President's Eye to an Afghanistan Exit is a Step in the Right Direction

[bigtree]

I'M of the opinion that our military forces' very presence and activity is ultimately counterproductive and antithetical to even the most modest goals outlined by the president and others in support of our dominant role in the NATO operations there. I don't think the U.S. has demonstrated over the eight-year plus occupation of Afghanistan that the force of our military is effective at nation-building far beyond the line that our occupying forces draw in the sand. The U.S. clearly can't remain in Afghanistan in defense of the regime in Kabul indefinitely, and the rising levels of violence and deaths in concert with the recent build-up of forces there suggests that our occupying army may be the most aggravating element perpetuating the seemingly never-ending cycle of attacks and reprisals.

While it may seem perfectly reasonable and expected that President Obama would be looking to cast the future of our forces there in definitive terms as he looks at the declining support for the endeavor in U.S. polls and wonders where his 'peace dividend' is going to come from, he deserves a great deal of credit (if reports of his intentions are accurate) for acknowledging the need for an end to the militarism at all.

There is bound to be a desire in the new administration to set in motion some sort of 'doctrine' which encompasses Democratic ideals and prescriptions for the conflict which transcend the military operations; like the initiative in Congress by John Kerry and others to ramp-up the non-military aid and assistance to Pakistan and Afghanistan; and others, like Sen. Levin's emphasis on 'trainers' to buck up the Afghan army so they can assume whatever security needs our own troops have been shouldering. These initiatives, although certainly alternatives to conflict, will nonetheless still require troops to facilitate them - if not an increase, certainly not bearing an immediate reduction.

Further, the national security 'goals' in Afghanistan that the president and the Secretary of State have outlined as essential to our future involvement ('defeating al-Qaeda' and 'denying a safe-haven') can be taken to mean anything from a hard and long stand, to a re-focus away from defending Kabul and a dicey focus on Pakistan with the prospect of increased use of 'drone' attacks and covert raids on 'enemy' positions across the sovereign borders.

Yet, this president has no apparent interest in assuming the mantle of a 'war president' as Bush so opportunistically did after 9-11 to cover for his lackluster domestic agenda. This president campaigned on domestic priorities which are increasingly threatened by the cost of continuing (or escalating) the dual occupations he's yet to draw down an inch. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama has as much enthusiasm for making Afghanistan the centerpiece of his foreign policy as Bush did with Iraq. Gone are the last president's references to 'spreading democracy' and the 'center of the terror war'.

Gone is the arrogant sense of ownership Bush assumed toward his Iraq prize; replaced, nonetheless by the same Bushian justifications that there's something in Afghanistan that threatens America which can be defended against by our invading and occupying forces.

Also absent from this new administration's rhetoric is any illusion that there will be some rallying of allies around this president's own prosecution of the persistent, grudging vengeance against the remnants and ghosts of the original 9-11 fugitive suspects. Indeed, America will soon be standing almost alone in Afghanistan if the president doesn't find a way to define the mission there in terms of some eventual resolution or end.

That's what UK's Brown was compelled to do this week as he faced even more resistance from his countryfolk to the further sacrifice of British life and limb in Afghanistan and sought to declare and end-goal while making certain he didn't shut the door to whatever strategy or purpose President Obama is planning to announce in the coming weeks. The prime minister's speech was mostly a contradiction of intentions as he declared Britain's 'security' was at stake - committing to more troops, yet calling for a timetable for withdrawal and an international conference to be held in London next year.

"It should identify a process for transferring district by district to full Afghan control, and if at all possible, we should set a timetable for transferring districts to Afghan control starting next year, in 2010," the prime minister said in his annual foreign policy speech.

Indeed, NATO has said this week that it expects to transfer control of unnamed districts in Afghanistan to local control by 2010, so it's to be expected that President Obama should also accept that assessment and formulate a plan which accommodates NATO as far as he can find support among the participating nations. There is a question, however, whether the president will go as far as Brown in calling for the politically sensitive 'timetable', or even defining some end which the opposition party in the U.S. could characterize as 'signaling' any type of 'surrender' to the militarized resistance.

As is the case with most new American presidents, Mr. Obama will have a brief opportunity formulate his own unique policy; to set a course in Afghanistan which will motivate support (or not) here at home and abroad. By delaying the decision on the recommendations by his generals to escalate the occupation, the president has already distanced himself from the reflexive kowtowing to the Pentagon that characterized the last war-loving administration.

Now, in that new light, President Obama will be challenged to decide where the military forces that were employed by the constant politics of the last WH fit in with all of the Democratic ideals he's expressed so far. I'm, of course, hoping for a clean sweep. I expect, for now, that we'll see more of a dusting of priorities, albeit with an eye to some kind of eventual end. That may not be enough for my antipathy to the occupation, but it's certainly a start in the right direction.

[tekisui]

1. I largely agree with this. An exit strategy must be part of any new

approach, and the President seems to be heading in that direction. But, I would be dubious of any exit plan that starts with an increase in troops.

[bigtree]

2. I see folly in an increase, as well.

I just don't see how the president is going to effect any of his initiatives he's already outlined for Afghanistan without at least adding 'training forces' as NATO is requesting. He needs the coalition . . . though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they welcomed an about-face. Given Britain's Brown's posture, though, I wouldn't expect the president to make a decision far outside that of his most enduring ally.

