July 2011 Deadline for Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal: Politics Over Policy?

[tekisui]

Source: CBS News

When President Obama announced late last year he was deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, he said the troop surge would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

But it's become increasingly clear that the July 2011 deadline is more about politics than policy.

That's true for a few reasons. First off, the president said from the beginning that July 2011 was only when forces would begin to be brought home - which means he could conceivably bring back just a few thousand troops and still technically meet the deadline.

But more importantly, the White House and military have made clear the deadline can simply be changed depending on conditions on the ground. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said Thursday that if the strategy doesn't look like it's working at the end of the year, the military may recommend that the timeline be altered.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, meanwhile, stressed that the drawdown plan is "conditions-based," and said while General David Petraeus agrees with the president's overall strategy, "when he gets on the ground, he will assess the situation for himself."

(snip)

What appears most likely to happen in July 2011 is a drawdown of some and perhaps all of the 30,000 troops that were part of the surge - political pressure from the left may simply be too significant for the White House not to make at least some concessions to their deadline.

But with the counterinsurgency strategy that the president is adamantly standing by not showing significant dividends - Gates said today the fight is "slower and harder than we anticipated" - a significant troop withdrawal next July looks relatively unlikely.

more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008781-503544.html

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[FrenchieCat]

2. Who decides? CBS News?

"But it's become increasingly clear that the July 2011 deadline is more about politics than policy."


Perhaps what is becoming more clear is that we try this and whether it works or not, then we leave. Is that politics or policy? Seems like the news media makes everything out to be about politics....so why should they care now?

[tekisui]

3. Gates, Petreaus and Rahm all backed off from Biden's statement.

They all qualify it with conditions-based or reiterate that it is just the start of a reduction.

As for the idea 'try it and whether it works or not, then we leave', that isn't what we are doing. We are trying it. If it fails, we'll try something else (maybe leave). If it succeeds we could even see another increase in troops.

[sandnsea]

4. See. The military strategy isn't working.

McChrystal tried to blame it on the diplomats to give them more time for their war.

[tekisui]

5. I wonder why we are sticking with the same strategy then?

[sandnsea]

11. I hope we don't

I had read that they were considering a more modest troop deployment during the summer. Rather than the kicking in the door routine we did in Falujah, a quieter dispersement of troops in Kandahar. I hope that is true. It's still technically a surge I guess, but it beats the hell out of slaughtering people the way we did in Iraq. If we can do that along with increased state dept activity through ngo's, etc., we might have a chance, imo. But it's that state dept activity that McChrystal hated, because they call the military on that pesky corruption stuff like paying off warlords and President's brothers.

[BeFree]

6. That's the Mantra

Out of Afghanistan in 0' eleven.

We'll not make much progress on any other front, so all we can do is long range planning.

Obama has said that is the deadline, so let us make it so.

Believe me, out now is my policy. Out in a year is a light at the end of the tunnel, eh?

[tekisui]

8. I would love if there was a 2011 deadline. There isn't.

No one is saying the war will end and all troops will be out in 2011. They are saying sat least *some* of the surged troops will return home by July 2011.

The end is still undefined and nowhere in sight. The British said they expect to be there at least another 3 to 5 years. We certainly won't be leaving before the Brits.

[BeFree]

10. But

If we can drum it up that Obama has said we're out in summer of '11, then when the time rolls around and everybody is expecting just that, how can they say no?

It is a PR campaign, a branding, if you will.

It could work, what other choice do we have?

[Radical Activist]

13. Good messaging strategy.

We have to come up with something better than the same tactics used to pressure Bush.

[BeFree]

15. Summer of '11 means the end of the ten year war

Obama has said so. We just have to make him do it.

[damntexdem]

7. KEEPING the troops there until July 2011 is about politics.

Any rational policy would bring them home now -- would have already brought them home.

[tekisui]

9. There will be troops there long after July 2011.

[Obamanaut]

12. If the troops are removed from Afghanistan in 2011, they will probably

just be moved to another nearby country with -istan in the name. Perish the thought they actually return to the US.

[Radical Activist]

14. Translation: He may withdrawal due to anti-war pressure no matter what's happening

in country. That's a good thing to most of us even if CBS condemns it. They're still selling this war just as much as they were selling Iraq in '03.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It's always been about politics and PR.

Bush was showing he was a "tough" "decisive" leader. Now, the same is true.

[truedelphi]

17. Reagan is the only person who brought troops home.

I guess his persona was worshipped by the Right was such that he could do that.

citation:
David Ignatius' Washington Post column on Tuesday: "Reagan demonstrated his willingness to alter course in Lebanon. In a burst of nation-building enthusiasm, Reagan had sent troops into that war-ravaged country in 1982.

But after suicide bombers destroyed the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks there in 1983, Reagan decided to cut his losses and evacuate American troops... The pullout from Lebanon was either an amoral retreat under fire or a prudent exercise of realpolitik, depending on your perspective. But politically, it was obviously a winner. Most Americans agreed with Reagan that Lebanon wasn't worth the cost in American lives."

Currently over 60% of Americans polled do not want us in either theater of war. But since the Big Corporations that do humongous business with DOD like us there, we will be there in Iraq and Afghanistan until we have another theater of war to go to.

[Radical Activist]

18. Yes, he usually preferred proxy wars and supporting foreign terrorist groups.

I suppose he learned after Lebanon that it's politically easier to carry out covert operations and lend support to other military groups to carry out America's overseas adventures.