I’m sure the president will be attacked for making it our policy to get the hell out of Afghanistan, but the only way I could be happier about it would be if he had made the decision sooner and it was implemented faster. Honestly, it’s not entirely clear when he made the decision. He campaigned on getting out of Iraq so we could refocus on Afghanistan. But I always sensed that that rhetoric was calibrated to prevent him from looking weak as he called for an end to the war in Iraq. In any case, once elected he had immediate cause to doubt the wisdom of doubling down in Afghanistan:
The remaking of American strategy in Afghanistan began, though no one knew it at the time, in a cramped conference room in Mr. Obama’s transition headquarters in late 2008. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation.
The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Partially because of his campaign rhetoric, and partially because the military brass was committed to the fight, Obama felt boxed into making a temporary surge of troops. But he wasn’t happy about it:
“I think he hated the idea from the beginning,” one of his advisers said of the surge. “He understood why we needed to try, to knock back the Taliban. But the military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.”
This adviser inadvertently provided an attack line for Romney. Why would a president order troops into battle if he wasn’t ‘all in’? But the truth was that he had concluded that the war’s aims weren’t realistic and the costs were not sustainable.
…the more he delved into what it would take to truly change Afghan society, the more he concluded that the task was so overwhelming that it would make little difference whether a large American and NATO force remained for 2 more years, 5 more years or 10 more years.
The surge was a way to give the Afghanistan government a chance, but the mission had changed. The mission was to shore things up and get out. And Obama wasn’t going to get muscled again by the Pentagon:
By early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exit from Afghanistan. This time there would be no announced national security meetings, no debates with the generals. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were left out until the final six weeks.
The key decisions had essentially been made already when Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his last months as commander in Afghanistan, arrived in Washington with a set of options for the president that called for a slow withdrawal of surge troops. He wanted to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan through the next fighting season, with a steep drop to follow. Mr. Obama concluded that the Pentagon had not internalized that the goal was not to defeat the Taliban. He said he “believed that we had a more limited set of objectives that could be accomplished by bringing the military out at a faster clip,” an aide reported.
After a short internal debate, Mr. Gates and Mrs. Clinton came up with a different option: end the surge by September 2012 — after the summer fighting season, but before the election. Mr. Obama concurred. But he was placing an enormous bet: his goals now focus largely on finishing off Al Qaeda and keeping Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from going astray.
President Bush gave Obama two unwinnable wars to deal with. And he’s dealt with them about as well as could be expected. When you hear Republicans criticize his decisions and his leadership, make sure you remember that. I’ve made my own criticisms. I don’t think the surge was worth it. But I don’t have to make these calls and somehow survive politically.
Out of the experience emerged Mr. Obama’s “light footprint” strategy, in which the United States strikes from a distance but does not engage in years-long, enervating occupations.
The great irony is that this was the original plan when Bush went in. We didn’t take over Afghanistan from the Taliban; there were about 1000 American troops in the entire country when the Northern Alliance captured Kabul.
“But I don’t have to make these calls and somehow survive politically”.
Huh? Are you implying numerous democrats/independents want us to stay in Afghanistan?
Helloooooooo? Earth to Bloggo world:
NATO is more or less finished. I’m not sure what Obama thinks he’s going to accomplish this weekend in Chicago. it’s certainly not going to be a renewed committment (money or troops) from NATO members for Afghanistan.
If its to be a dog and pony show regarding how “well prepared” the Afghan army and police forces are- that could have been accomplished just a few weeks ago when Obama met with Karzai.
Regarding NATO, everbody wants out; the sooner the better. That means we are again left holding the bag. I think the majority of us have had enough of this nonsense.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/obamas-biggest-mistake-in-the-world
the president had to get elected. Then he had to make a decision about what to do. He didn’t make that decision when 70% of the people opposed the war. He helped create the conditions and mold public opinion to get us to that point.
And even if people dislike the wars, it’s not easy to look strong on national defense while ending two wars on less than glamorous terms.
Personally, I couldn’t have ordered a surge if I wasn’t ‘all in.’ But I also couldn’t win a presidential election or get reelected.
“And even if people dislike the wars, it’s not easy to look strong on national defense while ending two wars on less than glamorous terms.”
Again, huh? It appears that you, like many in progressive Bloggo world, give much credence to typical reich wing propaganda regarding the democrats being “weak on defense”.
