Troop withdrawals,even after 2012, to come"at a steady pace." NOT as"conditions on the ground" merit

[Pirate Smile]

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

[phleshdef]

1. I think the President really is done with this.

But he isn't into massive withdrawals. I think he believes weening us out of the country is the best tactic to increase the chances that things stay somewhat stable.

People will complain as always. But lets face it, pulling out a third of the troops is no joke. You don't pull a third of your troops out if you aren't set on the notion that you are getting out there.

[bowens43]

5. nonsense.

this is NOT pulling back a third of the troops this SLOWLY pulling back the ADDITIONAL troops that he added to the war machine. This is only happening because the people of the US overwhelmingly want us out right now.


Obama enjoys playing with his soldiers. It is a joke and the joke is on us.

[phleshdef]

6. Learn how to do basic fucking math and then get back to me.

We have 90 some thousand there NOW. We are pulling back a third of those troops that are there NOW.

Obama is ending this war. And he is doing it his way, not your way. You'll have to live with that.

[tekisui]

9. Now? A year and a half is now?

[phleshdef]

10. You misread what I said. And its not a year and a half.

"We have 90 some thousand there NOW. We are pulling back a third of those troops that are there NOW."

That means we have 90 thousand troops there at this moment. Of those those that are there, at this moment, a third of them are being pulled out. I did not mean that third is being pulled out right this moment.

Ths withdrawal of these troops is suppose to be done by the end of next summer. Thats not a year and a half. Thats slightly over a year.

[tekisui]

12. That is not NOW.

At most, 5,000 are coming out NOW. 5,000 set to come out the end of this winter. The other 20,000 over a year from now.

[phleshdef]

25. What part of "I didn't say they were coming out NOW" is hard for you to understand?

I know you aren't mentally challenged, so perhaps you are just being dishonest.

My use of the word NOW was only in reference to the amount of troops that are there NOW, as in 90,000 are there now. This drawdown in totality includes around 30,000 troops. Thats a third of the troops that are there NOW, as in right this moment. I shouldn't need to explain this to you again.

[ClarkUSA]

2. So Pres. Obama is having none of the Pentagon brass' bait-and-switch plans. That's Change alright!

Thanks for this good news, Pirate Smile.

No wonder the top Pentagon brass and top WH allies who opposed this large of a withdrawal plan are going to be leaving soon (i.e., Gates, Hillary) or demoted to a desk job (see Petraeus). President Obama is moving in people who are on the same page and getting rid of the war hawks. I'll bet he got tired of hearing their objections to his speedy withdrawal plans.

Bookmarking.

[tekisui]

8. 3 and a half plus years. Not so speedy.

[ClarkUSA]

11. lol! Red herring? The New York Times: "Obama Will Speed Pullout From War in Afghanistan"

"Mr. Obama announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 “surge” of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the drawdown would continue “at a steady pace” until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014.

The troop reductions, which were decided after a short but fierce internal debate, will be both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders..."

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

Mullen sees risk in quicker Afghanistan withdrawal
http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/mullen-sees-risk-in-quicker-afghanistan-withdrawal-1.2978206

"The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the reductions were "more aggressive and incur more risk" than he considered prudent."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/23/afghanistan-us-troop-withdrawals-risky

Democrats should be very thankful that Hillary is not President and CIC, because we'd have Gen. McChrystal presiding over an 80,000 troop surge (for a total of 180,000 troops) in Afghanistan for 10+ years (as some may try to forget. she was advocating Gen. McChrystal's endless war brain fart as her desired "surge" solution). Good thing President Obama chose not to listen to her advice then and also ignore it now, as war hawks like she, Petraeus and Gates all favored a much smaller reduction in forces. Perhaps that explains why they will be gone from their positions by 2012.

Withdrawing one-third of the troops presently in Afghanistan within roughly one year is considered "speedy" by anyone with a shred of military experience or know-how. In fact, President Obama moved up the withdrawal schedule for the 30,000 troops by three months, probably to make sure all troops are out by end of year 2014.

Continuing the withdrawal of troops "at a steady pace" after summer's end 2012 would also considered "speedy" given the huge logistics of removing 100,000 troops, weaponry, and materiel by 2014. Anyone who thinks otherwise is entitled to their opinion but not to their own facts.

[tekisui]

13. 30,000 in one year is speedy based on logistics?

It couldn't be done faster? I disagree.

Remember, we are set to withdrawal 46,000 from Iraq in less than 6 months. A logistics argument fails.

[ClarkUSA]

14. No one said that it's "speedy based on logistics" alone. There are serious security considerations.

Read the articles I highlighted if you require further edification. Gen. Mullen spelled out the Pentagon's concerns. You can write to Hillary at The State Department as well, and ask her why she was against such a speedy aka. large withdrawal of troops.

As for Iraq, comparing the two withdrawals' logistics at this point in time is an apples to oranges exercise, given the combat mission is over there since the war's end last August while a war is still going on in Afghanistan.

[tekisui]

15. Exactly my point. Security and political considerations that

will always be there as an excuse to drag our feet and keep troops there indefinitely.

[ClarkUSA]

16. That's not what you said at all. Your red herring = "3 and a half plus years. Not so speedy."

See your initial reply to me in #8:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=693854&mesg_id=694049

<< Security and political considerations that will always be there as an excuse to drag our feet and keep troops there indefinitely. >>

Yawn. Baseless empty doomsday rhetoric is a bore. :boring:

[tekisui]

17. It isn't speedy! I haven't changed my position.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Good for you. Who cares? That and $1 will buy a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

20. Empty negative rhetoric & useless subjective opinion "notwithstanding, no rational person" would...

... believe uninformed civilian complaints over a reasoned analysis by Navy Admiral Mullen, who despite his caution, supports his CIC's decision.

The facts are clear.

The New York Times: "Obama Will Speed Pullout From War in Afghanistan"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=693854&mesg_id=694096

[tekisui]

21. Of course Mullen supports it, he gets to keep his war.

[ClarkUSA]

22. lol! Do you know what Adm. Mullen thinks now? Prove that this is his motivation.

Considering you have zero proof for any of your claims, I won't hold my breath. :rofl:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

24. No, Mullen supports President Obama's decision in the same "reluctant" way that Hillary & Gates do.

<< He supports Obama because 1-he has to, 2-he gets to keep the war going. >>

Your presumption has zero basis unless you believe that Hillary and Gates support President Obama's decision because they "get to keep the war going" too. :eyes:

BTW, Gen. Petraeus is on the record as not supporting/approving this decision. Does that mean he doesn't want "to keep the war going"? :sarcasm:

[slay]

3. Whatever - either end the fucking war or don't.

this surge - draw down - surge - draw down - and now Libya too! wow the war machine never stops - nor do its supporters.

[StarsInHerHair]

4. & how's he going to PAY for extending our stay in the Graveyard of Empires?

we're already broke! Oh, maybe he'll foreclose on the soldiers farms, homes, cars, & all other personal property? Take out public education entirely? Since selling WAR BONDS seems to be off the table.........whatever

[tekisui]

7. Riiiiight. Yet, that 'steady rate' has not been nor it will be defined.