"the 18-month timetable to a Afghanistan troop drawdown is written in pencil -- and lightly"

[Better Believe It]

Obama's Afghan exit plan transitions to 'transition'
December 7, 2009

In the lead-up to President Obama's major Afghanistan war speech last week at West Point, all of the leaks -- and thus, the media and reader/viewer focus -- was on the quantifiable number of fresh U.S. troops the Democrat had decided to dispatch.

That was also the selective lead excerpt from the president's 4,582-word address, released by the White House a couple of hours before he actually uttered the words, to help shape news coverage and steer public expectations.

Indeed, that worked. Most news reports led with that hard number while also mentioning the president's vow that their assignment was short-term and they'd start leaving just 18 months from now, in ... July 2011. The latter was designed to assuage the mounting anti-war fervor on the left wing of the president's party and fading poll support for the 8-year-old conflict.

It was, in effect, a deft political speech designed by the White House to have it both ways -- tough talk about protecting America for the national security fanciers alongside a vow that it wouldn't last long for the anti-war folks and as a warning to slow-moving Afghans to get going.

But in a classic case of White House walkback, to once again have it both ways down the road, in the succeeding six days Obama Cabinet members have been fudging the July 2011 pullout start. They were no longer emphasizing the number of new troops but instead stressing that 7/11 was only the beginning of any pullout, that it would be a slow, gradual pullout and based on conditions on the ground at the time.

On Sunday the administration made both Gates and Secy. of State Hillary Clinton available to three major talk shows to make the same points, an indication of how badly it wanted this message to get out: 7/11 is no arbitrary date. Clinton said, "We're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop-dead deadline."

In other words, the 18-month timetable to a drawdown is written in pencil -- and lightly. It could be 19, 27 or 36 months or even, hypothetically, the dread decade of nation-building that Obama dismissed. President Lyndon Johnson was pretty confident about wrapping up his war more quickly with additional troops.

With the Afghan walkback, the administration has now given itself copious spoken documentation to support a decision either way. People can see/hear what they want in the meantime. With quotes available for both sides to quote, the lines of what was said and meant will be blurred. Which is the point.

Read the full article at:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/obama-afghanistan-exit-not-an-exit.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+topoftheticket+%28Top+of+the+Ticket%29

[Aramchek]

1. would you rather there be no goal for withdrawal?

[Bullet1987]

3. I guess that makes everything ok

Having a goal no matter how fake of a goal it is. No matter if military leaders are actually planning on working their way towards withdrawal or not.

[Aramchek]

6. do you have any evidence that it is fake, or is that just your opinion?

seems no matter what Obama does, haters are gonna hate.

you bitch about a withdrawal date, if there hadn't been one you would have bitched about that.

[ret5hd]

2. 3 dimensional chess or a crossword puzzle?

[Aramchek]

7. those who have glommed onto the chess metaphor as some sort of insult just aren't that bright

reminds me of teabaggers shouting things they have no clue about.

Cap'n Trade!!
Socialist Public Option!!!
Obama is a Nazi Muslim!!!!

Sadly, I guess both parties have their share of dullards.

[Enrique]

4. how many people really believe the July 2011 date?

I mean believe that troops are likely to actually, in reality, begin leaving Afghanistan at that time.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. I believe they will *begin* to leave

It's a word game that seems to be hanging up a lot of folks.

Start and begin carry no literal information about when a process might conclude, or how it will go along the way.

It's a word-game to play on the fact that when people hear "will start leaving" they think it means something. If I say, "I am getting ready to go out" one assumes I am going out today or tonight.

[Fire1]

8. LA Times! I don't think so. n/t

[Better Believe It]

9. Why don't you think the article appeared in the Los Angeles Times?

[Fire1]

10. Make no mistake, I believe it was in the LA Times. I'm just not

that fond of their journalism.

[Better Believe It]

11. I'm not either so what's your point?

That we should never read, believe or post any articles or information that appear in capitalist owned media be it radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, websites, etc.,?

That would be pretty hard to do in a capitalist economy and we'd be denying ourselves access to important news and information, much of it frequently submitted by liberal and progressive journalists!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

12. i wouldn't worry so much about what the point is

People here on DU i've learned have a very VERY strong tendency to rail against the vast majority of news sources....except when even the most hated of news sources post something they agree with(then whatever is in that article is pure gospel and woe on anybody claiming otherwise)

Addition: personally i believe that Obama will start withdrawal on the date stated by him