What a load. First, we’re not leaving Afghanistan. even if we do fully withdraw, it won’t be until well after the next election. Second, the number of predator drone attacks against terrorist targets in Yemen, Pakistan, etc., are wayyy up under the Obama adminstration compared to the bush admin. Third- and this should be Numero Uno in terms of propaganda value: bin Laden was taken out under the Obama administration.
Thus there’s alot more ammo for Obama to work with here politically than regarding the jobs/economy issue.
In addition, since you look at polling, you know that defense is not number one on the list of concerns of those being polled. I doubt defense is even in the top five issues.
You might want to take a look at the House proposed defense budget for 2013, a massive $642 billion- with a whopping 140 amendments attached to the budget legislation.
There’s already talk of a presidential veto of this budget since mandated spending cuts are being ignored by morons in the House, and that includes “democrats” looking out for the defense industries in their districts- as usual.
Why are “democrats” in congress hamstringing the president on this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/usa-defense-budget-idUSL1E8GHK2K20120518
Did everybody notice how the goalposts moved from “ending the wars” to the vague “getting out of Afghanistan?”
History happens twice, once as tragedy, the second time as farce. It was just tragic watching people insist that the Iraq War wasn’t going to end, that the occupation wasn’t going to end, that the “permanent bases” wouldn’t be abandoned, and then scramble around insisting that they weren’t technically completely wrong because, man, that embassy is really big!
Okay, I changed my mind: that was farce, too.
You realize you could be writing about Nixon?
Huh? Are you implying numerous democrats/independents want us to stay in Afghanistan?
In the early-to-mid 70s, similar numbers wanted the U.S. to get out of Vietnam. That didn’t stop the Republicans from successfully hammering the Democrats for “surrendering” and being “soft of defense/Communism” for decades anyway.
To totally Godwin the thread, most Germans wanted to end the war in 1918, but that didn’t stop the “Stab in the Back” narrative from developing.
Not to mention the “The food riots and rebellion in Berlin were the cause of defeat!” narrative to develop, rather than those being the consequence of defeat.
Hell, how many British historians say that the German fleet never left port after Jutland, and insist this means the Brits won Jutland, rather than the simple fact that the German fleet actually did leave port 3 times after that battle. (Enough to confirm that the Brits were reading their radio transmissions, and therefore their strategy of defeating the British fleet piecemeal was impossible and so they turned instead to U-boats.)
Defeat is a hard thing to swallow, and its easy to swallow even the thinnest of justifications.
.
Too often I have had to repeat myself about the Northwestern Frontier in Pakistan and the dual allegiance of ISI and the Pakistani political leaders. Pulling out of Afghanistan will leave the country prone to internal division and susceptible to the regional powers. See map of its powerful neighbours. I understand it’s not insecurity, but the corruption as the greatest evil in Afghanistan. The Aghan soldier receives just $70 of his official $100 salary. I suspect Obama didn’t appreciate the lack of friendship by PM Maliki in Iraq. Is the Iranian flag already flying over the Green Zone in Baghdad?
Tribute to ICRC Worker Khalil Dale; AfPak Terror Quagmire
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Iraq and Iran have been fighting for centuries. The only thing that allowed Iran to extend any influence at all was the US’s insistence of splitting the country up into Religious lines rather than tribal lines.
In truth, Saddam Hussain did not oppress the Shia so much as his tribe oppressed the other tribes. The Sunni and Shia were pretty much intermingled in all the tribes of Iraq. That’s why Sunnis and Shias served in his cabinet without a problem. Tribal divisions were more important than Religious divisions, but the more educated and secular Sunnis did tend to run things.
Iraq is on its way to being an Islamic Republic now, which is what Saudi Arabia wanted, but I figure Iraq and Iran will be at one another’s throats again within a decade.
Between the mineral wealth and the opium and gas piplelines, we’ll never leave.
After all we’re never going to leave Iraq, not so long as they have all that lovely oil.
They’re moving opium by pipeline now?
What’s it called, the Keystoned XXL?
Yes, why would a president send 1300+ people to their explosive demise for a cause he didn’t believe in?
And by the way, this is why I hate that fucking word:
Oh good, you were being “pragmatic” in your delusional failure. At least you had that going for you…
So you think that, like LBJ and Nixon, he kept fighting a war he didn’t believe in to avoid harm to his political career and his party?
And you praise him for it?
Did you praise them?