one representative of the insurgents and two US military officials. Earlier this month it was claimed that indirect negotiations had begun through an intermediary.

    The meetings described to The Sunday Times appear to have been the first formal talks between the two sides.

    An interior ministry official in Baghdad said he was not aware of the two encounters but knew that the Pentagon and State Department had been anxious to talk to insurgent leaders for some time.

    “The Americans want to expedite this matter of talks with the insurgents,” said Dr Sabah Kathim, the ministry’s senior spokesman.

    “They initially thought they could win it through military operations and now they have come to realise that the military option will not provide them with the solution, so they are going for the political option as well.”

    Regional specialists in Washington said they were not surprised to learn of secret contacts between the coalition and the insurgents, but the main question was whether they would find any area of potential agreement.

    “Any arrangement that would enable them to claim they had chased the Americans out of the country would not get much of a hearing in Washington,” said John Pike
    of Globalsecurity.org. “And neither side can be too sure of who exactly they are dealing with. It’s too early to say if this is going anywhere.”

    Pike speculated that the insurgents might offer to stop fighting if the Americans agreed to an amnesty, but any deal would be hard to monitor.

    Other experts suggested the mediating role of Iraq’s tribal sheikhs showed that Sunni leaders were tiring of the violence but dared not say so publicly for fear of being seen as American stooges.

    “My gut hunch is that the tribal leadership are practical men of affairs,” one specialist said. “Their view is that the insurgency is bad for business, but they can’t come out and say that without risking a bullet in the head.”

    Bush acknowledged on Friday that “the way ahead is not going to be easy” and for once the Iraqi insurgent commander agreed with him.

    “It looks like the Americans are in big trouble in Iraq and are desperate to find a way out,” the commander said. “Why else would they have rounds of negotiations with people they label as terrorists?”
     
  10. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,914
    Likes Received:
    41,461
    Yes, this is the logical outcome of the argument that is being advanced, essentially - when you take into account what one of the generals said a few weeks ago "Every time we kill one, we create 3 more".

    It is a total catch 22 and a lose-lose situation, but we knew that was a possible outcome going in, and certain people chose to willfully ignore it and plan for and promise only the best.
     
  11. flamingmoe

    flamingmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    0
    a lil trip in the Bush time-machine...

    In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

    George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

    “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

    And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

    George W. Bush, 6/5/99

    “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

    [ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

    VERSUS

    George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

    “It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/in-1999-bush-demanded-a-timetable/
     
  12. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,813
    Likes Received:
    20,473
    Nice find. Of course when Bush flip flops it is called a wise man who learns. When his opponents have far less glaring flip flops, they are flip floppers.

    Or we will have the ever present 9/11 changed everything.
     
  13. thegary

    thegary Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    11,017
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    our democratically elected leaders are ever-presently changing everything by equating dissension with treason. the tragedy and the monumental outpouring of sympathy from all points of the globe after 9/11 has been twisted and molded to the point where rove and his boy's own it. it is their mandate, way to go voters.
     
  14. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    Britain is planning major Iraq troop withdrawal - that'll leave US its own "coalition" in staying the course in 1.5 years.

    MoD plans Iraq troop withdrawal

    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ecbc-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html

    By Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel
    Published: July 4 2005 22:02 | Last updated: July 4 2005 22:02

    The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.

    In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.

    Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has disappointed coalition officials.

    But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command, which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier than those under US command.

    Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan.

    In that role, the UK forces would help fight insurgents and provide support for the war on narcotics in the region.

    While the MoD insisted that no decision had been made on Afghan or Iraqi deployments, John Reid, defence secretary, said yesterday that Iraqi forces could begin to take charge of security in their country within a year.

    In an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Reid suggested that plans were consistent with the recent prediction of Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, that it could take take up to 12 years to defeat the Iraqi insurgency.

    He told the BBC that while the insurgency in Iraq may go on for “some considerable time”, there remained a second question.

    “Who will lead the security efforts against the insurgency? And I think in a relatively short period of time we can start the process of that being led by the Iraqi security forces themselves,” he said.

    Mr Reid went on: “So although Donald Rumsfeld may have said, correctly, that this may take years before it is finally completed, that did not imply that all that period will have to be led by the multi-national forces or the British forces.

    “I personally think that within a year we could begin that transition to the Iraqi forces leading the effort themselves.”

    It is a view echoed by military commanders. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup, the current Royal Air Force commander who will become chief of the general staff next year, said more stable Iraqi provinces – including those under UK command – were likely to be handed over to local security forces more quickly than first thought.

    By next April, a best case scenario would see current troops levels of 8,500 reduced to about 4,000-5,000, with a further cut in the period leading to the first quarter of 2007, when the British military presence is expected to fall to about 1,000 advisers and training personnel.

    Additional reporting by Victoria Burnett in Kabul
     

Share This Page