Lizza: Obama Makes Good on his Promise

[Pirate Smile]

Obama Makes Good on his Promise

Posted by Ryan Lizza

Tonight, President Obama will announce a timetable for withdrawing the “surge” troops sent to Afghanistan that is bolder than many expected. Though the news is slightly surprising, it’s worth noting that Obama’s aides have been arguing for a very long time that the President was serious about the Afghan withdrawal. This past spring, when I was reporting on Obama’s foreign policy, here’s what Ben Rhodes, a deputy national-security adviser, told me about drawing down troops:

We’ve done that in Iraq. And in Afghanistan, we’re going to begin to implement that approach in July. But there shouldn’t be any doubt about that. And anybody who does doubt that should just look at how the President kept his commitment in Iraq. When he says he’s going to steadily draw down U.S. forces, he means what he says.

It’s also worth noting that most of the key players who opposed the surge in 2009 have been promoted or now have greater influence in the White House: Joe Biden, Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough, John Brennan, and Rhodes. Meanwhile, most of the pro-surge officials are gone or on their way out or moving into new jobs (Bob Gates, Michael Mullen, Stanley McChrystal, and David Petraeus).

One of the themes of my piece about Obama’s foreign policy was that the President seemed to be growing in office as he dealt with a series of complicated foreign-policy crises. Two case studies of that growth and confidence are the evolution in his policy on democracy in the Middle East and the evolution of his policy on Afghanistan. On the former, Obama moved from a crabbed realist pose to a more risky but principled embrace of democracy, even at the expense of stability. On Afghanistan, it is a story of Obama growing from a cautious new President, overly deferential to his military advisers, into a commander in chief asserting control over them.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/06/obama-afghanistan-policy.html#ixzz1Q2wJfgUG

[MannyGoldstein]

1. After the drawdown there'll still be twice as many troops as when Obama took office

Catastrophe.

I'm beginning to think that Obama actually wants a Romney presidency.

[CakeGrrl]

3. He said he would INCREASE troop levels, and he did.

Now that they've made quite a bit of progress, they're drawing down.

Where is the "catastrophe" in that...unless in some alternate universe you heard him say he had NO plans to increase troops in Afghanistan?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Define victory, win $10

Details here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1346208

If we can't define victory, then what are we doing there? A few years of target practice? Or do we never leave?

[Cali_Democrat]

13. LOL.....*crickets*

That's because victory cannot be defined.

[CakeGrrl]

18. LOL...called having a life away from the keyboard

Sorry, I don't sit breathlessly waiting to respond to a post.

Anyhoo, how about hearing what the President has to say tonight?

Or is your mind already made up?

[Cali_Democrat]

19. How would you define victory in Afghanistan?

Considering there are only 50-100 al-qaeda fighters there?

[DCBob]

21. establishing a stable non-Taliban government.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. When was the last time Afghanistan even had a stable, non-Taliban government?

It's been quite a while. Long before Sep 11. Even then, one could argue that it wasn't stable.

We were supposed to be fighting Al-Qaeda and the people who attacked us on Sep 11. Now were fighting the Taliban and other insurgents who want us the hell out of there. They are not affiliated with Al-Qaeda and they have no interest in launching terror attacks against the US. They just want us out of their country.

We surged to 100,000 troops there and that certainly didn't make the country stable. The country is more unstable now than when it was when we had 30,000 troops there. The Taliban and other insurgents are alive and well as well as operational and effective.

Now we're going to go to 70,000 troops by the end of 2012. Will the Afghan govt be stable by then? Will our 70,000 troops be able to tame the Taliban? I've got a hunch and it's hell no.

The whole thing is one big quagmire and a waste of US resources. We are not going to make the country stable using US troops. That strategy has been tried and it has failed miserably. The sooner we realize this, the better.

[DCBob]

25. then obviously long overdue..

BTW, I do recall rooting out the Taliban was always part of long terrm goal since they were put on the shit list for safe-harboring OBL and gang among other egregious acts against humanity.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Obama surged to 100,000 and the Taliban sill aren't rooted out

The place is more unstable now than when Obama took office. The longest war in US history. Now we're gonna have 70,000 troops there attempting to root out the Taliban? How long will it take?

[DCBob]

27. Sure sounds like they are on the run to me... last I heard they are negotiating for a deal.

I think Obama is movning in the right direction. BTW, I doubt we would have gotten OBL had we left AF earlier.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. "I doubt we would have gotten OBL had we left AF earlier"

Surely you know that Bin Laden was living in a villa deep inside Pakistan for years and it was CIa intelligence that led to his killing.
What evidence do you have that the troops in Afghanistan contributed to the killing and capture of Bin Laden who was found living in a villa deep inside Pakistan for years?

[DCBob]

29. Just common sense.. having operations in AF kept the pressure on OBL and his gang..

reduced his options and left him more vulnerable.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Where is your evidence of this?

What evidence do you have that the tens of thousands of US troops in Afghanistan are one of the main reasons for his capture and killing deep inside Pakistan? He was living in a villa deep inside Pakistan for years.

If you're gonna make these claims, you need to provide solid evidence.

As you can tell, I take this subject very seriously.

[Pirate Smile]

33. NYT News Analysis tonight: Drawing Down, With a Vigilant Eye on Pakistan

Drawing Down, With a Vigilant Eye on Pakistan

-snip-
Just shy of 10 years later, President Obama’s announcement on Wednesday night that he is beginning the long-anticipated withdrawal from Afghanistan marks another step in the gradual reversal of that calculus. Though the president could not say so directly, one of the constraints on America’s retreat from a hard and bloody decade is the recognition that, more than ever, the United States will be relying on Afghanistan’s help to deal with the threats emerging from Pakistan.

The administration argues that the killing of Osama bin Laden last month at his compound deep inside Pakistan, combined with scores of other counterterrorism strikes, have given it greater leeway to reduce its troop numbers in Afghanistan. Yet Pakistan’s angry reaction to that raid also makes it more urgent than ever that the United States maintain sites outside the country to launch drone and commando raids against the militant networks that remain in Pakistan, and to make sure that Pakistan’s fast-growing nuclear arsenal never falls into the wrong hands.

What the raid of the Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, “demonstrated more vividly than ever is that we need a base to strike targets in Pakistan, and the geography is simple: You need to do that from Afghanistan,” said Bruce Reidel, a retired C.I.A. officer who conducted Mr. Obama’s first review of strategy in the region.

-snip-
For their part, administration officials make it clearer than ever that they view Pakistan’s harboring of terrorist groups as the more urgent problem. “We don’t see a transnational threat coming out of Afghanistan,” a senior administration official said Wednesday in briefing reporters before the president’s speech. Later he added, “The threat has come from Pakistan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/world/asia/23assess.html?hp

COIN is out (Petraeus - nation building). Counterterrorism is in (Biden & the rest of Obama's team excluding Gates & Clinton) which needs fewer troops - but a base to work from.

edit to add - Well, this doesn't fit exactly the discussion you two are having but it is still helpful to read.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Again.....that is not evidence that the tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan...

...led to OBL's capture and killing. In fact, it just stresses the fact that a small, tiny base in Afghanistan is all that was needed to launch the attack into Pakistan. This actually could have even been done from an aircraft carrier or even another country.

Was it necessary to have 100,000 US troops and the cost that goes along with it? The hundreds of billions of dollars and the thousands of US lives? Maintaining an air base in Afghanistan from which to launch raids is NOT the same thing as stationing 100,000 occupation forces throughout the country.

The additional troops sent by Obama had nothing to do with it. Dubya was able to maintain bases in Afghanistan with 70,000 less forces and many of those were occupation forces stationed throughout Afghanistan.

You don't need 100,000 troops to maintain air bases.

[DCBob]

34. One item of "solid evidence" was the fact that the operation to take out OBL was launched from AF..

If we werent there that would not have been possible.

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Again, it did not require 100,000 troops to launch that operation

That is the point of our discussion.

[DCBob]

58. So how many troops does it take to maintain stability in AF to allow for operations into Pakistan?

[Vanje]

53. Yes.

We spent billions and billions and billions of dollars and thousands of lives to FORCE Bin Laden out of that cold drafty nasty cave . We FORCED him to live peacefully and comfortably for YEARS in a pleasant villa in a small town in Pakistan.

