Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nation: Exit 2011?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:18 PM
Original message
The Nation: Exit 2011?
Is he lying to us? When President Obama talks about withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan in July, 2011, does he mean it? Or is that a clever ruse in order to blunt criticism from the left, and from congressional Democrats, of his decision to escalate the war?

Personally, I'm willing to take him at his word. Why? Because Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign, after his election, and after taking office. And I don't think he's doing it primarily for political reasons, either. Having had lengthy discussions with many, perhaps most, of Obama's advisers on Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past two years, it's clear to me that those adivsers believe passionately that vital US interests are at stake in that conflict. It's no surprise that they've convinced Obama, too.


Like many others, I hoped that those in the administration, such as Vice President Biden, who wanted to de-escalate the war, would prevail. That's not to say that what Biden reportedly proposed, a limited focus on counterterrorism with a smaller US footprint, was the best option. (I've outlined, at some length, my own views on Afghanistan, including for The Nation, in a recent piece called "How to Get Out." I don't think Obama read it.) But at least what Biden allegedly argued is better than what Obama decided. Still, the point is, unless you've been blinded by the celebrity glare that has surrounded Obama since he burst onto the scene, there's no excuse for being surprised at what he decided. He told us what he thinks many times, he told us what he'd do, and then he did it.
{snip}
Which brings me to the 2011 issue.

It's easy to be cynical about that date. It's conditions-based, the administration says, meaning that the precise nature of the US drawdown in Afghanistan, how fast it might occur, and when it starts exactly are going to be based on many factors: the situation on the ground, the state of the insurgency, the strength of the Afghan army, the role of Pakistan, and many others. Still, for the first time -- and it's not nothing -- the United States has set a sell-by date for its Afghan policy. Obama has declared that the US effort in Afghanistan must show clear signs of success by 2011, or else it's time to pick up the ball and go home. At the same time, if by some miracle the success that the president says he seeks in Afghanistan is achieved by then, as unlikely as that seems, well, then it's time to declare victory and go home, too. So write down that date: July, 2011, and let's hold the president to it. By then, for certain, politics will be a major factor, since Obama will be facing reelection. (And, very possibly, running against General Petraeus.)

So Obama wasn't lying to us in 2008, when he called the war in Afghanistan the "right war." He wasn't lying to us in March, 2009, when he sent the first reinforcements. And he wasn't lying in August, 2009, when he said that the war in Afghanistan was, in his view, a vital national security concern. (Despite the fact that Al Qaeda is a shattered, mostly harmless group now and despite the fact that the Taliban, still supported by our ally, Pakistan, hasn't shown any inclination to attack the United States.) If he wasn't lying then, why should we be cynical about his July, 2011, date?


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/502355/exit_2011
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Also, I am sure Obama is under pressure from Congress because
of the cost of the war.

The GOP wants a 10 year open-ended (no commitment to end to war)
They were all in a twit in the hearings today because of the
2011 date.

Do they believe the Taliban will head to the hills and lie low.
This will give us free reign to go in and get the Afghanis ready
when they return.

Gates said there is no 10 year plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. A lot of thing will need to be wrapped up by 2011
if Obama wishes at that point to be reelected.

remember Obama said, to paraphrase, "that it didn't matter to him if he didn't get reelected".

So come 2011 and Afghanistan is still a colossal fuck up, then he leaves us all holding the bag.

But, and this is a massively big but...

if somehow he pulls if the impossible and the job is done (which still hasn't been clearly defined) and pulls the troops home, what is left in our wake?

And what is indeed left in the wake, will it be what he needs to be reelected?

A year before th 2012 elections, if he fucks this up, he fucks up the Democratic party for a very very very long time.

chew on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. If things aren't better by 2011
then we're out and it's time cuts our losses that's the whole point of setting a timeable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. if things aren't wrapped up by 2011,
obama leaves us holding the bag.

The playing field goes through a massive upheaval.

Aside from that depression thought, it will still be fascinating to experience that kind of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. I really think Obama is not concerned about being re-elected....
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 06:17 PM by lib2DaBone
Everyone knows that we won't be out of there in 2011.. not even close.

Obama and the private contractors are licking their chops.. thinking about the pork gravey train that they are about to feast on from this latest surge.

Blackwater (xe), Haliburton, and all the rest are lined up at the public nipple.. and I'm sure Obama knows what is going on.. he is not a stupid man.

I would really like to know who Obama is listening to as advisors? Rahm Emanuel.. Brezinski.. Carlysle Group, American Enterprise Institute?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC