| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Obama's focus on withdrawal could jeopardize Afghan mission |
| 2009-12-02 |
| President Barack Obama's effort Tuesday night to reassure Democrats who oppose the deployment of another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to emphasize a U.S. exit strategy to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reform his corruption-riddled government could backfire. The Taliban , al Qaida , their allies and their patrons in Pakistan and the Middle East , as well as America's partners, may think that Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 signals a lack of U.S. staying power and dilutes any incentives for insurgents to switch sides or negotiate a political accord. Instead, the extremists may persevere in their fight, thinking they can run out the clock and further erode support for the war in the United States as congressional elections loom in 2010, while pumping up their own ranks. Some members of the U.S.-led international force already have announced their intention to leave. "It's a big mistake," a U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said of Obama's announcement that a U.S. withdrawal would begin in 19 months. "It just tells the Taliban and everyone else how long they need to last." Rest at link |
| Posted by:ed |
| #4 Not all that different from what Bush proposed in Iraq, I guess. A notably uninspirational speech, but given the line he has to walk politically, it's probably the best he could do. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-02 12:39 |
| #3 Actually, you were initially correct. It's only two points. This one isn't a point. If the insurgents choose to sit back for 18 months, they will find at the end of that time a larger and better trained Afghan security force Look back at the previous 18 months. Or the 18 before that. Or the 18 before that. Or add all those months together. 18 months is no time at all when it comes to raising and training a national army in a culture that has a history of not having one. If anything, it's the precise opposite of what you say. Continuing their attacks will lead to a more experienced ANA with more knowledge of the Talibans operation. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-12-02 12:35 |
| #2 oops thats 3 points - yes I can count, but forgot to edit |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-12-02 12:01 |
| #1 two points 1. When surged in Iraq, anyone who closely followed the discussions knew that the surge troops couldn't be there that long, because of the strain on US ground forces, which was acknowledged by the authors of the surge strategy. Despite that, the insurgents could not simply sit back - for why see point 2 2. If the insurgents choose to sit back for 18 months, they will find at the end of that time a larger and better trained Afghan security force. And probably a stronger afghan economy, governance, etc. Not a good strategy for them, even leaving aside that BHO did NOT promise to take out all US forces, or even all surge forces, in 18 months. He said he would BEGIN a US withdrawl, and THAT is contingent on conditions on the ground. 3. In response to the snark about members of the Int Force leaving. That would be Canada, and they really did overstretch themselves, and need a break. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-12-02 12:00 |