[Vanje]

52. He was living in a villa in Pakistan

We paid billions to the government that sheltered him.

What the fuck were all those deaths in Afghanistan for?

We've been duped.

[DCBob]

57. He was holed up in a dark decrepit room watching reruns of news stories about himself...

If we left AF earlier, he most likely would have returned there and begun rebuilding and training his AQ terrorist network for the next big event.

[Vanje]

51. On NPR this morning

they said there were about 50 AQ left in Afghanistan.

The Taliban are headquartered in Pakistan. They have always been.

This war is bullshit.

[Vanje]

50. We're proping up the Karzai regime

hand-picked by Bush , Indisputably corrupt, undeniably inept.
Thats what wer'e dying for.
Thats what we're spending billions and billions and billions of dollars on.

[DCBob]

59. Not defending Karsai.. about the only thing he has going for him is he's not Taliban.

[bvar22]

64. "Not Taliban"....LOL

Karzai is a crook who plays both sides against each other.

Karzai: Talks with Taliban on for some time
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/10/ap-karzai-afghanistan-taliban-talks-101110/


Meet Hamid Karzai
or as Obama calls him, "The Government of Afghanistan".

He was appointed by Bush the Lesser to run Afghanistan.
He is one of the most despicable criminals in The World,
But NOW we like him so much
that our children fighting and dying in the deserts of Afghanistan to keep him in power.

[Vanje]

66. This is why we've wasted lives, and ruined our economy.

to prop up THIS asshole.

It is not excusable.

[DCBob]

70. In that part of the world there are really bad crooks and not so bad crooks..

we choose to work with the less bad ones.. not much choice.

[avaistheone1]

71. Gates said when we went into this there may be zero Al Qaeda fighters there.

Kinda expensive effort for so little return. Heh?

[Hawkowl]

69. Then troops should not be deployed.

We should never, ever, deploy troops without a specific, limited objective or else risk inevitable defeat and bankruptcy. This is part of the Powell doctrine. Not to mention a corollary to Bismarck's "war is just politics continued by other means". If you don't intend to be victorious, don't go to war, or you will lose. (paraphrasing Sun Tzu).

What Obama should do is simply declare victory, i.e; Bin Laden is dead, and have everyone out by end of 2012.

[Tx4obama]

4. Go back and read what Obama said during the 2008 campaign....

He ALWAYS said that he would 'increase' troops in Afghanistan.
He never said that he thought there should be reduced troops in Afghanistan, he said that only about Iraq.
Obama is doing nothing different than what he said MANY times.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. So your point is that this is good because he didn't lie?

I suppose that it's a mitigation of sorts.

[Tx4obama]

12. What is your point?

Obama said for months/years during the campaign that he would increase troops in Afghanistan and fight there.
At every town hall when he said that statement he was applauded and cheered.
This is what he ran on and people voted him into office, and he is doing exactly what he said he would do.
So, why do you think what President Obama is doing is a catastrophe since this is what the American people agreed with him on?

[babylonsister]

43. Geeze, Manny, after 8 years of having a man who constantly lied,

can you imagine how some of us might feel with a President who didn't lie? I think that's a good thing, I'm not the lone ranger, but I swear, this place tries my patience sometimes.

[Vanje]

54. Was it a smart move?

IS it a smart move?

Do you like it?
Do you?

[bvar22]

63. "Go back and read what Obama said during the 2008 campaign...."

During the campaign, Obama said he would
increase troop levels by 2 or 3 brigades (7000 - 12,000 troops) to pursue Al Qaeda in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan.
This troop level increase was completed early in his presidency before "The Surge" with no complaints from the Fringe Left.

During his campaign He said NOTHING about a 30,000 troop "surge" (in addition to nobody knows how many "contractors"),
or the escalation of WAR to other countries.
Our current military activities in that region FAR EXCEEDS ANYTHING Obama promised during the campaign.

YOU should go back and read what Obama said during the campaign.
I paid attention.



If you are not FOR the New WAR in Libya,
then you are WITH The Communists AlQaeda Saddam The Terrorists Qaddafi!!!

[Vanje]

68. It is'nt just the "fringe left" anymore

56% of Americans want to bring ALL the troops home from Afghanistan.

I wish Obama would "evolve" on this issue.

[TheWraith]

6. Boy, as far as absolutely absurd statements go, that's pretty damned high up there. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Which part is absurd?

Please be specific, thanks.

[TheWraith]

9. "Catastrophe" and that Obama must want Romney as president. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Well...

We're spending trillions of dollars while killing an maiming many thousands of people, with no quantifiable goal that anyone can articulate. You might not think it's a catastroph, but most Americans do. Something like two-thirds of Americans see no point to this waste of blood and treasure, and want out ASAP.

Of course, Romney is now calling for us to get out of Afghanistan ASAP. Given Americans sentiments...

[Vanje]

49. Afghanistan is not a popular war.

Also, what the hell are we trying to accomplish?
To prop up a weak and very corrupt Karzai regime ?

I don't want anyone I know to die for that.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Pirate Smile]

10. LOL

Succinct and to the point. :)

[babylonsister]

14. Recommend; damned if he does with some here- -not me. I'm glad

we'll be moving out of that hellhole.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. There will still be 70,000 troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2012

The end of the official draw down. Twice as many as when Obama took office in January, 2009. We will still be spending billions upon billions of dollars in Afghanistan.

[ClarkUSA]

16. So? Pres. Obama is withdrawing the same "surge" troops that many whiners thought would stay forever

Moving the goalpost? Quelle surprise. :sarcasm:

[frylock]

20. candidate obama clearly stated that he would continue to waste lives and money in that rathole..

weren't you paying attention?

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Silly me

:)

[ClarkUSA]

35. Quote where he "clearly stated that he would continue to waste lives and money in that rathole."

Or is this bullshit which indicates you "weren't paying attention"?

[JoePhilly]

60. ... so knowing that, you didn't vote for him, right?

[frylock]

61. no, i did vote for him..

can't get fooled again.......

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Cali_Democrat]

44. Obama's Afghanistan policy has been an utter failure

The additional 70,000 troops have done nothing to enhance security in Afghanistan or make the US safer. In fact, Afghanistan is more violent today than when Obama announced the surge and increased troop presence in Afghanistan.

We will still have 70,000 troops there next year and we will still be wasting billions of dollars.

It's an idiotic strategy, especially at a time when the US economy is suffering. It shouldn't take more than 3 years to withdraw US troops. That's the most absurd part about it. It's utterly laughable.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Cali_Democrat]

47. I like how you try to make this about me, but it's not about me

It's about failed Administration policy in Afghanistan. It's about a 70,000 troops surge that has done nothing to benefit security in the United States or Afghanistan. It's about dead and injured US soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted while the US economy is struggling with a jobs crisis.

You can try to make this about me while I make this about Administration policy which is the topic of discussion in this forum.

It's shouldn't take more than 3 years to withdraw 100,000 troops from that shit hole in Afghanistan. Laughable.

The family members of the 70,000 troops that will still be in Afghanistan next year should be pissed.

Right now it's the longest war in US history and it will still be going in 3 years.

[Harmony Blue]

62. What people fall to understand are these key facts:

*AQ is finished in Afghanistan.

*Taliban is currently supported by Pakistani intelligence, which is why they act like a mobile guerrilla force between the Afghan/Pakistani border. The U.S. can not win a "war" against the Taliban because they are backed by Pakistani intelligence. Which is why the U.S. has resorted to "negotiating" with the Taliban.

*Afghan resources are being looted by the countries of the world, and the U.S. is footing the bill with the lives of the soldiers, equipment, and money to prop up the Karzai regime.

In brief summary, the sooner we leave, the better off our country will be.

[bvar22]

65. Absolutely.

I would change only one phrase:
You said, "resources are being looted by the countries of the world."

I would change that to read, "resources are being looted by the MultiNational Mega Corporations.

[Cali_Democrat]

67. Indeed.

Good post. There is absolutely no reason why it should take 3 years to withdraw the troops.

