Administration: Deadlines Schmedlines

[bigtree]

December 6, 2009


James Jones: July 2011 Deadline 'Not A Cliff'

National Security Adviser James Jones said on CNN's State of the Union this morning that President Obama's July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan is "not a cliff. It's a glide slope."

"The president's decision on 2011 has more to do with a transition than anything else," Jones said.

That echoed comments downplaying the July 2011 deadline by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on several other morning shows.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/james-jones-july-2011-deadline-not-a-cliff.php



Jones: We Won't Meet Gitmo Deadline

National Security Adviser James Jones said on CNN's State of the Union this morning that the Obama administration won't meet its goal of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay during the president's first year in office.

"We won't meet the target date, unfortunately," Jones said, saying that he expected Gitmo to be closed within three to six months.

On Iran, Jones said the U.S. is "still open to negotiations" but that "the picture Iran is painting is not a good one."

"That clock's ticking,"

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/jones-we-wont-meet-gitmo-deadline.php

[spanone]

1. well, god forbid we piss off the right...they don't like that deadline talk

[bigtree]

2. heh

slippery strategy of yours (and others) to play off of the right's absurd objections just to dismiss valid criticisms from the left.

[spanone]

7. you assume that i dismiss valid criticisms...your assumption is wrong

[kenny blankenship]

3. "IT'S ETCHED IN STONE!!" Not that we mean anything specifically by it, but

as you can clearly see, it IS etched in stone!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The president's decision has more to do with the 2012 election than anything else.

From die Zeit, Germany

http://watchingamerica.com/News/38924/obama%E2%80%99s-last-lap-kick/

Obama’s Last-Lap Kick

America’s president will hand the war off to the Afghans; but first, he wants to win a little. Barack Obama will “begin” withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan in 18 months. In 2012, he’ll run for re-election. When the troop withdrawal will end is anyone’s guess. But first, the president plans to intensify military operations in the southern part of the country over the next eight months.

The Taliban is expected to bide its time. They might seem to be simple guerrillas, but they know the internal pressures being put on their opponent; the Americans were, after all, their not-so-secret allies in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Taliban fundamentalists have returned to much of the country. The Afghan people are, by no means, welcoming them with open arms, but the most corrupt government in modern times holds power in Kabul. President Karzai responded to Western pleas to root out the corruption of his officials and his own family with rigged elections. Even beyond 2011, the West will still lack the money and the national, cultural and linguistic knowledge necessary to bring peace to the nation, much less make a functioning democracy out of it; the country will inwardly collapse.

Political debate in the U.S. next year will be dominated by Congressional elections. The rhetoric of power politics - and not the depressing realities of America’s ability to intervene in foreign lands - will determine electoral outcomes. If Obama’s tactical dash to the finish line shows signs of succeeding early enough, his party will benefit. But a complete withdrawal of troops after 2011 won’t happen as precipitously as it did in Vietnam in any case. In the politically almost-cynical military chess game, one fact remains indisputable: Completely withdrawing all U.S. troops from the region could easily result in delivering the Pakistani government, with its nuclear arsenal, into the hands of Taliban sympathizers in the military and secret service. The possibility that al-Qaida couldn’t get its hands on a nuclear weapon could no longer be assured. At least, that’s the view of some of Obama’s advisers, as well as that of his special envoy to Afghanistan-Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. Their concerns should be taken seriously.

[rusty fender]

5. It was despicable when Bush sent American soldiers to die for

political reasons and it's just as despicable when Obama does it. But to some Democrats, it's not okay to be screwed by Bush, but ok to be sctewed by Obama because, at least we are being screwed by someone we like.

[bigtree]

8. on Pakistan and their nukes falling into the hands of the Taliban . . .

"We're comfortable" with the security of the country's atomic weapons, Gates said.

http://www.geo.tv/12-6-2009/54214.htm

[Karmadillo]

6. Well, at least we get a better idea of who's running (ruining) the country.

nt