Obama To Pull Out Of Afghanistan In Three Years?
More details are leaking out about Obama’s plan for Afghanistan, and his rough time frame for finishing the job, but news orgs are offering somewhat conflicting accounts about his timetable.
CNN explicitly says Obama plans to pull out “most” troops in three years:
President Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan but plans to conclude the war and withdraw most U.S. service members within three years, senior administration officials told CNN Tuesday.
ABC News, however, has a considerably more nuanced account, quoting a U.S. official saying Obama intends for U.S. forces to “begin” pulling out before the end of Obama’s first term, which is to say, in three years.
This official tells ABC that once Afghans start taking responsibility for their own security…
That will allow, the official said, a “thinning out” of the estimated 100,000 US forces in the country by then — some 70,000 in Afghanistan currently, with the president about to send 30,000 more — “by the end of the president’s first term.”
A “thinning out” in three years is a far cry from Obama wanting to “conclude” the war in that same time frame. The ABC account, by the way, tracks with the Associated Press version, which says that Obama’s exit strategy will have a “starting point” sometime within the next three years.
The distinction is not insignificant: The first version suggests a firm timetable for completion. This would be more likely to mollify Dems and to provoke some criticism from Republicans who will argue that placing a firm timetable telegraphs insufficent American resolve. The second version is far mushier, but my bet is the second one is closer to the truth.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
And the NY Times says we will be there for years to come:
“The plan envisions that some troops would remain as a “light footprint” — a force that would probably stay behind in a reserve or supporting role for years to come — as the United States has done in Germany, Japan, South Korea and Bosnia.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
all, stand by, more coming on this.
I’m late to the game today, but wanted to add this to the discussion from The Morning Plum. Sorry to be somewhat off topic–
Liam, you’re going to make me crazy if you don’t stop conflating all wars, to say nothing of conflating the homefront reaction to wars as you did when you were writing about the impact of the draft. What’s with this statement?–”Sadly, President Obama has not learned from the Johnson experience, and is walking right into the very same trap.” Do you actually believe he hasn’t looked at the Vietnam precedents and how they do and DON’T apply in making his decision?
ruk–As far as the recommendations on books on LBJ, definitely Caro though he doesn’t exactly make a person want to start building monuments. Johnson was single-minded and unbelievably ruthless. It was the country’s fortune that he finally pushed for civil rights, but nothing was pretty along the way. I’m actually reading The Master of the Senate right now (third book of the trilogy). I’ve been resisting it, but with all the work the Senate has in front of it right now, I decided I shouldn’t.
Greg,
I am standing by. Is it OK if I go take a leak, and return to my post?
“sbj”, you’re a more temperate right winger, what do you say to a War Tax to pay for the Republican’s trillion dollar wars?
ABC,
Fine: then how about has he learned anything from what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan.
There still are very few roads in that hell hole, so most troops and supplies have to be move by helicopters. Easy pickings for the enemy.
The badlands are still the badlands, and that is where the enemy will wait us out. and just slowly bleed us, with hit and run tactics.
They are the home team, and we are the strangers in their land. Most tribes will have some of their own in the Taliban, so they will be providing cover for them.
We do not speak the language, we do not relate to their tribal culture, and they know that we will have to leave, so they are not going to invest their lives on our side.
It’s official: Obama will announce only a STARTING date for withdrawal, and will not specify pace of withdrawal or end date:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/afghanistan/obama-to-announce-starting-point-for-pullout-but-no-timetable-or-end-date/
“What do you say to a War Tax?”
Obama promised no increased taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.
“Republican’s trillion dollar wars?”
These are America’s wars. You don’t think we should have invaded Afghanistan?
ABC,
You are already crazy if you think that bringing back a universal draft will prevent future wars. It never has in the past.
If you want to prevent future wars, then you should be calling for the elimination of the war powers act, and outlawing congress granting a president the right to go to war, without a declaration of war from the congress. The gave Bush a rubber stamp to go into Iraq, when ever he wanted to.
It is amazing how all those right wingers who are always claiming to be supporters of strict construction, and original intent, completely ignore the fact that Congress was the one who was granted the power to declare war, in order to restrain presidents from jumping into conflicts.
I do not give a rat’s arse if you like what I state or not. Your support of bringing back the draft is something that I think proves you are already unhinged.
Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) was extraordinarily courageous to sign the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
LBJ also was tremendously successful at reducing poverty, something which he rarely gets enough credit for.
@All But Certain and Chuck in Denton…
Thanks for the recommendations on good LBJ bios…I already love Doris Kearns Goodwin so I’ll probably start there.
And while Vietnam was a mess and many of the Viet Nam War’s justifications were, in retrospect, false, there were many who believed it was a fight against encroaching Communism.
It’s often forgotten that it was the Democratic Party that took the fight to the Communists in both Korea and Vietnam while it was the Republican Party that “cut and ran” from both Korea and Vietnam.
I’m always interested in hearing right wingers revisionist explain why Republicans cut and ran from the fight against Communism…
But then these are the same Republicans who adopted the Communist Chinese torture techniques to force false confessions…
And these are the same Republicans who sold out America’s manufacturing base to the Communist Chinese…
“You are already crazy if you think that bringing back a universal draft will prevent future wars.”–Liam
“I do not give a rat’s arse if you like what I state or not. Your support of bringing back the draft is something that I think proves you are already unhinged.”–Liam
If you actually read what I wrote about the draft, I didn’t say I was in favor of bringing it back, universal or not. I talked about the way it affected the homefront perception of Vietnam and said I didn’t think Bush could have done what he did in Iraq if our forces were all draftees.
I appreciate your passion on these subjects, but I’m puzzled by your anger and, yes, by your carelessness with the facts.
ABC,
You are the one who came after me, and said that I was driving you crazy, and now you are claiming that I am the one who is angry?
And just because I do not buy into your revisionist history about how the draft ended the Vietnam war, does not make me careless with the facts, it makes you careless with the truth.
The war ended when the North Vietnamese and their insurgent allies in the south conquered the south, and the US fled off the roof tops, and by boats. That is the real history, so stop being so careless with your facts just to try and prop up your absurd claims for how a draft would keep us from getting into wars.
I will settle for the far smaller number who have been killed in wars since we ended the draft, than were killed in the last two we entered with the draft in place.