Afghan Decision: Obama Will Disappoint Antiwar Americans

[tekisui]

Source: The Nation.

It’s decision time for President Obama on Afghanistan.

Most likely, the decision is already made, and here’s what it will look like. The president will order the withdrawal of up to 15,000 troops by next January, and then rest of the December 2009 “surge” will be pulled out by late 2012, in advance of the election here. That will give Obama political space to argue to antiwar Democrats and increasingly isolationist Republicans that he’s started the drawdown, while protecting himself against charges from hawks that’s he giving up on the war.

It’s not enough, and a decision like that will anger the left, many liberals, and realists who realize that the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting. Two-thirds of Americans agree with the idea that Afghanistan is a useless war, but Obama is counting on the fact that other issues, especially the economic crisis, will swamp concerns about war and foreign policy. That’s probably a safe bet, in fact. So it’s likely that Obama can get away with a bad decision to extend the war to 2014 and beyond.

Beyond, because today’s New York Times suggests that the Obama administration wants to keep as many as 25,000 troops in Afghanistan “for years or decades.” Yes, you read that correctly.

To build political support, the administration is telling every reporter who’ll listen that the killing of Osama bin Laden allows the United States to pull out forces more quickly than the military wants. Maybe so, since the military would like to keep all 30,000 surge forces in Afghanistan through 2012, except for a token withdrawal of noncombat forces. And the administration is putting out the word that Al Qaeda as an organization is crippled on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border, so that fighting Al Qaeda no longer provides a rationale for the war. Again, maybe so – but then why keep 68,000 troops in Afghanistan through 2014, as the administration plans to do?

more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/161549/afghan-decision-obama-will-disappoint-antiwar-americans

[vaberella]

1. This is not based on facts but conjecture & supposition. Why not post the facts when they come out?

n/t

[tekisui]

3. We can do both. No need to sit silently now, while decisions are

ostensibly being considered.

[vaberella]

4. Technically we can't since we don't know what's based on reality.

Most of what is said is what we've known all along, yes. But some of the stuff is assumptions with a bias towards Obama not withdrawing mass amounts. While another can do the same with withdrawals of mass numbers. In the end it brings us back to square one. Obama releasing the information directly so we can know for sure. To me it's just endless scenarios but based on unsubstantiated evidence. In the end all we have a stupid circular discussion.

[tekisui]

5. There is more to the article than conjecture, though.

Like the admission that AQ is crippled, yet we will be keeping tens of thousands of troops at least until 2015, and likely longer.

This is decision time, supposedly, so now is the time to raise awareness and challenge the pentagon and the WH on their reasoning.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. That he would keep some troops in Afghanistan through 2014

is no mystery- even though he will be removing some troops from July through then. That's been the plan all along. All the reports I've heard on the matter (so far) suggest that he supports a bigger withdrawal of troops than the military brass and outgoing Secretary Gates. Until he's actually announced what he plans to do, everything else is rampant speculation IMHO.

[CakeGrrl]

6. Another piece seemingly written in ignorance of

what was said during the campaign.

[tekisui]

7. He said he would bog us down in the Afghanistan quagmire for 6 more years,

at least? He said he would keep throwing good money after bad at the rate of $2 billion a week? He said that conditions for civilians in Afghanistan would become the worst since the 2001 invasion? He said that we would be so ineffective in our (decade long) training that not one Afghan unit is ready to act independently?

[mkultra]

8. He said he would go after bin Laden in Afghanistan

and he did. im glad for it.

[tekisui]

10. Bin Laden wasn't in Afghanistan.

Yet, 100,000 troops still are and the situation is not improving for the people of Afghanistan.

[mkultra]

14. pressure in Afghanistan was necessary to get him

Since they went back and forth, the plan, as they mentioned, was a joint push through Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It worked.

[tekisui]

16. Obama's surge in Afghanistan didn't pressure OBL into Pakistan.

He had been there for years. There is no evidence that the increased footprint in Afghanistan led to OBL's killing. That mission was done through CIA surveillance and a small force to carry out the mission.

The mission and actions to get OBL are wholly separate from the escalation and failed strategies in Afghanistan.

[mkultra]

17. Obama's strategy worked. Thats all that matters

arguing in hindsight that he didn't need to search where he wasn't is just foolish.

[tekisui]

19. His strategy to get OBL worked.

His strategy on the war in Afghanistan has been a dismal and expensive failure.

[mkultra]

23. The Afghanistan strategy was the effort to get bin laden

Its goal was to wipe out al Queda by pushing them out of Afghanistan into Pakistan and then working with the Pakistani government.

