Premature Evacuation?

[ProSense]

Premature Evacuation?

Why cutting and running in Afghanistan is good politics for Obama.

BY MICHAEL A. COHEN |FEBRUARY 2, 2012

Barack Obama is nothing if not a trailblazing politician -- after all, when you're the first African-American elected to the nation's highest office, breaking the mold is sort of part of your political DNA. However, with the announcement by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Tuesday, Feb. 1, that the Obama administration intends to end combat operations in Afghanistan in mid-2013 he is laying out another unique course -- seeking re-election this November as the architect of two drawdowns of U.S. military engagements. This is the kind of thing doesn't happen too often in American politics.

Rather, U.S. wars tend to end not before, but after elections. In 1952, Harry S. Truman was forced from office, in part, because of his inability to end the slaughter in Korea. It was his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who finally brought the war to a conclusion after running on a pledge that he would end the conflict. In 1968, an effort to begin disengaging the United States from the war in Vietnam also disengaged Lyndon B. Johnson from his dreams of another term as "your president." In 1972, the final breakthrough at the Paris peace talks came two months after incumbent President Richard Nixon had been overwhelmingly reelected -- and after he had dropped copious amounts of bombs on North Vietnam. In 2004, George W. Bush had decidedly little interest in talking about retreat from Iraq.

<....>

Not Barack Obama. He is running for reelection on a platform of bringing the troops home from Iraq, winding down the war in Afghanistan on a now accelerated timetable, and -- with the death of Osama bin Laden -- as the president who is ending the global war on terror...it is certainly unusual for a presidential candidate, particularly a Democrat, to hand his opponents a potential military cudgel by which to bash him. But Obama probably understands better than his opponents that such attacks have rather limited political saliency. Voters strongly oppose the war in Afghanistan and have for quite some time...And this doesn't necessarily mean that Obama's decision was driven by political considerations, either. One of the more underreported elements of Panetta's comments on Tuesday was his call for an "enduring presence" by the United States in Afghanistan beyond 2014, which was the original NATO deadline for the withdrawal of foreign forces. While the U.S. combat mission might be ending sooner than originally planned, it's quite possible that the U.S. role in Afghanistan's politics will continue for some time.

Still, a desire to wind down the war quickly, the potential for kickstarting negotiations with the Taliban, and the recent decision by France to pull the plug on its involvement in Afghanistan in 2013 were likely greater influences on the administration's decision-making than creating an applause line for the fall presidential campaign.

- more -

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/02/premature_evacuation

More from Cohen:

<...>

But there is one smaller point I wanted to reference. Check out what Mitt Romney had to say about Panetta's announcement:

“The president’s mistakes, some of them are calculated on a philosophy that’s hard to understand and, sometimes, you scratch you head and say: How can he be so misguided and so naive?”

“Today, his secretary of defense unleashed such a policy,” said Romney. “The secretary of defense said that on a day certain, the middle of 2013, we’re going to pull out our combat troops from Afghanistan.”

He announced that. So the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it,” said Romney. “Why in the world do you go to the people that you’re fighting with and tell them the date you’re pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense.”

First of all it's not true that the US is going to pull out combat troops in 2013; rather the US is going to be shifting away from a combat mission in 2013. That's an important distinction.

But here's the interesting part - look at what Romney said in June 2011 at a Republican debate:

It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that they're able to defend themselves.

I suppose in fairness Romney didn't reveal the date that US troops would be leaving as soon as possible so I suppose he is in the clear here

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2012/02/premature-evacuation.html

Clearly, there is a lot of room to keep pressuring the administration to get out. As Cohen points out in the first piece, 56 percent of Americans want to bring the troops home immediately.

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. We lost. (again). Get out (now). Get over it.

[ProSense]

3. Agree

"We lost. (again)."

We didn't win.


"Get out (now)."

Yup!


"Get over it."

Definitely!

[lunatica]

10. Osama Bin Ladin is dead

Does that make us losers?

We didn't need the war at all. It should have and could have been done without a war and 5 thousand American soldiers dead.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Yes. By any reasonable measure.

We've spent over a trillion dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of people, killed thousands of our own soldiers, to kill one man.

Pyrrhus commented on such "victories".

[varelse]

4. K&R

[bigtree]

5. what about the surge? What did that accomplish?

All of this that's 'ending' now could have been ended in 2009 for all that those surge troops accomplished.

The surge troops didn't have much to do with the death of Osama bin Laden. Their main mission and activity was to fight Taliban in Afghanistan, not al-Qaeda and bin-Laden. They were in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

I think the killing of bin-Laden certainly does provide political cover for a withdrawal. The American public has been tired of the occupation for years now, but the raid and killing give the President political cover against the republican thugs who would take any advantage to emasculate him on defense.

But the question remains? What has the President's prolonging of the occupation accomplished? Is there the political reconciliation that the 'pressure' on the Taliban was supposed to produce? Did 'soft power' produce anything other than a scattering of the resistance forces? How 'enduring' will this escalation of the Afghanistan occupation and the expansion of their offensive role inside Afghanistan be after we've gone?

The perception may well fly that Afghanistan represents more than a failed escalation and a retreat, but many Americans who have witnessed the tripling of U.S. casualties from the Bush totals in Afghanistan, and the UN reported record spike in civilian deaths, may be uncomfortable trumpeting such a misguided folly; such a 'pollyandish misadventure'.

[ProSense]

6. Here's the thing

what about the surge? What did that accomplish? what about the surge? What did that accomplish?

All of this that's 'ending' now could have been ended in 2009 for all that those surge troops accomplished.

The surge troops didn't have much to do with the death of Osama bin Laden. Their main mission and activity was to fight Taliban in Afghanistan, not al-Qaeda and bin-Laden. They were in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

I think the killing of bin-Laden certainly does provide political cover for a withdrawal. The American public has been tired of the occupation for years now, but the raid and killing give the President political cover against the republican thugs who would take any advantage to emasculate him on defense.

....you can argue that point all you want to, but the fact remains that the primary objective now is getting the hell out.

If destroying al Qaeda and getting bin Laden provide cover for that, so be it.

[bigtree]

7. that's campaign talk

We should be able to discuss the results of all of the tragic deaths and killings. The end doesn't justify the means; even if that end makes them more palatable in an election season. That end is nothing more than a retreat; dressed up by this analysis you've posted in the obfuscations that are a function of campaigns and candidacies, not substantive discussion.

[ProSense]

9. No

We should be able to discuss the results of all of the tragic deaths and killings. The end doesn't justify the means; even if that end makes them more palatable in an election season. That end is nothing more than a retreat; dressed up by this analysis you've posted in the obfuscations that are a function of campaigns and candidacies, not substantive discussion.

...it's reality. Things we knew:

Bush neglected the war in Afghanistan to illegally invade Iraq.

Obama promised to refocus his efforts there and laid out a strategy, which included sending in more troops.

Obama outlined a goal to destroy al Qaeda and get bin Laden.

A drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is underway.

You are trying to argue whether or not the war was lost or the effort was a failure, but that point has long been argued by those who opposed the surge. Even those who supported it recognized that winning or achieving a stable Afghanistan wasn't realistic. At best, it would weaken terrorist forces inside the country and create an opportunity to continue negotiating.

The OP isn't about defining the war effort, it's about defining an exist strategy.

[bigtree]

13. no

I don't regard what were doing there as an 'exit strategy'. I'd call it dithering, because the result would be the same if we left today or years from now. It matters how we deploy our military forces. The casualties should give anyone pause about advocating any course that dithers away our troops lives for a dubious or counterproductive goal. Focusing on a contrived end to the occupation and taking comfort in this foot-dragging 'exit' means accepting the lives lost in that effort. There's nothing worth making our troops die for in Afghanistan, save protecting themselves from the regular attacks and roadside bombs. They need to stop dithering and bring them home; not in dribs and drabs. Not one more day should be spent defending the corrupt Karzai regime. Not one more day should be spent defending the ground our forces gained there.

[ProSense]

14. You know

I don't regard what were doing there as an 'exit strategy'. I'd call it dithering, because the result would be the same if we left today or years from now. It matters how we deploy our military forces.

...no one is arguing that the troops shouldn't be brought home now. The point is that Afghanistan could have ended years ago had it not been for Bush's decisions. The Iraq war should never have started. Some people believe that it was "dithering" to end the Iraq war in 2011. However you want to characterize the point of the OP, the point is still getting out.

[Rex]

8. One of the biggest wastes of manpower on record.

We've lost both 'wars' created by warmongering crooks. The POTUS sacked OBL...let us leave it at that and withdraw our troops from Afganistan.

This guys says...

"How is that Mission Accomplished thingy workin out fer ya?"

[ProSense]

12. Yes

"The POTUS sacked OBL...let us leave it at that and withdraw our troops from Afganistan."

...declaring "mission accomplished" and continuing a war makes no sense. Just as the President withdrew from Iraq, it's time to do the same regarding Afghanistan.