Jones: US Not Leaving Afghanistan in 2011

[tekisui]

Source: BBC News

President Obama's top national security adviser, General James Jones, has said the United States has no intention of leaving Afghanistan "in the near future" and certainly not in 2011.

Gen Jones was seeking to allay fears that the US intends to pull out completely after Mr Obama's announcement that US troops would start to withdraw in July 2011.

full video at link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8396550.stm

[NYC_SKP]

1. Obama: "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011"

General Jones needs a time out.

[tekisui]

2. That may be the objective, and it may be true. But, the war in

Afghanistan will not be over by re-election time.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Somebody needs a skepticism suppository

One of these gentlemen is misrepresenting the plan. Can you guess which one?

[Arctic Dave]

3. Let the parsing of words and spin begin.

Obama, "I am starting to withdrawal, we are going to bring 100 people home every two months until all of our forces are out of there".

[tekisui]

4. Yep. So far 30,000 is 33,000+, in 6 months is actual about a year.

Starting to leave by 2011 is out in 2013 or 2014.

[tan guera]

6. More troops will be deployed

becuz of Pakistan, IMO.

[TicketyBoo]

5. Do you have a link

for that quote? Or is that sarcasm?

[Arctic Dave]

7. Yes, that was sarcasm.

[timeforpeace]

8. Hey boss, the timetable is a big mistake. How 'bout I backtrack that for you?

Amateur hour.

[G_j]

9. Glenn Greenwald: Do Obama Officials Know What his Afghanistan Plan Is?

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/04-11

Published on Friday, December 4, 2009 by Salon.com

Do Obama Officials Know What his Afghanistan Plan Is?
by Glenn Greenwald

On the vital question of whether Obama is committed to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July, 2011 -- or whether that's just an aspirational target subject to being moved -- the statements from key administration officials aren't merely in tension with one another, but are exact opposites:

Agence France-Press, yesterday:

President Barack Obama's administration said that a July 2011 target date to begin withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan was not set in stone. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and the top uniformed US military officer, Admiral Michael Mullen, sought to sell the new approach under fire from Obama's hawkish Republican foes.

During hours of questioning by two key committees, they made clear that his target date of starting a US troop withdrawal in 19 months' time -- a step some anti-escalation lawmakers, especially Democrats, had cheered -- could slip.

"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," said Clinton, who added the goal was "to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan."

Gates said the extra troops Obama had ordered to Afghanistan would be in place in July 2010, that a December 2010 review of the war effort would shape the pace of the withdrawal, and that the target date could change.

CBS News, Wednesday:



I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in -- there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

What could possibly explain a contradiction this extreme with regard to a question so central to the policy Obama just announced? How can you have the Defense Secretary and the Secretary of State testifying in front of the Senate that the July, 2011 date is "not set in stone," that they "have not locked oursleves into leaving," and that "the target date could change," while the President is saying exactly the opposite: that "it IS locked in - there is no flexibility" and "it's etched in stone"?

Is it remotely possible that the months of extremely careful, cerebral, thoughtful deliberations produced complete ambiguity on this central point, or is it that Obama's plan is designed to be sufficiently ambiguous so that nobody knows what it actually entails and everyone can therefore be told that it means what they want it to mean? And which is worse?

[TicketyBoo]

10. How can they possibly know

when the President, himself, has no idea what he's doing?

Hoping for the best, but fearing the worst. (Vietnam — Part Deux)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The brilliant general should get out his tactics guide book and look up FUBAR.