The courier that led us to Bin laden was initially picked up while running messages out of Pakistan in Peshawar which is 10 miles from Afghanistan.

Obama made it clear that he was going to put pressure on that region and he did. The end result was bin laden popped out and Al queda took a major hit.

[tekisui]

26. Mission accomplished?

So we can get out of Afghanistan now?

[mkultra]

30. Do you think killing Bin Laden finishes Al Qeada?

If you do, then i suppose you think its time to pull out. These are the people that actually tried and succeeded in killing Americans just because they are Americans. regardless of the fact that their anger is justified, they still intend on killing us as long as they can. Just because you are ok with that doesn't mean that the rest of us are.

[tekisui]

36. Ah, I see.

I anticipated this line of reasoning the day bin Laden was killed. It will be used as a justification for continued war. It will be hailed as 'making progress' and 'turning a corner'. The enemy is on the run, no time to quit now.

There is no real operational threat from AQ in Afghanistan. There hasn't been a viable attack or attempt on US mainland from them in years. The condition that the US found OBL in supports that. He was holed up and living in hiding as a has-been.

We aren't fighting AQ in Afghanistan. We are fighting insurgents who want us gone.

[mkultra]

51. well, thats an incredibly uninformed opinion but you are entitled to it

To answer your actual question though i would say that with the death of Bin laden, there is a great possibility that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan.

Saying that there is no threat from AQ in Afghanistan shows an extreme ignorance of the region and the circumstances. The same ignorance that caused Bush to fail as a matter of fact. It is well known now among people who follow the conflict that while the Taliban was very local to Afghanistan, they where supported by the non regional AQ groups who lived in the tribal region that overlaps the border of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama made it very clear when he campaigned and took office that his goal was to get AQ, which would have the effect of stopping the Taliban. Since AQ had a history of flowing back and forth across the border between the two countries he also made it clear that his strategy was to push in both countries. He said he would push hard in Afghanistan and in Pakistan to get AQ. This is exactly what he did and the end result was the death of Bin Laden.

Here is what Obama said as he deployed the surge:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-01/politics/obama.afghanistan_1_obama-afghanistan-strategy-afghan-forces-security-forces?_s=PM:POLITICS

To address your more recent points, i would say that the lack of threat from AQ shows that the Afghan part of the strategy was working. The condition bin laden lived in is irrelevant because he was still sending out dispatches to the organization. In fact that courier they followed to him was spotted 10 miles from the Afghan border after delivering in Afghanistan.

So the symbolic figure head is dead. Chances are we can start pulling out completely. If you are cynical about the reason we are there, then im sure you will filter every event through that cynicism. The end result will be invalid conclusions on your part. Try looking at the facts without the false expectations.

[Vanje]

60. There are about 50 Al queda members left in Afghanistan

according to report on NPR this morning.

50 guys.

The upshot of the news report was that the Al Queda threat in Afghanistan is pretty much gone.

50 guys - Billions and billions of dollars.



Make no mistake. We're in Afghanistan to prop up a very weak and very corrupt Karzai government.

[mkultra]

63. thats probably correct and was the goal. You proved the strategy

We blocked them off and forced them into pakistan which was expected. We found them in Pakistan and nailed them.

You have it backwards. We arent their to prop up a government. That weak government is up because we are there.

[Vanje]

57. (Tekisui)

I love you.
but you already know that

[Vanje]

56. Yes. Please nt

[Dawgs]

29. None of what you said proves that the Afganistan war got Bin Laden.

In fact, everything we have learned from the people that were actually involved is that Bin Laden was gotten through investigative techniques, not war.

I'll take their word for it. Not yours.

You want to defend Rumsfeld and Cheney for weapons of mass destruction as well. They say they were there, even though all proof shows they weren't.

[mkultra]

31. I dont have to prove it.

Its the prevailing opinion of the whitehouse, the pentagon, much of the press corps, and many Americans. The burden of proof is on you.

[Dawgs]

32. So you can say anything, and I have to prove that what you said is not true.

That's one hell of a way to argue.

Can you at least provide one quote from someone that the Afganistan war helped get OBL.

I've looked and can't find anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-us-found-and-finished-bin-laden/2011/05/02/AFXO8jZF_story.html

[mkultra]

50. lol. They say there are no stupid questions

but you are proving them wrong. This is such a blatantly obvious point that i think you should do your own research. Just as a hint, the simple fact that everyone is reassessing the Afghan strategy now that Bin Laden is dead should be obvious proof that the mission was about bin laden.

