Is Obama Bullshi*tting About 18 Month Afghan Withdrawal to Appease War Critics?

[IndianaGreen]

Is Obama Bullshi*tting About 18 Month Afghan Withdrawal to Appease War Critics?

Miles Mogulescu
Entertainment attorney, Academy Award-nominated filmmaker, writer, activist
Posted: December 7, 2009 01:02 PM

After watching Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton on Meet The Press on Sunday, and parsing the words of Obama's own speech at West Point, it unfortunately seems that the answer is "yes".

Obama was faced with a political dilemma. He had decided to give the Generals most of what they wanted by escalating to over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. But he faced a country at home divided down the middle on the War with a majority of his own supporters opposing escalation. So to quiet critics, he threw them a bone. He would escalate the War. But he made it appear to War skeptics that the escalation would only last 18 months. This would hopefully be enough to quiet the critics, and marginalize those who wouldn't be quiet.

Even on its face, however, a policy of escalating and simultaneously setting a deadline to begin withdrawal is nonsensical. In his West Point speech, President Obama declared that sending additional troops to Afghanistan is "in our vital national interests". If that's so, the logical conclusion is that we should send as many troops as it takes, and keep them there as long as it takes, to defeat the Taliban.

President Obama proclaimed that "We will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months." From Obama's lips, to God's ears, as they say.

But what happens in 18 months if, as is equally likely, the Taliban's momentum is not broken and the capacity of the Afghan government, army and police force is not substantially increased? Will the stability of Afghanistan suddenly no longer be "in our vital national interest" so Obama will start to substantially withdraw American troops anyway? To do so would, by Obama's own logic, be an abandonment of America's "vital national interest". Having committed over 100,000 American troops to the war effort (and by then having suffered several thousand casualties), Obama will have little choice but to maintain the War effort and keep the troops there indefinitely, or be accused of surrendering to America's enemies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/is-obama-bullshitting-abo_b_382773.html

[polly7]

1. I don't see them ever leaving.

"We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times," said Gen. James L. Jones, the president's national security adviser, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union." "We're going to be in the region for a long time."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/07

[aquart]

2. No, I think the poor dear believes it.

[Chulanowa]

3. I have a question

Since the war started in Afghanistan, the US has suffered 932 fatalities and 2,688 soldiers wounded and relieved of duty.

Why is it assumed that thousands and thousands are going to die in the next 18 months?

[IndianaGreen]

5. I suppose in that world view, Afghans are a sub-human species

so their being slaughtered by the US is no more disturbing than calling the Orkin man to kill roaches.

[Chulanowa]

6. Did you read the article before you posted it?

"Having committed over 100,000 American troops to the war effort (and by then having suffered several thousand casualties), Obama will have little choice but to maintain the War effort and keep the troops there indefinitely, or be accused of surrendering to America's enemies."

That line's not talking about Afghans, Indiana.

As for Afghans being sub-human species... Are you describing your own philosophy here? Because, well, your position is "we assfucked their country, left them to rot in their own filth, and now that the Taliban are coming back and chopping off heads, fuck 'em, let them all die. We don't owe them a goddamned thing."

[madrchsod]

8. would you like to take out your wallet and contribute?

no thousands of americans won`t die but do we have the money to wage war to protect the pipelines?

here`s the cost of these two wars

http://costofwar.com/


personally i`m behind two mortgage payments and 15,000 and counting medical debt....

nope i ain`t got no money for no more wars....

[Chulanowa]

9. I've chipped in my part of the two billion from Seattle

So! Where have you been for the last eight years, my friend? 'Cause these things ain't exactly new, now are they?

[bertman]

12. The plan seems to be to secure population centers at strategic points. That's going to

require troop concentrations near those centers, whether they are villages, towns, or cities. Troop concentrations draw enemy attacks. Enemy attacks result in casualties on both sides and especially among innocent locals who get caught in the crossfire or who get "droned" or suffer the terminally ill effects of an errant bomb or rocket.

That's why I assume that we will see several thousand more of our troops die in the next two years. And a hell of a lot more Afghanis will die than will Americans. Afghanis who aren't Taliban.

Just my opinion.

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. What's becoming clear is that he will say anything to continue the bush agenda.

Sorry. I need a hope refill.

[madrchsod]

7. same fucking bullshit my generation went through in the 60`s.

we just had a vietnam war chicken shit drunk fly boy running this country for 8 yrs. "winning the minds and hearts" bullshit did`t work in vietnam and it ain`t going to work in afghanistan.

american blood, guts, and money to make the gas and oil pipelines safe for europe,india ,and china.

[Chulanowa]

10. Have you ever noticed...

That everywhere is "Vietnam" to your generation? No matter the situation, no matter the reason, no matter the engagement, it's always Vietnam.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam. Iraq was very similar, but Afghanistan is Afghanistan.

The differences? Iraq and Veitnam both had us fighting a popular insurgency. Iraq's main difference from Vietnam was that it was urban combat - we may have had a chance early in Vietnam, but we had zero chance in Iraq (particularly after 12 years of our peaceful genocide against the Iraqis).

Afghanistan, on the other hand, is facing a highly unpopular insurgency. The only people who want the Taliban in power are the Taliban themselves. The huge problem in Afghanistan's situation is US neglect for our own forces and our allies in the region.

[polly7]

13. Do you really think anyone cares if the Taliban are in power

here in the west, apart from any control they may have over that pipeline? I don't. When the CIA gives VIAGRA to warlords to take home to their little girl wives, the Afghan women want their OCCUPIERS to leave ....... nah. Only NATO is so conscientious and caring we believe Afghani's can't fix their own country ....... we have to do it for them. And reap whatever spoils we can along the way. It's bullshit. I wasn't old enough to know much about Vietnam, but it sounds like the same useless, hopeless, disgusting loss of life ..... for whatever is the cause of the day. NO, they don't care about the people of Afghanistan. If they did, they wouldn't be killing civilians with drones and now a surge that will guarantee the death of more. What makes us in the west believe we have any right 'fixing' lol any ME country? How arrogant and brutal we are.

[Skittles]

11. LOL

anyone who can't see the chronic bone tossing Obama does has their head up their ass

[Alcibiades]

14. It may be a chance to declare victory and get the hell out

One of the things that happened in Iraq is that the Bush administration set three goals that, if not impossible, could be inherently contradictory. The goal was a stable, unified, democratic Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror. it would be unlikely for all of these conditions to be met.

With health care, the Obama administration has set vague, fungible principles rather than specific, concrete policy goals. It may be the case that they are doing something similar in Afghanistan: set up a "surge" (which is the new policy initiative that we are to think is responsible for the observed "change," claim any little sign of progress as progress (12% reduction of attacks in Helmand Province!), declare victory and get the hell out, claiming to have secured peace with honor.

Leaving Afghanistan, of course, as fucked up as always, but if we set fixing all of Afghanistan's problems as the military objective, we will never withdraw.

The other possibility is that he's in it to win, like LBJ in Vietnam If victory is defined as something like total annihilation of the Taliban, then we will, in fact, never get out.