Obama ties himself in 2011 knots

He's asking for 20 months (0.00 / 0)

plus a whole lot of money and Americans to give their lives.  Do you think the timeframe is to pressure Karzai as well as progressives who would defintely reject an open ended engagement but who may support or at least decent without obstructing?

Think Martha will change her Afgan policy after she finds out George Will and the NYT has changed their Afgan policy?  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 01:12:33 AM CST

20 months* (5.00 / 1)

if everything on the ground gets better and we can somehow train enough people in Afghanistan to form their own military, neither of which is likely to happen. All of that means the 20 months gets pushed out indefinitely or we leave without achieving any of Obama's objectives, because the political reality of the situation forces Obama (or whomever defeats him) to do so. In terms of the country's objectives when we went into Afghanistan, those objectives are more or less achieved. We've defeated the Al Qaeda there and the Taliban isn't interested in harboring them anymore. The time to get out is now, the time for military action there is over; it's time to let the Afghan people decide what happens there now.


---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:20:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We've already defeated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (4.75 / 4)

There's no longer a major force of them in the country. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer natural allies -- and even the Taliban is seemingly looking for an end to the conflict. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...

Our objectives have been achieved. We can't decide how Afghanistan is governed; that has to be up to the people of Afghanistan. When we tried to decide how the government was formed, it resulted in a corrupt government with little power. We cannot possibly train a large enough military of Afghans to defeat the Taliban, a country with a literacy rate of 10% and poverty of the scale seen in few other places on earth. If we don't pursue non military means of ending this conflict, we're never going to get out of there. Staying there longer will only make it harder and more painful to get out, with an increasingly smaller means of ending this through some kind of settlement.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 02:12:13 AM CST

The Taliban is different in 2009 than in 1999. (0.00 / 0)

In 1999, the Taliban had not ever ruled Afghanistan.  They were a political/religious movement and most Afghans thought "OK, we'll give them a chance, they've got to be less corrupt."

Now, the Afghan people know the Taliban are corrupt and just made things even worse for them.  Worrying that the Taliban will retake the whole of Afghanistan is worrying about something unlikely, very unlikely.

Moreover, if Al Qaeda ever regroups in Afghanistan, the US will, without hesitation, bomb their camp into dust.

We don't need to keep occupying them.

25 Percent of US children are on food stamps.  We should stop sending money to support Karzai, and instead use that money to support Americans in America.  Create a new Works Progress Administration and create jobs.  (BTW, do you believe that email from Valerie Jarrett about holding a jobs summit in your own neighborhood?  How stupid is that?  I have a job and don't have time to do it.  And for the many who don't have a job, what the heck is holding a summit going to do for them?)

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:10:14 AM CST

Unbelievable... (0.00 / 0)

When I bought the Melissa Etheridge Christmas CD in November 2008, I didn't expect that these lyrics would be relevant over the three upcoming years.  Obama's legacy:

The girls are down at Ruby's
Trying to find some Christmas cheer
There's not much to do but drink too much
When everyday's unclear
So here I am on Christmas eve
This silent holy night
And I reach up to the stars for you
And I pray that you're alright

Hey mister send my baby home
This December I don't want to be all alone
Oh Christmas in America
I need you in my arms
Far away from harm
Mister send my baby home

--"Christmas in America" by Melissa Etheridge.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:22:36 AM CST

An Interesting Point (0.00 / 0)

Listening to NPR this morning, a guest commentator made an interesting point in regards to the 18 month time commitment.

He ventured that the president was speaking to 3 different audiences with the timetable.  The first being the American people, the second being the Afghan and Pakistani people, and the third being the Taliban and whatever is left of Al Qaeda.

While the time line reassures the first two constituencies that this isn't a never-ending war, it also puts pressure on the Afghan government to deal with it's corruption.  The argument against the time line is that the third constituency will see this as an opportunity and possibly "wait it out".

The point the writer was making was that the president had to make a choice on which constituencies weighed heavier on his decision making and the overall goal of the mission.  Obviously the first two weighed heaviest.  

Proverbs 10:14

---

by: AlexSWill @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:33:17 AM CST

There is no gamble. (5.00 / 1)

The President made it clear that he will not pursue an open-ended commitment.  That he will begin to withdraw our troops in 18 months and with no consideration for the conditions on the ground.  Win or lose (or, almost certainly, something in between), Obama made it clear to the Afghan people and government that our efforts to help them will end ("So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.")

This isn't a gamble at all.  It is a policy and one that Obama has decided is preferably to that supported by McCain and others who "call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade."

Then, he (and the speech writers) explain clearly why he has decided in favor of a set date for withdrawal and against a "conditions on the ground" approach:

"I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."

What could be clearer?

---

by: theloquaciousliberal @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:33:42 AM CST

"18 months and with no consideration for the conditions on the ground" (0.00 / 0)

That's distinctly not what he said:

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.

