June 24, 2010 Petraeus backs July 2011 Afghan withdrawal deadline

[jenmito]

From the audio at the link:

Dana Bash: Do you see yourself doing anything to change the 2011 deadline to begin troop withdrawal?

Petraeus: No, as I said, I support the president's policy and I will also provide my best professional military advice as we conduct assessments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/petraeus-supports-afghanistan-withdrawal-deadline/?fbid=_jo46F-baWs

[tekisui]

1. Still, it will be conditions-based.

No mention of numbers, rate or end date.

We'll likely be there, militarily, until 2015. Probably longer.

[jenmito]

2. As Obama always said it would be. My point is Petraeus said he will stick to

the timetable to start withdrawing troops in July '11, which it seems some people here don't believe.

[tekisui]

5. He'll stick to it if conditions allow.

There is no guarantee. It is conditional.

As everyone has repeated and Kerry emphasized it as a target that can be met, if everything goes well.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/105631-kerry-hedges-on-afghan-withdrawal-date

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is uncertain whether the United States can stick to the July 2011 withdrawal date President Barack Obama has announced.

In an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose Thursday night, Kerry said drawing down troops without a stable Afghan government and security force could have horrible consequences.

"You can certainly do what you want to do in terms of the date, but it could wind up with very serious damaging consequences that we don't want to be responsible for," Kerry said. "So I do think there are legitimate questions about where we're going to be next summer. This is going to be a looming question in terms of our foreign policy and what we need to do."

Kerry said he had "personally cautioned against" setting a date, and suggested it will be harder for Afghans to beat back the Talbian than it was for Iraqis to defeat insurgents.

"In Iraq, first of all, you have to Sunni Awakening. We don't a similar awakening, certainly not at this point in time, in Afghanistan," Kerry said.

[Jennicut]

6. The review in December is extremely important. I doubt even Petraeus can work a miracle

of COIN in Afghanistan when Karzai is not even trust worthy. I don't think it is time that is need to make a counter insurgency work there, it is that there is not an incentive for citizens there to rise up against the Taliban. Afghanistan is such a weaker society then Iraq was and with Iraq, part of it was paying Sunnis off. Kerry is right in that there is no Awakening in Afghanistan. Would Petraeus offer a deal with certain parts of the Taliban? Who knows. You can't nation build there, there is not much of a foundation to build on. We will be there forever unless Obama gets that. And if he wants to be a one term President, I don't see him wanting to not draw down troops in 2012. Unless of course, Americans don't really care.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Yes, as it should be. July 2011 is a beginning date, if conditions don't prevent it.

My understanding is that it takes a long time to withdraw. It's not just the soldiers, but also all the big equipment, small equipment, setbacks, keeping the area stable as they withdraw, etc.

[Robert DAH Bruce]

3. Translation:

"I won't talk to Rolling Stone. Or the President. I'll just change the plan quietly, as I see fit."

[jenmito]

4. Wishful thinking on your part and nothing more.

[tekisui]

7. It actually isn't a deadline.

Petraeus, the war's top military boss, said last week that he would recommend delaying the pullout if conditions in Afghanistan warranted it. Days after the date was announced in December, Gates pointedly said it was not a deadline.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jun/26/troop-pullout-in-afghanistan-set-for-next-summer/

[jenmito]

8. The reporter asked it using that word. The point is that it IS a firm date to BEGIN

withdrawal of troops.

[tekisui]

9. It is not a firm deadline. It is a target.

If the conditions don't allow, Petreaus will request more time. He could even request more troops.

At absolute best, they will try there hardest to get a couple thousand out that month. But, it isn't a withdrawal or an end to the war. It isn't even a beginning of the end.

With the Brits and Australians openly saying that they hope to bring their troops home by 2015.

[jenmito]

10. No-it's a firm date in which they will begin withdrawing troops, transferring power

to the Afghanis. The number of troops withdrawn will depend on conditions on the ground, but Obama gave the order and Petraeus will implement it.

[tekisui]

11. Time will tell.

Conditions could delay it altogether.

[MadHound]

12. So they are to "begin" withdrawing troops,

Fine weasel words, they can pull a few dozen soldiers and fulfill their promise, while the death and destruction will continue.

But hey, this gives fodder for the '12 election run where Obama can then say that he's ending the war in Afghanistan:eyes:

Meanwhile, in other statements Obama makes it clear that we're going to be staying in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Withdraw a few troops here, add a few there, in the end, we're still going to be fighting an illegal, immoral war.

[jenmito]

13. Yes, he'll begin withdrawing troops. And don't you think it would be in HIS

best interests as well as everyone else's to get the troops out as soon as possible?

Funny how Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the right war, saying he was FOR that war and against the war in Iraq, and there was very little opposition to his position THEN. He has been consistent. He's doing what he SAID he'd do.

[MadHound]

14. Consistent is nice, except when you are consistently heading in the wrong direction

It would be in the best interests of this country for us to withdraw ASAP. But the best interest of a politician? Puhlease, he's got corporate backers to satisfy among other political concerns. If it was in his best interests to get out of there, we would already be gone. Instead, he's doubled down twice now on this illegal, immoral war, and even he's said there is no foreseeable end to it at this time.

And for being against the Iraq war, funny, we're still in that one as well.

As far as keeping his campaign promises, big whoop. Doesn't mean that they aren't the wrong promises to keep. We are bleeding out money, lives and our reputation in another failed war for empire. But hey, it is making lots of money for the MIC and his corporate backers, you know, the ones who count.

[jenmito]

15. Obama is NOT heading us in the wrong direction. We're withdrawing troops in Iraq

if you hadn't noticed. Just like he promised. And he's also doing what he said he'd do in Afghanistan, the "illegal, immoral war" as you call it. You may not like it, but he ran on it and WILL withdraw our troops, beginning July '11 as he said.

[MadHound]

16. Just because he ran on it, just because it is his war now doesn't make it right.

Funny how Afghanistan was a bad war before Obama's election, but now that he's running the show, miraculously it's all good. Hypocrisy much?

As far as Iraq goes, well they're already pretty much conceding that we'll be out of there in August.

Oh, and if you think Obama is going to withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan, well I've got some prime swampl. . .er real estate to sell you.

[jenmito]

17. Afghanistan was NOT a bad war before Obama's election. NO hypocrisy

from ME nor most others who, back in the Bush years, were angry at Bush for taking attention AWAY from Afghanistan to invade IRAQ which was the bad war. Memory loss much?

Obama is getting our troops out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, although Afghanistan will be more difficult. The point of my thread is to show that Obama's position didn't change with the appointment of Petraeus as some here have claimed.

[AtomicKitten]

19. "I support the president's policy."

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

20. And that's what it's all about. Meanwhile, McCain is on MTP undercutting

both Petraeus and Obama, claiming that Petraeus is NOT doing the right thing by following Obama's policy, but that he's "in a tough position" by "having to" follow Obama. Hmmm...I wonder if he thinks Petraeus is BETRAYING the country by "signaling to the enemy" and not doing what's best for the country in HIS opinion. :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

21. Poor old geezer. Maybe somebody forgot to tell him he lost the election.

:hi:

[jenmito]

22. The media is still trying to keep him relevant...

and he's more than happy to comply. But every time he's on tv, I bet the majority of people are just reminded of how lucky we are that he LOST.
:hi: