Obama administration backtracks on Afghanistan withdrawal date

[IndianaGreen]

As congressional hearings begin

Obama administration backtracks on Afghanistan withdrawal date

By Patrick Martin
3 December 2009

The July 2011 date for beginning a withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan, announced by President Obama in his speech to West Point military cadets Tuesday night, is neither irreversible nor even a deadline, top US national security officials said Wednesday.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before Senate and House committees throughout the day, defending Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan.

Gates revealed that some of these new troops would arrive in Afghanistan before Christmas, and that most would be in place in time to join in the spring fighting after the winter snows melt in Afghanistan’s rugged mountain regions.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday morning, every Republican senator and most Democrats voiced support for the escalation of the war, but several of the Republicans pressed the trio of witnesses on Obama’s one-sentence reference to July 2011 as the beginning of a drawdown of US forces.

In response, Gates, Clinton and Mullen each made statements effectively declaring the July 2011 deadline meaningless, and emphasizing that the Obama administration was committed to a long-term military presence in Central Asia.

<snip>

Graham: The question is, have we locked ourselves into leaving, Secretary Clinton, in July 2011?

Clinton: Well, Senator Graham, I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving.

There were two other substantive issues raised in the day’s testimony. Gates explained that Obama had not set a specific target for the growth of the Afghan national army and police, as proposed by Democrats like Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, because “we’re also looking, as I suggested in my remarks, at local forces as well, partnering with local security forces. So there are—there is more than just the Afghan national police and the Afghan national army in this mix.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/obam-d03.shtml

[jefferson_dem]

1. ...

:)

[IndianaGreen]

2. According to DOD, Obama is using Bush's caveat of 'conditions on the ground'

From the Defense Department website:

July 2011 is the beginning, not the end, of the process of U.S. forces coming home, Gates said, noting that any transition will be based on conditions on the ground.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56922

Socialists raised the alarm on the lies that Bush told about Iraq and WMD. We are now doing the same on the lies Obama has told on Afghanistan.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Here is what Obama's National Security Adviser Jim Jones said about this

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the July 2011 draw-down would be "responsible" and "conditions-based," a "real target for us to aim at."

But National Security Adviser Jim Jones articulated a different, middle-ground interpretation of the July 2011 date, calling the plan only "somewhat conditions-based" during an interview with Fox News reporter Major Garrett.

Garrett: Is the July 2011 date aspirational or is it a fixed date when those surge troops will move out, regardless of the situation on the ground?

Jones: It is a date in which we all believe that we will be able to effectively start the transition gradually - wherever possible - of responsibilities for the prosecution of conflict or for the governance of various provinces in the country, to the Afghans themselves. So it will mark the end of a significant ramp up of forces which will buy us time and space in order to create the conditions by which the Afghans can start owning their destiny more fully.

Garrett: So it's fixed not aspirational?

Jones: It is somewhat conditions-based, but we believe that the strategy that's been agreed to, which will involve the Pakistanis doing things on their side of the border, President (Hamid) Karzai really forming a cabinet and fighting corruption, fighting the war on drugs, and organizing training and equipping his Afghan national security forces to be more effective and more visible, and better integration of economic development so the Afghans can see a better future for themselves. (All this) Instead of an open-ended commitment that we currently have, and seems to be leading us nowhere fast -- and as a matter of fact -- seems to be victimized by a very resurgent Taliban.

Garrett: The conditions are about how fast we withdraw?

Jones: This isn't a cliff where everybody all of a sudden says 'That's it, it's over.' What is at stake here, in terms of the conditions, is how quickly we can do it. If things are going very well, we can do it more rapidly, if things need a little bit more attention, we can do it more slowly. But it is the point at which there will be a beginning to a different phase in our involvement in Afghanistan. And it's not to say to your viewers, but more importantly to the people of the region, the United States is leaving. We are not leaving the region. We have enormous strategic interest in Afghanistan, east of Afghanistan in Pakistan and we intend to be supportive and helpful partners with them for many years to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/afghanistan-withdrawal-da_n_379502.html