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. Why would that be? It takes a lot to move out all of our equipment.

Plus the exit plan will be several years I'm sure.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-iraq_09int.ART.State.Edition2.4be781f.html

"JOINT BASE BALAD, Iraq – There is no more visible sign that the United States is putting the Iraq war behind it than the colossal operation to get its stuff out: 20,000 soldiers, nearly a sixth of the force, is assigned to a logistical effort aimed at dismantling some 300 bases and shipping out 1.5 million pieces of equipment, from tanks to coffee makers.

It is the largest movement of soldiers and materiel in more than four decades, the military said.

By itself, such a withdrawal would be daunting, but it is further complicated by attacks from an insurgency that remains active; the sensitivities of the Iraqi government about a visible U.S. presence; disagreements with the Iraqis about what will be left for them; and consideration for what equipment is urgently needed in Afghanistan."

[bigtree]

4. well,

. . . let's see the plan before comparing his intentions in Afghanistan to Bush's unilateral withdrawal agreement with the Maliki regime. As you know, there isn't a NATO force in Iraq, just a troop training agreement for outside of the country.

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. I'm sure any plan will not meet your strict requirements.

Myself I would go with about a five year plan. Gives plenty of time to salvage what we can, still fight Al Queda and the Taliban, and we can still be prepared from now on to leave with short notice. Doubt we will ever hear the full exit plan, but I bet a lot of it will be nation building which I know is a hated word in both republican and Democratic circles, but I fell it must be done or nothing will change, and we will only be drawn into future conflict.

[bigtree]

6. you're absolutely right on that. I don't anticipate any plan which would meet my wish

. . . for a deliberate withdrawal. I think the rest of what you describe is mostly a vain pursuit which I don't believe would bear any of the 'fruit' advocates of continuing say they want or need out of the occupation. I'm not sure this administration wants to tie their involvement there to the uncertain government. I think they'll keep their justifications outside of a direct link with preserving the regime. 'Denying' al-Qaeda a safe-haven can also mean a border defense with Pakistan, since the military and the administration assert that they've routed the terrorists into Pakistan. It doesn't necessarily have to be a direct defense of what they've mostly admitted is an incorrigibly corrupt regime.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. He is, indeed, looking for a way out. "Vietnamization" is the next attempt at CYA.

I think it's vain to hope for a "clean sweep". Obama and his political advisers are well aware of the dangers of acknowledging another lost war. I believe that he will drag it out by with a strategy of blame sharing until, at least, 2012. And, there's plenty to go around. Bush's initial invasion. The pentagon's FUBAR of the whole operation. Pakistan's reluctance to participate. Lack of support from the "allies". And, of course, "The left's" opposition to the continued slaughter.

He's searching, vainly, for "Peace with Honor".

Unfortunately, for him, continuing the war, under any pretext, is only going to expand the opposition to it.

[bigtree]

8. yes, Tierra_y_Libertad

. . . there is the question of how he'll deal with the politics. My hope is that he'll put politics in its place as he makes his decision, but the fact that he'll need support for his 'plan' in the future, here at home and abroad, means that politics will indeed play a large part in his ultimate decision. Spot on, though, with the worst case scenario.

[tekisui]

9. I would argue that, politically, his only option is to begin withdrawal.

Their is nothing more politically to be gained there(other than the body of OBL or al-Zawahiri). By staying involved, he is using the neo-con frame. Any excuse given to remain will be used against him.

The reason being, he will not do it the way the most rabid right hawks want. They will criticize and blame each following problem in the AfPak region on Obama for not 'giving what the generals requested'.

On the left he will be criticized for ANY escalation and anything that is not the beginnings of an exit.

If he goes all in with the generals' plans, he loses the left, and the right will continue to attack for something else.

His only political viability, as far as I can see, is to frame the war as 'as good as it will get'. Turn rummy's line on its head and say, 'You leave as the conditions are, not as you wish the conditions were'. If we are to wait around and dump lives and money into Afghanistan until it reaches some clear point at which we can say 'victory', we will never leave.

Let's point to the successes(there are some) and get out. Turn it over to humanitarian agencies and UN diplomats.

[bigtree]

10. so he'll be damned any way he goes

I've heard more than one statement from the president in the interim since his last increase of troops indicating that he's anxious to let go of at least the nation-building part of the mission. But I think he's going to fold in somewhat behind what NATO wants because he's also beholden to the politics surrounding holding the allies in place as best he can. Hell, he should be working to increase the international force to at least lessen the U.S. 'footprint' there.

That said, T-y-L has a good point that his rhetoric is likely to be more impressive than his actual movement away from Afghanistan, at least in the short term.

[bigtree]

11. .

[L0oniX]

12. I'm still waiting to see if Obama will keep his word to have us out of Iraq...

by the end of the 18 months that he said he would do.

[bigtree]

13. a lot of signs say yes

. . . although I'm not as jazzed about it because he's bound to designate those troops for deployment into the other 'misadventure'.

[bigtree]

14. .

[bigtree]

15. kick

[bigtree]

16. kick