Obama expected to announce plan to withdraw 30,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by end of 2012

[jefferson_dem]

Official: Obama expected to announce plan to withdraw 30,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by end of 2012

http://twitter.com/#!/HornickCNN/statuses/83152536298729472

[tekisui]

1. Which will still leave twice the number of troops as when he took office.

[nichomachus]

2. Hey, it takes time. He's "evolving."

[ProSense]

3. Reducing the number of

troops from 97,000 to 67,000 is significant. This should enable the administration to withdraw all troops by 2014.

[tekisui]

4. It is absurd to pretend that still having twice the troop number through

his first term is some kind of withdrawal.

"This should enable the administration to withdraw all troops by 2014."

Should, but it isn't likely. There are ongoing talks to keep forces there for years after that. This is no withdrawal, just a reduction.

[ProSense]

5. Pretend?

Obama said he would increase the number of troops in Afghanistan and did. He then announce a date for beginning withdrawal with the 2014 goal.

It's absurd to pretend that he isn't doing what he said he would do.

[tekisui]

6. He sold us a shit sandwich, doesn't make it tasty.

[ProSense]

8. Oh please

If it was a shit sandwich, it was served long before he took office.

No surprise.

[tekisui]

9. He escalated and expanded.

During the campaign he talked of two or three brigades which became 62,000 additional troops and a vast increase in contractors. May was the worst month yet for Afghan civilians, no Afghan units are are ready to operate absent our assistance and we are flushing $2 billion a week.

It is a fucking mess that Obama embraced and expanded.

[ProSense]

11. And

now he is withdrawing 30,000 troops.

Certainly, there will be a push for him to withdraw more, but the fact remains that withdrawal from Afghanistan begins.

[tekisui]

13. What about the talks to keep troops there far past 2014?

It this really a withdrawal? Or just a reduction in force?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

17. I will criticize the endless wars until they end.

Call it what you will, but when we are killing and dying unnecessarily, while breaking our treasury, I will not stop being against it.

It is so sad how Dems have learned to embrace propaganda and war, since Obama runs them now.

[phleshdef]

18. Democrats generallly embraced Afghanistan from the beginning.

Of course we didn't expect it to go ignored for several years in lieu of Iraq.

Regardless, you can't pretend like Afghanistan was suddenly embraced after Obama took office. Thats a lie.

[tekisui]

19. The majority of Dems have long been against staying in Afghanistan.

Obama only had a majority support due to the repukes undying love for war. You may be able to find other numbers, but I don't remember a majority of Dems supporting the war in Afghanistan under bush's second term. Dem support was strong at the initial invasion, but eroded quickly as we were bogged down in the quagmire.

The defense of the war in Afghanistan on DU didn't begin in earnest until it became Obama's War.

[phleshdef]

21. I was addressing your statement "It is so sad how Dems have learned to embrace... war"

And now you've made another statement in direct conflict with that statement.

"Dem support was strong at the initial invasion"

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[phleshdef]

23. I don't think most of us are "embracing war".

I for one am ready to give up on Afghanistan, at this point. But I also understand the fears of whats going to follow after we've finally given up on it. They are attempting to delay the inevitable in hopes of finding a way to make it not so inevitable. I'd normally be against that sort of thing too. But we did break it, as a nation, which means we bought it. America can't go around tearing down entire governments and engaging in years long occupations and not expect to be held responsible for at least trying to leave something manageable behind. Normally I'd say that after 10 years in a place, we shouldn't be expected to try a day longer. But considering Afghanistan was ignored as a serious effort for the vast majority of those 10 years, it doesn't seem right not to actually try first. We didn't start "trying" until President Obama's initial escalation. Nothing before that really counts.

[MissDeeds]

52. Well said

:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

20. True, but the number I am more interested to hear is the size of this year's withdrawal

In a way, putting out an end of 2012 number is a bit of sleight of hand. The numbers - whether 5,000 or 10,000 plus that others are speaking of are for THIS YEAR. I am concerned that this means that Obama is again in line with Gates and he will withdraw about 5,000 this year - while creating a "light at the end of the tunnel" with the larger 30,000 number.

But, the shift from 2011 or 2012 to 2014 happened with NATO in agreement a long time ago.

I guess having seen the Vietnam War wind down years ago, I am not as confident that we will go to zero by 2014 - or even to a nonfighting standing number like South Korea. The scary thing is that I suspect that 30,000 by the end of 2012 might give a Republican a chance to claim that he can get "victory" faster and be out there.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. 67,000 is TWICE the number as when Obama assumed office.

"So even under the most "aggressive" withdrawal plan the President is considering -- one that he and media outlets will undoubtedly tout as a "withdrawal plan"
(the headline on the NYT front page today: "Obama to Announce Plans for Afghan Pullout") --
there will still be "twice the number" of American troops in that country as there were when George Bush left office and Obama was inaugurated. That's what "withdrawal" means in American political parlance: doubling the number of troops fighting a foreign war over the course of four years."

as reported here, quoting Salon article and NYTimes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1336831

Notice the promised time schedule for us "leaving Afghanistan keep moving further and further into the future.

[phleshdef]

28. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, 160,000+ troops were deployed in combat operations in foreign wars.

On this schedule, by the end of 2012, that level will have shrank to 40% of its previous size.

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. but replaced by how many "contractors"???????

who happen to have their own planes, helicopters, weapons, and no law to adhere to?

[phleshdef]

41. The word "contractor" has become a loaded word. And I do understand why.

But the truth is, a good number of people with contractor status have nothing to do with combat. A good number of them aren't even armed. And a good number of the contractors that are or will be in Iraq to continue supporting the nation building efforts are not even Americans. Lets be clear on those facts. Yes, there were and are the Blackwater type goons that have caused all the trouble that ultimately has attributed to the loaded nature of the phrase "military contractor". But thats only describes a fraction of the type of work the whole of these contractors are involved in.

As for your actual question, I don't know what the exact number is. I know that we will still have a civilian presence in Iraq in embassies and working in installations. I know that were are going to have private contract security for these civilians. The largest number in regards to that I've read about is 7,000.

In either event, it resembles nothing like a desperate combat situation where we are occupying and attempting to control the country while fighting Fallujeh-esque battles. Thats what real war looks like. Iraq doesn't resemble anything close to that today and it will resemble it even less by the end of 2012. Regardless of how stupid it was to ever engage ourselves in the Iraq war, one simple fact has to be acknowledged and that fact is, our military has been fairly successful in securing and rebuilding something optimistic. Our men and women did an excellent job, when all was said and done. The process of winding down and ending the war in Iraq is exactly what an organized, responsible withdrawal should look like.

[tekisui]

46. It is ridiculous to try and use the numbers of soldiers in Iraq to

defend his Afghanistan policy. They are two separate quagmires. He was bound by the status of force agreement in Iraq. He tripled down and expanded in Afghanistan.

The result has been horrendous.

[phleshdef]

50. I really don't care if you think its ridiculous. I'm bringing it up and you'll have to live with it.

Its relevant for many reasons. Its relevant because the drawdown in Iraq gives us an idea of what the President believes a drawdown should look like. Its relevant because the entire number of troops deployed into combat vs when he took office vs the end of his first term can not be ignored when gauging the overall direction he is taking things in that area.

Its relevant. I will continue to bring it up. You might not like it. But your dislike will not prevent it from becoming part of the argument.

[tekisui]

53. LOLOLOL!!!!

In that case, I will bring up at every conversation Obama's unprecedented expansion of drones. More than any other president combined! He is provided a lightening rod for terrorist recruitment. Regardless of the pathetic claim that because he has reduced in one war while expanding another somehow makes him anti-war (LOL!!!), his embracing and expanding the use of drones is reprehensible and counters any reduced footprint.

Don't act like he is some humanitarian with an opposition to war.

[karynnj]

26. True, but the number I am more interested to hear is the size of this year's withdrawal

In a way, putting out an end of 2012 number is a bit of sleight of hand. The numbers - whether 5,000 or 10,000 plus that others are speaking of are for THIS YEAR. I am concerned that this means that Obama is again in line with Gates and he will withdraw about 5,000 this year - while creating a "light at the end of the tunnel" with the larger 30,000 number.

But, the shift from 2011 or 2012 to 2014 happened with NATO in agreement a long time ago.

I guess having seen the Vietnam War wind down years ago, I am not as confident that we will go to zero by 2014 - or even to a nonfighting standing number like South Korea. The scary thing is that I suspect that 30,000 by the end of 2012 might give a Republican a chance to claim that he can get "victory" faster and be out there.

I looked back on DU to Obama's December 2009 speech. There were many posts - some taking the 2011 Start of withdrawal as the end - others arguing that this was no difference than Bush. I did find someone who posted a progressive view that gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and put in context that he did not sign on to the neo-con McChrystal plan:

The President rejected the original McChrystal proposal for a gradual buildup of American forces over the next 18 months that was premised on a large American presence over a number of years. He also rejected a long-term nation-building mission in Afghanistan, focused heavily on the central government there. Instead he chose to bulk up American forces over the next six months, set an 18-month timeline to begin the disengagement of our military, and provide sharp incentives for the Afghan government to put its house in order - and develop their security forces -- immediately.

I do not personally agree that increasing the American military footprint in Afghanistan will promote stability or help us contain al Qaeda. Like many Progressives, I am increasingly convinced that our military presence there fuels the conflict by generating nationalist opposition to Western presence -- and actually destabilizes the country.

But I consider the President's decision to increase short-term troop levels to be a tactical disagreement - not a disagreement concerning goals or strategic vision. The proof of the pudding will, of course, be in the eating. Personally, I believe that by the end of his first term, President Obama will have completely withdrawn American forces from Iraq and that most combat forces will be gone from Afghanistan as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obama-progressives-and-af_b_378605.html

At the time, I would have agreed with his expectations, but, it seems that we actually slid towards what the generals wanted - rather than the decision the President announced. If this 30,000 by the end of 2012 is accurate, Obama will be nowhere near out by the end of his first term. The level will be higher than when he took office.

Even at the time, I was disappointed that Obama did not follow the less aggressive proposals of people like Reed and Kerry - and I would have been happier with Biden's counter terrorism approach, but was glad that he included in his 2009 comments that the status would be reviewed publicly and openly in December 2010. This really did not happen - instead, the timsline slid to include 2014 as a date. This spring, Kerry and the SFRC have started hearings on Afghanistan, but while they were insightful - there were NO administration witnesses. This is something that Senator Lugar has in sometimes complained about and made it clear that it is not because they were not asked. (This is a case where Senator Kerry should have publicly complained as well.)

[ProSense]

42. Yes,

and from the reports the number this year is 10,000. meaning another 20,000 next year. It's possible that withdrawal could be ramped up to make the 2014 date. It'll be interesting to see if this is addressed tomorrow.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

38. It's

fairly obvious "Orwell" is the latest meme from those who can't make a valid point.

[phleshdef]

30. With Iraqi drawdowns, there will be considerably less than half the number of troops...

...than when he took office.

[tekisui]

43. We're talking about Afghanistan troop deployment.

I know with all of our wars that last indefinitely it is easy to run them together.

[phleshdef]

45. I'm talking about foreign combat troop deployment as a policy.

And as a policy, the Obama administration will in fact be able to claim, with all validity, that it has significantly reduced the number of troops that meet that criteria.

[polichick]

35. Sure does - and there's really no excuse for that, except that the...

mic wants to keep stealing taxpayer money and foreign resources.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. subtext: the occupation of afghanistan is permanent.

[tekisui]

15. Absolutely.

[BlueIris]

10. Juvenile, lame parody of "leadership" here. This war is a disgrace, and so are those who defend it.

I am so embarrassed to have voted this into office.

[ProSense]

12. Maybe

the embarrassment should be from voting for someone who promised to add more troops to Afghanistan without knowing his position?

[tekisui]

14. On the trail he talked around 7,000, not 62,000 increase.

ANd, what the fuck other option did we have? That is such a weak argument to try to minimize criticism of bad policy because he promised a bad policy when he was running.

[zipplewrath]

31. No way he campaigned on this

He never campaigned on tripling the troops in Afghanistan, especially during the primaries. And he never advocated these troop levels for as long as he will end up being there. His primary advocacy was for greater involvement in the region right around, an in, Pakistan. He took heat for that from the GOP at the time. And he primarily advocated more diplomatic efforts, not continued military control of the entire country.

[woo me with science]

32. War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

[jefferson_dem]

34. Obamer is Booosh!

[Dawgs]

40. He also said that he was against "dumb" wars.

Can you explain how this war hasn't become dumb?

[great white snark]

25. I'd almost agree to more troops staying if the drone attacks stopped.

The drones are woefully unforgiving and too easy to deploy. There should be more of a price paid when civilians are killed.

[Kaleva]

27. It costs about $750k per year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan

It cost about $250k (in 2010 dollars) a year to keep a soldier in Vietnam during that war.

[Harmony Blue]

33. The number is too low in my opinion

45,000 -60,000, and that would indicate that the Administration is serious about a withdrawal plan.

[donheld]

54. A feeble start

[Dawgs]

37. Anyone want to explain how this hasn't become a "dumb war"?

Because candidate Obama never said anything about keeping this many troops in a war that cost this much and meant nothing for our security.

[polichick]

39. It's not "dumb" because powerful war profiteers think it's essential...

And it is essential to their bottom lines.

[DCBob]

49. Iraq was a "dumb war".. you can figure the rest out yourself.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. Meh

There will still be about 70,000 US troops bogged down in that quagmire in Afghanistan.

Hundreds of billions will continue to be wasted for nothing. The endless wars are just a sick joke at this point. Utterly laughable.

[politicasista]

47. delete. no important n/t

[DCBob]

48. Very good news indeed. There have been hints for something like this coming for weeks..

I think this is just the beginning of getting us out of there... and probably much sooner than many thought.

[tekisui]

55. It is the beginning of nothing.

We are in talks to keep troops there for years past the already conceded date of 2014.

14 years of war cannot be sold as "sooner than many thought". No matter how you slice it.

[Doctor Hurt]

56. Wow. I've only seen a few posts of yours.

and I know I don't need to see another.

[tekisui]

57. Use ignore.

Bury your head.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. damn...thought they were leaving at the end of THIS year. what

a bunch of bullshit.