White House: July 2011 Is Locked In for Afghanistan Withdrawal

[tekisui]

Source: CBS News

During the Senate Armed Services hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was pressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. on whether the July 2011 date for beginning to withdrawal troops is "locked in."

Gates seemed to suggest there was some flexibility, that "it was a clear statement of his strong intent" and that "the president always has the freedom to re-evaluate his decisions." After the hearing Graham said he took that to mean the date is "not locked in" and will depend on conditions on the ground.

It was a point of contention at the White House briefing today – I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

(snip)

Keep in mind that the PACE of the withdrawal will still depend on conditions on the ground – which means it could be a very small number of troops if things are not going well.

[NYC Liberal]

1. "Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone" - Rec'd!

[IndianaGreen]

2. At the rate of one soldier per month!

Set in gravestones.

[NYC Liberal]

3. Some people don't like that Obama is ending both wars.

Oh well. I guess it's a blow to their "Obama supports endless war" insinuation/meme.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, they'd rather concentrate on

anything they can dig up that is perceived to be negative.

[Oregone]

6. Exactly. Like escalating the war. Fucking idiots. Why concentrate on that negative...

Its minimal, tiny, compared to some far off promise that might get wiped off the table when "conditions on the ground" change. MINIMAL. Haters!

[Cha]

15. Leaving out important facts to suit their narrative.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Some people like to be pissed off I guess.

Maybe it gives them some sort of sick pleasure? :shrug:

[Cha]

14. Reality is bad enough ..they

should try it.

[Oregone]

5. He is escalating one. Following Bush's SOFA timelines on the other...

until "conditions on the ground" change

[avaistheone1]

12. Actually our presence in Iraq has escalated as well.

Obama has replaced the number of troops he withdrew with paid contractors. So there is a net gain.

[midnight armadillo]

21. Only if "escalating" means "ending"

Somehow, sending 30,000 troops to a war zone does not seem like "ending" a war. Now, reducing troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to 0, now that would be an end to the wars there. Too bad Obama isn't doing that, since that would require bold leadership and him fucking up the GOP, not seeking consensus from all parties.

[NYC Liberal]

24. Obama's leadership is what's going to get us out of this mess, despite the naysayers.

This is an exit strategy. After 8 years we finally have one. I for one am glad that we are finally doing something about Afghanistan since Bush did jack all and let things go to hell here. Try watching the speech again and you'll see exactly what's going on now.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Please forgive my bluntness, but as a former Lieutenant,, I see no real LEADERSHIP from President

Obama. IMO, true leadership is making the difficult moral decisions and following through with them. President Obama has NOT put himself on the line since he became President. Albeit much more intelligent, President Obama, not unlike his predecessor, is seemingly in *permanent campaign mode.*

[NYC Liberal]

28. Well, Obama is making the "difficult moral decisions and following through with them"

The decision about Afghanistan was not easy and it was not taken lightly. He decided to go with the exit strategy that may rankle his base but is nonetheless the right one. Simply packing up and leaving tomorrow would have been the easy decision but not necessarily the correct one. So, on this, he is putting himself "on the line."

[ShortnFiery]

30. No, those decisions are REALLY the easy ones for they benefit the moneyed elite within the USA.

The tough moral decisions would have been in favor of the OVER-EXTENDED troops and those innocent Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire. The honorable act would have been to admit that al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and we now have NO VIABLE reason to occupy this sovereign country.

However, IMO, I see no moral courage nor true leadership that President Obama has demonstrated to date. :thumbsdown:

[NYC Liberal]

31. Sorry, but no. Not everything is instantaneous

and not everything with which you disagree is something that "benefits the moneyed elite." This was a tough decision but it was the correct one, morally and otherwise. I suppose you think it would be moral to bomb up a country and then simply say "Ok, we're leaving now. Bye!" with nary an effort to leave them with even some hope of keeping the Taliban out of power and terrorists out of their country. No, that is NOT a moral decision, in fact it would be decidedly immoral to do so. The Afghan people are going to take control of their country, whether you like it or not, and that is what Obama's exit strategy is about.

[impik]

32. Yea, imagine that by the end of his first term

He'll completely end one war and be close to end another. That will be tough on those who are actually Anti-Wars...How strange.

[treestar]

8. Oh for F's sake!

for cryin' out loud

this is beyond ridiculous! It's one thing to oppose the additional troops and the war but another to keep insisting that Obama will do other than what he said when the very effin' reason you are posting away is that he is keeping a promise!

[NYC Liberal]

17. LOL! Well put!

"the very effin' reason you are posting away is that he is keeping a promise"

[ClarkUSA]

9. It's disgusting how often you grandstand on the lives of fallen soldiers & use them to bash Obama.

If you really respected the ultimate sacrifices of our military, you wouldn't mention them in such glib terms
to indulge your 24/7 antipathy towards Obama. But that's all you've got, isn't it? :puke:

[Dr Robert]

11. extremists don't have to consider the repercussions of their actions

[ClarkUSA]

13. Exactly. They have no clue as to how venal and manipulative they sound.

:puke:

[Dr Robert]

10. nothing will make you happy.

what if Obama had sent no troops, but said the withdrawal would not begin until 2020?
I suppose you would have liked that better?

[joshcryer]

23. So wrong. But an epic sound bite, no doubt. Is it yours?

[Clio the Leo]

16. Gates also said today.....

.... that he expected they would first turn provinces over to the local governments that were currently the least contested (paraphrased.)

This overall gist I got from watching the hearings was that all (or most all) of the provinces in the south would be manned to prevent the bad Taliban from having anywhere to go. Once tribal leaders were able to defend themselves, troops would pull out, region by region.

[bvar22]

18. "July 2011 Is Locked In "....

..until it is unlocked because "conditions on the ground have changed."

I've played 3-Card Monty in an alley off Times Square before.
I recognize a scam when I see one.

Anyone buying these "timelines" is a S.U.C.K.E.R.

[high density]

20. You also need a reference to Palin and Orwell in there somewhere for full effect NM

[HughMoran]

19. Now that's what I want to hear from Obama

The Afghans & generals will NEVER take responsibility to get this done without this sort of firmness.

Thanks for posting - I know how much you hate this war.

[tekisui]

22. The escalation is coming.

There is really not much use in challenging the implementation anymore. The door has closed. The order has been given, and the time has been bought, so to speak. President Obama is going to get his 18 months. The firmness on a withdrawal is the best thing that can come from here, IMO. Nothing is going to get the troops out before that time. With that line from Obama through Gibbs, Obama is going to have to make himself hold to it, or he will get pummeled. Now, I am going to hope that he picked the least devastating of the bad options. I wanted the troops out years ago, but the new reality is ain't nothing gonna happen for at least 18 months.

[ShortnFiery]

25. I'm bookmarking this thread as I hope and pray that my perspective is wrong:

As the killing and dying increases, I want this and other threads as proof that MANY HERE supported this madness.

I can just envision the denials: "I wasn't really for the escalation. President Obama was forced into this decision." etc. etc.

I have a bad impression that this will not work out well, i.e., far too many American casualties. :(

[tekisui]

27. Looking at the past casualties, what happens when troops

increase and even anticipating a reduction in deaths--I expect somewhere between 400 and 1000 more US deaths. That is on the most conservative end. My fear is that something will happen, in addition to the increased troops, that will continue and exacerbate the spiral of violence. It wouldn't take much to set off a chain of events that forced us to stay for a very long time.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Given that "the central front on terrorism" is not stationed in Afghanistan, al Qaeda "cells"

may be activated in other parts of the world. Heaven forbid, but escalation makes our NATO allied countries as well as the USA a prime target to be hit. Hell, why shouldn't they? If we focus all our resources on Afghanistan, other terrorist "cells" can flourish in Somalia, Yemen, etc. etc.

This escalation is a horrible mistake. We could be pumping up our "policing forces" all over the world instead of GIFTING the MIC another *trillion dollars.* :(

All Hell will break loose if we get hit again. Who (What ME Country) will be bomb first after that? :scared: Anything for retribution. :shrug:

[budkin]

33. Yeah right... you are delusional if you buy this baloney.

[ClarkUSA]

34. Kick for the FACTS.

:kick: