From Taegan:
Chip Reid asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if senators were correct calling the July 2011 date for beginning to withdrawal troops from Afghanistan a “target,” meaning there was some wiggle room.
Writes Reid: “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.”
That’s comforting. I hope that we can accomplish enough in these next eighteen months to make this investment worthwhile. And I hope that the completion of the withdrawal comes quickly after the beginning of the withdrawal.
I’m glad. Thank you for sharing it.
Okay – if I had to put the best possible spin on this, I’d say this is Obama’s ruse for getting us out of Afghanistan. What’s the smallest possible thing we could do that we might consider a victory? What would that need? What’s the earliest that small thing could be accomplished?
And then he gets everyone to realize that this is it – there will be no extension – if we don’t get it done by that date, we fail. If we do by that date, we win, so get it done.
If that is truly what happens, then I’ll thank him for being shrewd and doing what needs to be done.
But it’s so hard to shake the fear that, invariable, some new obstacle will arise, and he’ll tell us he’ll pull out in his second term, and then there won’t be a second term, because the vote will have been rigged, or there’ll be this huge anti-Obama backlash, or both.
The smallest possible thing to be considered a victory?
The capture of bin Laden and Aymar Zwahiri plus Pakistan expelling all foreign troops (Uzbeks and Arabs) from Wiziristan and Quetta.
That would obviate fears that al Quaeda could re-establish itself in Afghanistan and make the rolling back of the Taliban moot.
Hard to believe that the proudly anti-Iraq War and very ambitious and smart politician Obama would loudly set up a beginning withdrawal date — something clearly his base is hanging its slender hopes on — and then not make arrangements to ensure it gets done on about that time or w/n a few months, as he begins to go into a re-elect year.
I don’t think he really would have the political capital and credibility with the war-weary public at that point of saying Sorry folks about that promise, but trust me, if you’ll just elect me again, then they’ll start to come out.
He set his date and now he’s stuck with it.
So far, he hasn’t shown the courage of a JFK with his military that some of us had hoped he could muster. But he’ll need it 18 months from now — especially if conditions over there aren’t significantly improved — if he wants to remain in office.
Eighteen months from now the political environment will be dramatically different than it is now.
Different in what way remains to be seen.
The widows and orphans vote will be larger.
Last night on Charlie Rose, Martha Radditz of ABC (obviously a fan of “Stan” McCrystal) said that the troops who will start to be withdrawn in July 2011 will only be the “surge troops”, not the 67,000 other troops that are already there. I don’t think this has been widely reported. That was an interesting show for the wide range of opinions of the speech and the plan. Some of the usual suspects, but it was worth it if only to hear what Dexter Filkins had to say. His book “The Forever War” is phenomenal.
In some respect troops are fungible. Most likely the numbers would reverse the surge numbers but the troops are likely to be those who have been there the longest, regardless of whether they came as normal replacements or as part of the surge.
If all goes well, then the remaining 67,000 will probably be drawn down in stages probably officially closing out operations before the 2012 election.
Do the troops know this?
McCain will be whingeing on Sunday.
I was thinking earlier that perhaps it has sunk in that Bush did a huge amount of damage.
After 8 years of fantasyland and meaningless words, the speech last night was a dose of reality.
Bush has a pattern of running away. He did that all though his presidency. He’s silent because he’s running away from the unholy messes he made.
One of the most damaging things Bush did was to destroy trust in a president.
Part of the problem with dealing with the reality of Afghanistan is the lack of trust and that a president isn’t lying to us.
Obama is sure catching the fallout from the rotten soulless Bush Administration.
It’s too late to do right what we should have done eight years ago.
Won’t that target date make the war longer than the Trojan War? Real_History_Lisa, please comment.
Pyrrhic War, baby:
“The two armies separated; and we are told that Pyrrhus said to one who was congratulating him on his victory, ‘If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.’“
It was the ‘defeated’ Rome that learned it could compete with Greek military dominance of the region. Militant Islam is partly in the position of the Romans.
People still claim the mantle of the Romans whenever they try to takeover the world..
Victory isn’t always what it seems, no matter how small you ‘define it down.’.
The war isn’t over when it’s over and I frankly think that militant Islam would die under it’s own weight if it ever ‘won’ a significant region to rule over. It is an opposition, revolutionary philosophy and has little potential to maintain rule for long in historical terms.
Therefore, the question for me is not fearing a new Califate or set of aligned Islamic, expansionist states and their potential projection of power inside our borders. There will always be people who stand up to power to seek their own. It isn’t even how horrific the human suffering could become as religious leaders try to cling to power within the context of inevitable economic collapse, starvation, internal power struggles, etc.
The question is whether or not we wish to be around for the next 250 years or shall we crucify ourselves attempting physical combat against ideas (killing to stop the reaction to our killing) and in pursuit of what, by definition, is unattainable (absolute ‘Security’ vs. defense). Once we’ve an answer to this, then we should worry about humanitarian or security risks.
Is it worth our own destruction to ‘protect’ the world from an enemy that much of the world in fact welcomes, especially as their ideas would not be destroyed in defeat (and even feeds upon it’s own desperation) and, as history teaches us, will only rise again under a new flag.
We must learn to accommodate Islam and they us. Where is the battle to achieve that, Mr. Obama?
Not until we are forced to flee and push the escape helicopters over the side to make room for more escapees.
The more things Change, the more they stay the same. Obama has fallen for the Rumsfeld Delusion, if we just had fought harder we could have won Vietnam. We will never “win” Afghanistan either.
I don’t know about Obama and his Rumsfeld Delusion, but I for one am about cured of any delusions I still had about American “democracy”.
If I had taken all the time I spent following the news and participating in the political process since 2000 and spent it studying, I’d be fluent in two, maybe three additional languages and have all my papers in order and my visa applications filed, and have a shot at a future out in the civilized world.
Hopefully, there’s still time to learn from my mistakes. Fare well and good luck.