Translation of the bolded text: "if things still suck, we won't leave."  Simple as that, I think.

---

by: David @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:23:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree. (0.00 / 0)

There is no conditional statement made here (or elsewhere in the speech).  

Yes, the transition will be "responsible" and the details will "take into account" conditions on the ground.  But  "we will execute this transition."

I understand that the statement you quote is probably purposefully a little vague.  Obama made an attempt to deflect the anticipated criticism from the vocal "we must never set a timetable" crowd.  But, read in context, the President has made a firm and unconditional commitment to withdrawal.  And he has set a date certain (July 2011) to begin.

Other parts of the speech (in addition to the full text quoted in my original post) back up my interpretation:

"But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home.... That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

"We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours."

"It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan."

"And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron."

---

by: theloquaciousliberal @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:48:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My reading (0.00 / 0)

is that he's left himself just enough wiggle room to, well, wiggle, should circumstances demand it.

I mean, really, if come mid-2011 the Taliban are maybe pushed back a bit from where they are now but still strong in some areas; there's still no real control in the border regions; and things still seem a bit iffy in Pakistan (all of which strike me as pretty likely), is Obama really going to say, well, we gave it a shot but it didn't work, so good night and good luck?  If, as he said last night, the vital security interests of the U.S. depend on doing better than that, how can we then leave?  

---

by: David @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:46:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you are both right: the speech was incoherent in this regard (6.00 / 1)

There is no way that I can see to reconcile these two statements unless there is a huge improvement in Afghanistan over the next 20 months.

A. Victory in Afghanistan is a vital national interest.

B. We're going to start withdrawing in July 2011 no matter what.

If the situation does not improve by July 2011 -- let's say it gets much worse, which it might, since war is unpredictable -- Obama will have to argue that Afghanistan then is no longer such a big deal (hard to do after this speech) or not withdraw and, perhaps, add even more troops (which will make him look impetuous and inexperienced for having made such a big promise he can't fulfill). That's the gamble.

Maybe what he is thinking is that he will hire more mercenaries from Triple Canopy if the Army can't do the job -- in effect, outsourcing the war.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:42:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You may be right. (0.00 / 0)

I am very disturbed by the statements at today's Congressional hearing:

Sec. Gates (reportedly): "The secretary said he thought the United States would be in a position by December 2010 to determine whether it could begin a withdrawal by July 2011."

Gates direct quote: ""It is our plan to begin this transition process in July 2011, the president always has the freedom to adjust his decision."

Sec. Clinton: ""I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving, but what we have done is signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan, or running their country, or building their nation."

I still think Obama's speech was less equivocal than some on the left have suggested and that these are new post-speech spin statements in response to direct conservative criticism of the "arbitrary date" strategy.

But, some wiggle room appears to be opening. Ugh.

---

by: theloquaciousliberal @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:01:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I want to trust Obama (0.00 / 0)

I really do. He inheritied this mess, and the success or failure of this plan pretty much could be a primary (along with health care) issue in 2012. Options:

1. start to disengage now.

Pros: Appeals to the base (us). Gets us out of a bad war. Gives us a chance to declare victory, in a way.

Cons: The Afghan gov't clearly is not ready to lead. We all pretty much know the Taliban would come back almost immediately, meaning we'd have to reinvade at some point, probably sooner than later.

2. status quo.

Pros: It's not a surge.

Cons: It's not working. It makes obama look and seem indecisive and like he's treading water.

3. "surge". Troop buildup, enhanced training efforts of the Afghan military, clean out the hills and valleys of taliban guerrillas, create security infrastructure...  

Pros: Could it work? Is there a path to training the Afghans to take over? Is this actually the best way to get us the hell out of that country in 2 years?

Cons: We're not very good at nation building. Iraq still can't defend itself after all these years. Afghanistan has never proven a compliant country. Nobody really believes that if we leave in 2 years the Taliban won't be back with strength to challenge the Afghan gov't. So does this just mean we will re-invade after re-election instead of before?

It's hard to get behind the troop buildup. But the other options kind of suck too.

---

by: thinkingliberally @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:40:13 AM CST

He hit it out of the park! (0.00 / 0)

I was so gratified last night to hear the President coherently lay down the stakes, remind us why we went there and why we are still there, and present a well-thought-out strategy for getting to where we need to be and winding down our involvement.  I hope this will give pause to those so angry at the previous administration that they have stopped distinguishing between our involvement in Afghanistan and our involvement in Iraq.

---

by: Christopher @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:44:19 AM CST

It's all about buying time (6.00 / 1)

On the one hand, President Obama said throughout his campaign
that Afghanistan-Pakistan was a more urgent national security priority than Iraq, and that he would increase troops in the former while reducing them in the latter.

On the other hand, the social-cultural reality in Afghanistan cannot produce the kind of reliable, professional Afghan military and police/security force necessary to a stable, viable State.

Especially not in 20 months.

There general populace evince little substantive identity with nor loyalty to a nation called "Afghanistan" whose laws & leaders they will respect, and for which they will put their lives on the line as police and soldiers. Kharzei or anyone else won't get them there on our exit strategy timeline, either.

It seems unlikely to me that with these additional troops, however, that "conditions" will worsen by 07/2011. More likely, they'll stay the same or improve very modestly, after which Obama will slowly draw back down to today's troop by level by maybe 12/2011.

By re-election time, troops will be on the way home and the administration will be able to argue they neither quit on Afghanistan nor reneged on their promised exit strategy.

A politically-advantageous coincidence, perhaps, but I don't see enough that is different in Obama's approach from what's been tried the past 3 years. "A little more time with a few more troops" is the problem, not the solution.

---

by: ThrobbingPatriot @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 08:46:13 AM CST

"The president has made a promise he may not be able to deliver on, and set himself, and his supporters, up for a fall." (0.00 / 0)

"The president has made a promise he may not be able to deliver on, and set himself, and his supporters, up for a fall".

Ummm... do you STILL really expect anything else from him at this point?

Unemployment held under 8% with "stimulus" / Closing GTMO by January 2010 / No lobbyist in administration / No earmarks in legislation / Legislation posted for 5 days before signing into law /  Repeal Don't ask Don't Tell / Transparency /  Debate being open and televised (HEALTH CARE!!) /  Extending deadline to withdraw from Iraq / Military Commissions for some, Federal Trial for others, and just plain INDEFINITE detention for the many detainees

The more things "CHANGE" the more they stay the same.

Hold his feet to the fire.  

 

---

by: Kemo @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:11:12 AM CST

Waste of time, money, lives, everything (0.00 / 0)

You can't transfer power to a government that, for all intents and purposes does not exist in a geographical location that is only defined as a country by the borders demarcated by the nations surrounding it.  

Obama is giving 20 months to try and achieve...what?  There is no victory scenario.  There never was.  Bush didn't have one and neither does Obama.  

So we're going to stay in this place that isn't really a country to try and empower a government that more or less doesn't exist so that we can acheive our end goal of ::mumble mumble mumble::.

I think it's time to bring our men and women who are over there home.  If it makes Obama look like a surrender monkey and costs him another term as president, then so be it.  At least for the rest of my life I'll remember that action as benevolent political matyrdom that I will respect and teach my children to respect.  

---

by: JoeTS @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:39:38 PM CST

I hope that's his plan... (0.00 / 0)

...He's "just" asking for a 20 month surge to see if he can leave it in better condition than he found it. If he does get out in 20 months, nobody will complain on the left. If he mires us in further, he may have a convention battle in 3 years.

---

by: thinkingliberally @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:53:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A GW Bush moment. (0.00 / 0)

nullnullis the comments of Democrats (We know what to expect of Republicans.) that, once against the Republican Party war, now embrace the Democratic Party war.  Ah, the party-over-country crowd...

Too much money still on the table in this war for the politicians to walk away.  

---

by: Howland Lew Natick @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:29:16 PM CST

A GW Bush moment. (0.00 / 0)

It was the speech GW would give if he had the abilities of Barack Obama.  It was clear, enunciated well, to the point.  Underneath the verbiage, the message was that the party changed, but the government hasn't.  

What's most interesting is the comments of Democrats (We know what to expect of Republicans.) that, once against the Republican Party war, now embrace the Democratic Party war.  Ah, the party-over-country crowd...

Too much money still on the table in this war for the politicians to walk away.  

---

by: Howland Lew Natick @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:29:18 PM CST

Gee, (0.00 / 0)

I didn't sense any tangle of knots in the speech last night. Certainly, there is a politically pressured time limit on our engagement, although like everything else, we'll see when the time comes how solid it is. What I heard, though, was clearly spoken, without any ers or uhs. The real argument, like everything else, is if you don't agree with the plans, then you think it was a poorly presented speech, and if you can support the plan, well then it was a good speech.

---

by: af @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 16:13:08 PM CST

Presentation was fine, substance was a huge gamble (0.00 / 0)

theloquaciousliberal's citations above from Gates and Clinton are exactly to the point. Unfortunately for Obama's political future, his opponents won't let him off so easily as that esteemed BMGers "ugh." If a withdrawal doesn't begin by July 2011, Obama's judgment and ability to serve as commander in chief will be subjected to a merciless attack -- as, I am afraid to say, it should be. So, let's hope he's right and the war can be well on the way to won within 20 months.

Personally, I doubt it, but I'm happy to be proved excessively pessimistic.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 16:50:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]