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

[emilyg]

1. It was my pleasure to

cancel out the unrec.

[WonderGrunion]

3. And my pleasure to cancel your cancelling

n/t

[jefferson_dem]

5. Ditto.

The World Socialist Web Site. :crazy:

[PBS Poll-435]

7. When you have an agenda to push, ie "catapult the propaganda",

Any source will do.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Try the Defense Deparment's website. It has the same thing!

[mcablue]

9. On what grounds did you unrecommend? n/t

[WonderGrunion]

10. The article headline mischaracterizes what happened today

Obama left room for variance on the withdrawal date during the speech last night. Anyone actually listening to the president and not feigning betrayal heard it. The world socialist news has a history of lying about what Obama says to make political points and some posters here quote this source readily to justify their bashing of the President.

[IndianaGreen]

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

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.

[WonderGrunion]

20. His speech last night didn't lock him in either.

He used "conditions on the ground" as a caveat last night. Any thinking person understood what that meant. There is no change in policy from last night to today. Therefore no back tracking.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Bush used 'conditions on the ground' in Iraq

Same old product, different salesman!

[WonderGrunion]

25. Bush never promised an end to Iraq

Who are you kidding?

[mcablue]

35. Did Obama promise an end to Afghanistan?

When is the end?

[dionysus]

40. just wondering, since you are a huge fan, is hillary now a warmonger?

[O is 44]

2. We shall see...

[IndianaGreen]

6. Like Bush, Obama is using the 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

[O is 44]

11. I hate that caveat, because it becomes open ended..

I don't like the President's call but I am willing to hang with him, but I know he will pay dearly if his plan outlined in his speech does not pan out. Unlike Bush in 04, Obama has no margin for error; we have been over there already for 8 years. If the military cannot get this done with a President willing to give them what they need to complete the mission in his time frame he must cut it off in 11.

edited for spelling & punctuation

[mcablue]

4. Mullen said that July 2011 our soldiers will stay there, but will transfer responsibility

"Admiral Mullen went on to state that what would begin in July 2011 was a transfer of secured districts from US to Afghan government control. “The July 2011 date is a day we start transitioning—transferring responsibility and transitioning,” he said. “It’s not a date that we’re leaving. And the president also said that…will be based on conditions on the ground."

I used to think that exiting meant leaving.

[Peace_Sells]

12. less

I like this Afghanistan policy less and less each day. When are they finally going to learn that nothing good will ever come from these occupations. Obama had the goodwill of so many and yet he is throwing it all away. I feel less and less inclined to say I support him each day. If we are not leaving Afghanistan by 2012 he will face a tough reelection. How many more times are dems going to vote for the lesser of two evils before they just quit all together?

[girl_interrupted]

13. K&R Thank God some people keep up with the news!

Thank you Indiana for posting this!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

41. Exactly

But some people want to stick their fingers in their ears and scream until it goes away.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

36. We're not supposed to be calling out specific posters here.

Therefore, you should rephrase it to simply say "those who believe there is an exit plan" without naming names, and then you would be spot on.

[villager]

15. We knew there'd be backtracking, of course. Who knew it would be this soon?

n/t

[WonderGrunion]

16. There is no bacttracking!

They are saying the same thing the president said last night. The article headline is a blatant lie about what happened today.

[IndianaGreen]

17. The Pentagon's website is saying the same thing as WSWS

Like Bush, Obama is using the 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

[WonderGrunion]

19. Obama used "conditions on the ground" in his speech last night

And his staff clarified that he meant the same thing today. To claim "backtracking" is a blatant falsehood for the purpose of political posturing.

[IndianaGreen]

21. The only falsehoods were the ones coming out of Obama's mouth!

The central lie in Obama’s speech, however, was the claim that his escalation plans would allow US troops to return quickly from Afghanistan, starting in 2011.

In fact, as Obama indicated elsewhere in his speech, this escalation is one step in plans for even broader wars. “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly,” he said, “and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Mentioning Somalia and Yemen as potential targets, he added, “our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.”

The inclusion of this passage made clear that Obama was basing his Afghan policy on a report issued last month by Anthony Cordesman of the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Cordesman wrote: “The President must be frank about the fact that any form of victory in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be part of a much wider and longer struggle. He must make it clear that the ideological, demographic, governance, economic, and other pressures that divide the Islamic world mean the world will face threats in many other nations that will endure indefinitely into the future. He should mention the risks in Yemen and Somalia, make it clear that the Iraq war is not over, and warn that we will still face both a domestic threat and a combination of insurgency and terrorism that will continue to extend from Morocco to the Philippines, and from Central Asia deep into Africa, regardless of how well we do in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

He added: “…the present level of US, allied, Afghan and Pakistani casualties will almost certainly double and probably more than triple before something approaching victory is won.”

In short, the US will be fighting immensely costly wars over a considerable portion of the earth’s surface, in regions stretching thousands of miles in every direction.

Reduced to its essentials, the perspective of Obama and his advisors is a future of endless war to maintain the US’ position as the global hegemon. Beyond the questions of controlling oil revenues and trade routes in the Middle East and Central Asia, what is at stake is the US’ position as a world power. Like the British withdrawal from Suez in 1956-1957, a forced US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a devastating blow to Washington’s prestige.

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

Bush's PNAC permanent wars have been replaced by Obama's DLC PPI permanent wars. From neocon wars, we have gone to neoliberal wars. They are still wars!

[WonderGrunion]

24. There is no lie in what was said last night

If conditions on the ground are right, we can start withdrawing in April 2011. Regardless of what the WSWS would like you to think, Obama is considerably different than Bush and his war strategy is not unending.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. LOLOL! You're doing it wrong. Obama's speech to the West Point cadets contained neither the word

"condition", nor the word "ground".

You're trying too hard! Spin it some other way, cuz on this one you're DEAD WRONG.

Here, I've included a link to the full transcript. Do a simple word search. Prove your assertion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-president-obamas-speech-afghanistan-delivered-west/story?id=9220661

[WonderGrunion]

27. Too easy. You should have checked page two of the speech.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Edited to add : EPIC PWNAGE!!!

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Pwned... ouch.

[WonderGrunion]

30. Off topic, your sig line is pretty damned funny.

:P

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Copped it from a comic in XM Radio. I wish I could remember her name, she was damned funny.

I gotta tell ya though... We started with two cats. Pedigree cats. We looked and looked at the shelters, but never saw a kitty that grabbed our hearts. So one day we're looking online and found a local breeder. Now we have a Himalayan, and a Persian. They are the two MOST ANTI-SOCIAL animals I've ever seen in my life. Think either one of them has EVER come to sit on my lap in the six years we've had them? Nuh uh. Nope. Not EVER.

I think the Persian is actually retarded. Six years old; no one in this house has ever even raised their voice to him, and he slinks through here on his say to crawl under my bed like there's a monster in the room. He gets halfway, and when it's too far to turn back, he's a white streak from there to the bedroom door. I have scars on my forearms from trying to pick him up.

So we got a puppy. A gorgeous Golden Retriever. Big Oaf. All she ever wanted to do was to play with the kitties, and do you think they'd give her the time of day? She has scars on her snout from crawling on her belly up to them just to say hi. Poor thing was lonely. Sooooo... we went to the local shelter and got HER a pet. A gorgeous little min-pin mix. That little four pound dog kicks her ninety pound ass all day every day. Is Bella happy with that? You bet she is!

And the cats slink...

Dogs think: Master feeds me. Master gives me toys. Master makes me happy. He must be God!

Cats think: They feed me. They give me toys. The go out of their way to make me happy. I must be God!

[WonderGrunion]

29. Used your own link too.

Just went to the bottom of the page, clicked on page two because I knew President Obama talked more than what was on page one, found it quick and easy. Didn't even have to use the search function. It was so easy to find a drunk child could have found it.

Why couldn't you find it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. 1: I was in a hurry, the sugar/milk/butter mixture for the fudge was starting to boil.

2: I'm an ass.

3: I don't agree with the decision and it dovetailed with my thinking, so it SEEMED to click.

Last, I listened to the speech, and don't remember hearing that. Maybe I was already too angry.

Never even looked for the page two link.

You win. I'm Pwned.

[WonderGrunion]

33. Apology accepted. I'm Ok with opposition to the Afghan Plan

I'm not OK with people saying the President lied to or betrayed them when it is clearly not the case.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Does anybody understand (re: deadlines)...........

that deadlines HAVE to be set in some situations if for no other reason to get the ball rolling. If you don't give some kind of deadline, the inertia of doing nothing, stalling, "dilly-dallying", not "stepping up to the plate" has the tendency to take control. That being said, given the unpredictable nature of combat situations, there are almost always going to have to be SOME minor adjustments made here and there and I am prepared to accept the fact that we might ultimately be in Afghanistan slightly longer than 18 months. Clinton, Mullen, et. al are just being honest/realistic about that. However, I do NOT believe for a second that President Obama genuinely wants to get us out of both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as it is possible- and that, if he is indeed now destined for a single term (as so many people here at DU seem to be convinced that he is), he, UNLIKE Bush, will NOT leave either mess for his successor to clean up after him.
Talking about a deadline already seems to have the Afghan government worried and from my point of view, them knowing that we are NOT going to be staying there indefinitely, is ultimately a good thing-for both them and us and will hopefully get them motivated to step up their efforts for better securing their country/clamping down on the Taliban/Al-Queda. Frankly, however, I think we have done them a gross injustice for basically sitting on our hands and letting the situation deteriorate for the past 6-7 years but the blame for THAT belongs with Bushco and his Republican enablers. Now, President Obama has been tasked with the responsibility for cleaning up Bush's mess and, as many people have pointed out, we simply do not have infinite time, money, resources, and manpower, so we're now going to make one final push to help leave Afghanistan in at least slightly better shape (and the Taliban/Al-Queda in WORSE shape).

[moondust]

39. Thank you.

A voice of reason cries out from the wilderness!

Although I do think he wants to get out of both as soon as possible but that will obviously take some time.

It's hard for me to believe how many DUers have not learned from history and would repeat the same mistake that GHW Bush made by abandoning Afghanistan in a heartbeat.

[IndianaGreen]

34. 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

[jeanpalmer]

37. "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."

That about says it all. Under Obama, we're never leaving. He can send in 30,000 and "withdraw" whatever number, but we're never going to have complete withdrawal, as Nixon was able to do in Vietnam. It's going to take a President with a totally different attitude to get us out of there completely.

[waterscalm]

38. Jones has been an Obama advisor from day one. Leads me to

believe his words is how it will come down.

[Vidar]

42. K&R.

[MissDeeds]

43. K&R n/t

[zulchzulu]

44. I'm holding Obama to the deadline he mentioned

Here's how I see it.

The "mission" will not go well at all. More targets will be available for the Taliban to pick off, hence more casualties and KIAs. Karzai will continue to run his Mafia-style narco-kleptocracy even though he will have been marginalized by NATO. Hell, he might even get assassinated (by the CIA/ISI) and the Afghan government will continue on a tailspin. The Taliban will take over like they did in the 1990s with our approval and know we can come back and carpet-bomb them if they dare return alliances with Al Qaeda, which is fading out anyway. Pakistan will invade Afghanistan's eastern mountain region and all hell will break loose.

Obama, faced with tumbling approval numbers on the quagmire, will demand the withdrawal happen even earlier than July 2011, since it actually is a "grab our shit and mop it up" operation anyway.