As we await President Obama's speech from West Point tonight on sending a reported 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan (sigh) there is so much conflicting information, so many contradictory statements, and frankly, so much bullshit coming out of those who are supposedly in the know, that it's difficult to know what to believe or expect. I'll start with this:
I know during last year's campaign then-Senator Obama said he would send more troops to Afghanistan. However, I don't recall the words "double down" being used. Must have missed that.
This from the Washington Post:
Maybe that's in a letter to Santa. Same article, different paragraph:
According to the New York Times, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs "told reporters at the White House that Mr. Obama would discuss in the speech how he intended to pay for the plan.." Meanwhile at the WaPo, "Gibbs said that he did "not have anything conclusive" on how Obama intends to pay for the escalation and that it would not be detailed in the speech."
"British Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- with whom Obama spoke Monday -- offered a preview of aspects of the strategy when he addressed Parliament... Over the next year, he said, the Afghan army will be expanded from 90,000 to 134,000 troops.."
So the Afghan army which has taken 8 years to build up to 90,000, will be increased by 44,000 in the next year? Square that with this:
The increase in Afghan forces is so that allegedly they can take over more of the responsibility of security for their own country, with some conditions applied to President Karzai:
"Free from corruption." Yeah, that'll happen. Now tell me the one about Goldilocks and the bears.
President Obama is also expected to somehow lay out a timetable for withdrawal while sending in 30,000 more troops. I'm not quite sure how that works. Press Secretary Gibbs said, "This is not an open-ended commitment." But from what I understand about this new Afghan "surge" the deployment will be done in stages over a period of 18 months, and General McChrystal has said it would take an additional 18 months to be able to judge its effectiveness. When I went to school, that added up to 3 years.
And if it's not an open-ended commitment, can somebody explain the Pentagon handing out contracts for billions of dollars in construction and expansion projects in Afghanistan, some of which have an estimated completion date as late as September of 2014.
Sounds to me like they're planning to stay a while.
"The new deployments, along with 22,000 troops he authorized early this year, would bring the total U.S. force in Afghanistan to more than 100,000, more than half of which will have been sent to the war zone by Obama."
I know during last year's campaign then-Senator Obama said he would send more troops to Afghanistan. However, I don't recall the words "double down" being used. Must have missed that.
This from the Washington Post:
"The president also plans to ask NATO and other partners in an international coalition to contribute 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, officials said."
Maybe that's in a letter to Santa. Same article, different paragraph:
"Equally uncertain is the likelihood that NATO and other allies will contribute additional troops to a war that is deeply unpopular in Europe."
According to the New York Times, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs "told reporters at the White House that Mr. Obama would discuss in the speech how he intended to pay for the plan.." Meanwhile at the WaPo, "Gibbs said that he did "not have anything conclusive" on how Obama intends to pay for the escalation and that it would not be detailed in the speech."
"British Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- with whom Obama spoke Monday -- offered a preview of aspects of the strategy when he addressed Parliament... Over the next year, he said, the Afghan army will be expanded from 90,000 to 134,000 troops.."
So the Afghan army which has taken 8 years to build up to 90,000, will be increased by 44,000 in the next year? Square that with this:
"Administration officials said that Mr. Obama in his speech would lower American ambitions for the rate of training Afghan soldiers and the national police, a position that could put him at odds with some senior lawmakers."
The increase in Afghan forces is so that allegedly they can take over more of the responsibility of security for their own country, with some conditions applied to President Karzai:
"Allied governments have pressed Karzai to remove warlords and cronies from senior government positions. Over the next nine months, Brown said, the Afghan president "will be expected to implement . . . far-reaching reforms to ensure that, from now on, all 400 provinces and districts have a governor appointed on merit, free from corruption, with clearly defined roles, skills and resources."
"Free from corruption." Yeah, that'll happen. Now tell me the one about Goldilocks and the bears.
President Obama is also expected to somehow lay out a timetable for withdrawal while sending in 30,000 more troops. I'm not quite sure how that works. Press Secretary Gibbs said, "This is not an open-ended commitment." But from what I understand about this new Afghan "surge" the deployment will be done in stages over a period of 18 months, and General McChrystal has said it would take an additional 18 months to be able to judge its effectiveness. When I went to school, that added up to 3 years.
And if it's not an open-ended commitment, can somebody explain the Pentagon handing out contracts for billions of dollars in construction and expansion projects in Afghanistan, some of which have an estimated completion date as late as September of 2014.
Sounds to me like they're planning to stay a while.
Once again, Barack Obama demonstrates he is a powerful and thoughtful orator. He did mention the cost of the war(s) and said Congress would have to address the issue. Nice hand off. But is it leadership? A war surcharge is the answer, in my view. Sure it would rile the wingers and even Carl Levin is opposed to it. But we ought to have the political will to pay our own bills and to demonstrate our national commitment.
I think Obama is taking the most practical approach to ending this war the best way possible after a very well thought out analysis of all his options. It's not necessarily pretty, easy, or clean but that option was forfeited a long time ago in Tora Bora by a hypocritical cowboy draft dodger of a President.
Cutting and running and leaving Afghanistan in a chaotic power vacuum is neither the most humanitarian nor strategically prudent option. Reference Clinton's bailout from Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" incident in 1993. In my mind, that paper tiger exit only emboldened al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to act and instigated the 9-11 attacks, not to mention what it has done to Somalia and the lawlessness and civil war that exists to this day (re: Somali piracy and Islamic militants we are still covertly fighting with our own Special Forces 16 years later). And prior to that, the Soviet bailout from Afghanistan led to the chaos that resulted in the Taliban takeover of the country and their collusion with and sheltering of bin Laden and al Qaeda.
I agree with alienhunter in that it takes a force run up in a neglected, undermanned, underarmed, and underfunded war to be able to "successfully" withdraw and I think that is what was Obama has done.
So as much we want to just get the hell out of there; for the long term, that's just not a good answer. I just hope that Obama's choice is the right solution. Only time will tell. It's definitely the most well thought out solution in a very long, long time.
Well...I'm more confused here than watching an episode of CSI:Miami.
I agree with Carol. I am about as happy as a guy eating turkey leftovers for the sixth straight days. I know this was an option of "which foot would you like to shoot yourself in", but still.
Des,
It's not our job alone. It's a scary prospect for many people but the 'world' needs to cooperate. How else can we ever truly reach the goal of world peace, presupposing, of course, that is where we want to go. I've read and heard some pretty offbeat theories regarding a world government conspiracy but it's my opinion the entities promoting those theories are the entities that have a vested interest in keeping the world in a fractured state. Very credible strategists have laid out a rational and uplifting 'future scenario' that if accepted can make for a much improved world status. What is critical for realization of this future is the need for all viable governments to work together to put the smackdown on the bad actors. And subsequent to the smackdown it is then necessary to implement a 'stabilizing' force to allow the smacked to integrate (assimilate, if you will) gracefully into the mature reasonable community of nations. It really does make sense to me. Now that we are amidst the holocaust of a near decade of war, why stop now? Why not make a paradigm shift that can lead to a much better place. It ain't never gonna be pretty but it can be done.
World peace keeper and nation builder is not our job. We have some nation building to do right here.
I think the Obama statement was actually, "Raise American ambitions" in other words, accelerate training of Afghanistan resources.
I don't think it's a mistake...I think he has a responbility to the troops currently deployed. I think this "surge" actually signals an implementation of a "withdrawal strategy". I give it one year (realistically, perhaps two years, but we will see and hear the rumblings earlier)and the troops will be moving homeward. I also believe that Obama will be working in vociferous fashion to place a "world police keeping force" and "nation building corps" in lieu of combat forces. All of this will be facilitated by resurgence of American moral authority due to Obama's respectful treatment of the world-at-large.
I am terribly sad that President Obama has made the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. I had hoped that the would not be the case.
I believe that this is a no win situation, as was Vietnam, and the end result will be more deaths for our soldiers. And, I agree with Artemusg - this has now become Obama's war. Sad.
I agree with Bob Herbert in today's NY Times. It's the wrong call and I think history will prove that. The war was already lost before Obama took office. A country trillions in debt cannot afford to keep soldiers overseas for another decade, or ask them to die for a corrupt Karzai government. It will be Obama's war and probably his biggest mistake.
Do I hear any offers for the framed, numbered Shepard Fairey Obama portrait I have hanging on my wall?