[Vanje]

55. This promise

....to keep spending billions and wasting lives to prop up an undeniably corrupt, weak, and inept Karzai regime.

You like this? Are you glad he kept this promise?
Is this good for America?
Is this good for Afghanistan?

[ClarkUSA]

17. Another "pro-surge" official that will be gone is Hillary, who "reluctantly accepted" this drawdown.

That is according to administration officials who spoke to the NYT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4892904&mesg_id=4892922

Hillary also pushed for Gen. McChrystal's 80,000 troops for 10+ years surge idea. :puke:

I won't cry when she's gone, although I'm sure she and Bill will be soon gunning for 2016.

[Major Hogwash]

31. I didn't know that.

Why is Hillary so gung-ho?
I don't understand that position at all.
McChrystal was definitely shooting his mouth off last year.

He's history, too.
And thank gawd for that!!!

[DCBob]

22. What is significant here is that Obama is breaking with military and the hawks..

Very good sign indeed!

[Pirate Smile]

30. Did you notice this: Troop withdrawals, even after 2012, to come "at a steady pace." Notice: NOT as

"conditions on the ground" merit.

He is going to keep the Generals on a leash.

Obama Won’t Use Troops to Save Afghan Hellhole (Drones, Maybe)

By Spencer Ackerman

The biggest news out of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech isn’t the 10,000 troops he’s withdrawing this year. It’s what Obama will — and won’t do with the forces he’s leaving behind. Namely: the president won’t send the remainder of the surge troops into eastern Afghanistan, which has become the country’s most buck-wild region.
It’s part of a new attempt to put the uniformed military on a much tighter leash than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Welcome a new phase of the war, micromanaged from the White House, and heavy on the killer robots.

Here’s what the war’s going to look like instead from July 2011 to 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take over combat: drones, drones, training Afghans, commando raids, and drones. The military build on its momentum in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, Obama aides say. But outside of that, this is going to be a counterterrorism strategy — with a lot of troops.

-snip-
That’s a big pushback against a move the military wanted to make — back into eastern Afghanistan, the central front of the war until 2009. Last week, the Washington Post confidently reported that the military command was eyeing the east next. Not if the White House has anything to say about it.

-snip-
Gen. John Allen, whom Obama tapped to command the war, better know what he’s in for. He’ll have “a degree of flexibility” over how to cut 10,000 troops this year and 23,000 by September 2012. (Why, that’s right in time for an election!) But Obama pointedly did not say in his speech that withdrawals will proceed as “conditions on the ground” merit — his allowance to Petraeus for preparing for the initial withdrawals, as well as to his commanders in Iraq.

-snip-
But Obama’s showing that’s not a primary concern for him. Troop reductions are. “Pulling back is a strategic objective,” the official says, “not just a tactical objective.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/obama-wont-use-troops-to-save-afghan-hellhole-drones-maybe/#more-49920

[ClarkUSA]

42. This should be an OP.

Please post your excellent facts.

[Pirate Smile]

48. Done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x693854

[ClarkUSA]

56. Thank you!!

Rec'd and kicked. I will keep doing so tomorrow, too. :hi:

[tekisui]

36. Well, that's all that matters, right?

As long as Obama can claim a political success, 3-4 more years of senseless and expensive war is palatable. Just as long as Obama comes out looking good!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

41. His policy thus far has failed.

It is time to get the fuck out. It is good he ostensibly went against the military, at least in part. He still hasn't shown the political courage to admit this is a lost war and it is time to get out. 3 and a half years (likely longer) is not an exit plan. It is kicking the can down the road.

May was the worst month for Afghan civilian deaths since the US invaded. Afghanistan is now the worst country for women. We are sinking $2 billion a week into a hellhole. It is the longest war the US has ever been in, and counting. Three and a half (plus) more years in unacceptable.

[babylonsister]

45. I hear you, constantly. And he's not going to flat out say it was

a failure for a host of reasons. Even you might acknowledge some of those reasons. But he's moving not only in the right direction, but in the one he initially wanted to take.
The glass is half full here, yours never has been.
I imagine there might be some happy soldiers and families tonight after hearing that a draw down will finally happen.