Read a book for god sake.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. That is completely untrue

All that was needed was intelligence assets from the CIA. 100,000 troops had nothing to do with it. Bin Laden was in Pakistan.

[mkultra]

25. well, that is your opinion

and an uninformed one at that. I happen to disagree. The fact still remains that Bin laden is in the bag.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. How exactly were the 100,000 troops in Afghanistan used to capture Bin Laden....

...who was living in the compound deep inside Pakistan for years? Our troops in Afghanistan were on a wild goose chase and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and wasted hundreds of US lives for nothing.

Intelligence led to the capture of Bin Laden, not military power. You don't use a sledgehammer to hit a fly. That's exactly what we attempted to do and we failed miserably, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and many US soldiers in the process.

The killing of Bin Laden proved this. The war in Afghanistan was nothing more than one big wild goose chase.

[mkultra]

52. I guess you dont understand the strategy used

Are you not aware that Bush failed because AQ flowed back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

[Cali_Democrat]

54. Bin Laden went back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001??

Link?

[mkultra]

62. although asking for media links for proof of a strategic theory is naive

Ill get you started. You really should look into the issue more. This simple fact is that we where searching for a thing that moves. That thing has been proven to move back and forth through the mountain region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Denying them movement makes them stand still.

This is exactly why bin laden was in Pakistan. because we were in Afghanistan.

http://www.criticalthreats.org/al-qaeda/examining-potential-relocation-al-qaeda-leadership-april-6-2011
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=713&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=181&no_cache=1
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/top-pakistani-official-concedes-al-qaeda-has-free-movement-in-pakistan.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/05/20/where-al-qaeda-and-the-taliban-hide-out
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/04/isaf_captures_top_is.php

[Vanje]

55. Utter crap

So...We had to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars, AND lives of American soldiers , to FORCE Usama Bin Laden to leave his cold isolated uncomfortable fucking CAVE in the mountains, and move to large and convenient villa in a pleasant small town in Pakistan. ...Pakistan! Where we sent more billions and billions of dollars so they could re-arm and support the Taliban, which , as we all should know, is a Pakistani creation.

HOw much shit do they think we can consume without getting sick?

[mkultra]

64. I would say you cannot consume anymore

You are completely full.

[Vanje]

65. Keeping it civil

Stay classy.

[JoePhilly]

40. He also said he'd kill him in Pakistan if necessary.

[tekisui]

42. You're right and I'm not disputing that.

He succeeded in getting OBL. His strategy for the Afghanistan war has been a failure and is failing to the tune of record civilian deaths, high US deaths and $2 billion a month. Oh, and Afghanistan has become the worst place for women in the world. That has happened since we've occupied the place.

[Dawgs]

11. What the fuck does that have to do with extending the war for 8 years?

..destroying our economy, our soldiers lives, and our standing in the world?

[mkultra]

15. everything. and it worked.

[Dawgs]

27. The war in Afganistan had NOTHING to do with getting Bin Laden.

Did you know that, or are you just spewing a new talking point?

[mkultra]

28. Bin laden is proof it worked.

Its my opinion and that of many others. Your the only one spewing a right wing talking point.

[Dawgs]

35. No it's not. Saying it over and over is not "proof", unless you don't know what that means.

Do you know what PROOF means?

If you do, then who are these "others" that agree with you?

[Vanje]

46. Would you be willing to lose your son or daughter.....

.....to defend the Karzai Regime??????????????????
Karzai was hand picked by Bush for his ties to gas and oil. Karzai is indisputably corrupt, and very certainly stole the election.

Are you willing to wreck our nation's economy for the Karzai Regime?
How many more American soldiers and Afghani citizens would you have die for Karzai?

How much is too much?

[mkultra]

53. I couldnt care less about the Karzi regime

and we are not their to support the Karzi regime. We are there to block off a region from AQ in order to corner them in Pakistan.

[Vanje]

58. .....while we send billions of dollars to Pakistan...

....while Pakistan funds the Afghani insurgents (Taliban, Al Queda).

You've been duped.
We've been duped.

[Vanje]

59. We've been duped

I expected the Bush administration to dupe the American people in order to get us sunk into these wars.
I did NOT expect the Obama administration to continue the lie.

That is a great disappointment to me.
It breaks my heart.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

12. That makes no sense at all.

He didn't say he would do many of the things he is criticized for in this piece, and even if he did, there is nothing wrong with criticizing him for a mistake he said he would make during the campaign.

[CakeGrrl]

18. "criticizing him for a mistake he said he would make during the campaign"

In other words, you're just going to complain no matter what the plan is, because there is no snapping one's fingers to make war magically disappear. Therefore your approach is to look at ANY plan to extract the U.S. as a "mistake" because your "solution" has no basis in reality.

[tekisui]

21. An escalation is not a plan to extract.

Further on the campaign trail he was talking about adding two brigades (about 7,000). Once in office he has added about 62,000.

Nothing in his campaign suggested he would keep troops there for an additional 6 years. And certainly it wasn't implied that we would maintain a military presence for decades.

[Vattel]

49. Huh?

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. And what else is new?

:shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Exactly

When we're pouring billions of dollars worth of resources into places like Iraq and Afghanistan, antiwar folks are bound to be disappointed. Now we're spending millions of dollars a day in Libya for that mission.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama fails to win reelection simply because of the amount of money we're spending for these adventures abroad. $2 billion a week in Afghanistan is so laughable, it's just a sick joke at this point. America is in tatters and we're spending money on something that does not benefit the American people whatsoever. The American people realize this. The sooner Obama does, the better.

[tekisui]

22. Those pesky Americans who oppose senseless and expensive wars.

Don't they know it is time to get on board and embrace any and all wars our leaders thrust upon us?

[sad sally]

47. Every drone strike in another country guarantees that the list of terrorists against the US

will never end; therefore, the need for many more wars and forever wars in both Afganistan and Iraq are just that - forever. There's an excellent chance there will be a need for more troops to return to Iraq since things there aren't as peaceful as planned.

Why is the US now shifting its military strategy to drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somilia?

- They can be carried out from thousands of miles away – from safe sites inside America.
- No Americans will die or be wounded when the person with the remote control is outside the kill zone. Both the intended targets and any misplaced civilians may be so far away that there’s no emotional or moral involvement.
- Continued and escalated use of drone wars makes them acceptable and normal.
- They can be funded through secret black ops (CIA); no congressional approval needed budgets.

I’m not advocating for Americans soldiers to be in combat (war is a racket and all of them need to be stopped), just saying that continued drone wars may have some unintended consequences.

“When terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters or just anybody with a beef with the United States are unable to hit back at a military force, but forced to sit and watch their troops, their installations and infrastructure - and, in many cases, their civilians - suffer attack upon attack by unmanned drones, it creates what Christopher Coker of the London School of Economics calls it a Collision of Psychology and Emotion.”

“Brooking Institution phrases it this way:
To some, a person who blows themselves up along with a hotel full of civilians is a shaheed carrying out a noble act of jihad. To others, that same person is a fanatical murderer committing an ignoble act of barbarity. Similarly, a pilot who uses a drone to strike with precision from thousands of miles away may see himself as a warrior fighting in full respect of the international laws of war. But 7,000 miles away that very same pilot is described by others as a coward engaging in an act of “heartless terrorism”, as the lyrics of a Pakistani pop song put it”.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Which quatrain is this?

Can't find it in the browser: http://www.nostradamus.org/qbrowser.php

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

39. People who've been calling Obama a warmonger for at least a year

Certainly are not disappointed by this time.

[great white snark]

41. Us lefties recycle-that includes disappointment.

:crazy:

[johnaries]

43. "Most likely", "NYT article suggests", give me a fucking break!

Hit piece, plain and simply. I have only one response that's on the same maturity level as this piece:

:P

[tekisui]

44. LOL! We can have this same conversation next week when Obama

unveils his plan.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Best not set your watch by that. FDL made a similar prediction only to be humiliated.

FDL set itself on fire claiming that President Obama was going to announce gutting Social Security at the January 2011 SOTU address. It had the chronic malcontents all atwitter. But y'all were left on the side of the road with your dress over your head punked once again by the predictors of horseshit. LOL.

[tekisui]

48. Ya'll? Check yourself.

I never claimed a SS cut message from the SOTU.

Like I said, we can talk next week.

[StarsInHerHair]

66. HOW CAN WE AFFORD TO STAY THAT LONG? WE HAVE FAILED CITIES NOW!

[Hippie Puncher]

67. admit it. 30,000 troops by next Summer is better than you expected.

[tekisui]

68. It is about what I expected.

5,000 this year, 5,000 by next spring and the rest of his second surge by September, which really means October.

That will leave about 70,000 (twice the number as when he took office) to stay. Ostensibly, there will be a 'steady drawdown' from then until the end of 2014. Of course, no definition of steady was given. And he failed to mention that the US and Karzai are in talks to keep US forces there for years after 2014.

What he promised is at least 3 and half more years of a lost and wasteful war. Still no end in sight.