The logical question is what happens if that date comes and Afghanistan is still a safe haven for Al Quaeda?
Obama could announce that he was handing over the presidency to Dick and basso would find a way to criticize it.
There is wiggle room because of ambiguity. But putting a date out there to begin withdrawing amps up the pressure and the stakes on everyone to get their act together starting now.
An exact historical example I can't think of, but I can think of historical examples of having no exit strategy, staying too long and leaving in disgrace: Soviet Union in Afghanistan (the best example possible) and America in Vietnam. Obama cannot follow those blueprints to disaster. But Iraq's example may speak about this strategy. When the Dem's took over Congress in 2006, it sent a lightning bolt through Iraq because it nuked Bush's long-repeated "stay the course" mantra (which he never repeated). After Nov 2006, everyone (including Bush and minions) knew the U.S. would start laying out scenarios of leaving and the garbage Iraqi government at that time realized the indefinite safety net of U.S. military forces would end at some point. The welfare queen realized the checks would stop! The change in behavior of the Iraqi government was incredible. It stopped kowtowing to Shia extremists (in fact it endorsed brutally attacking them) and actually made good-faith efforts to include legit Sunni representation in it's coalition. Without the notion of pulling the rug out, Iraq would not be where it is now (though there is a LONG way to go). During the presidential campaign, McCain absolutely ripped the notion of setting dates for a troop pulldown while Obama walked out on a limb and did so. What's delicious is the Bush administration AND the Iraqi goverment basically ended up publicly agreeing with Obama's timeline. It was so embarrassing both sides briefly tried to take it back because Iraq didn't want to appear partisan and Bush didn't want to undermine McCain's campaign (this was when McCain was still the de facto GOP front-runner and before his campaign died and came back to life). It made McCain look like a complete fool and it undermined his supposed advantage in foreign policy.
By your own dumb-ass standard, you are wishing death upon American troops by criticizing the war strategy. Why do you wish American soldiers would die?
I am happy that Obama is giving us a chance to be successful in Afghanistan. I truly wish that Bush had done it right from the start, but we are past that particular clusterf*** now. Troops are beginning to be withdrawn from Iraq and we are finally focusing on the area we should have been concentrating on the entire time. IMO, wars without benchmarks are stupid. If we commit our troops without any sort of time limit, the government we are propping up has no incentive to getting their affairs in order. We saw this in Iraq and they began to get their act together once we made it clear that if the "surge" didn't help to get Iraq on its feet, we would be moving on. Now, we have lit a fire under the Afghans to get their s*** together. They now have the ability to choose whether they want to protect themselves from the oppressive regime of the Taliban. We are finally trying to get it right in Afghanistan, which is good because we have promised to rebuild them twice now, only to renege on these promises. The first time, our inaction ended up creating Osama bin Laden, we need to get it right this time and this strategy is the most likely to work and to have the support of enough of the US public to be politically palatable.
What you have said is basically right. The date is not really hard, although it was purposefully presented in a way that many people are perceiving it to essentially be so. That is certainly how it will be presented by the Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan to the people they are trying to oppress back in Afghanistan. Of that you can be certain. Unless some sort of miracle occurs, it seems highly unlikely that we start pulling out in 2011. Obama is deferring to his generals on this, and when push comes to shove, it is my sense he will continue to do so. While you have chosen to focus on my criticism of President Obama, the initial and primary theme of my post was to praise him for having the guts to make a fundamentally correct decision that was contrary to his natural desires, and that is unpopular with his liberal base. I wrote all of that before the criticisms for a reason. It is because the first part is the most important part, and I want to give Obama credit where credit is due. I summarized those sentiments above by saying, in no uncertain terms: Well done, President Obama. But announcing what has been perceived as a "date certain" for withdrawal is a big mistake for the reasons I also noted above. I know this might be difficult for some people around here to grasp, but there is actually room for some nuance in all this. Hoping against hope, my initial post includes an evaluation of some of those nuances. It is the explanation of these nuances that you have wrongly interpreted to be "contradictions". I am hopeful that you can find a way to appreciate that sort of an evaluation, even though we are obviously not going to agree on every point.
I seriously doubt the Taliban and Al Qaeda are going to take Obama literally at his word. Do you think they believe that the U.S. will completely leave by 2011 and are just going to suspend operations until the Americans are gone? If the Taliban decide to put down their arms and go back to their families, then when 2011 rolls around, there's not going to be as many Taliban. The U.S. will have 18 months to build schools, farms, and an economy. The populations of both countries will see stability and peace. 18 months of that and everyone will say the surge worked - not Americans, but Pakistanis and Afgani's - and you know what that will do, it will only make people less inclined to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It will allow 18 months for the U.S. military to focus on training and building an Afghan army. This is very good, because even if the Taliban try to start trouble again in 18 months, they will not only have to still fight a larger U.S. force (because we won't completely withdraw in 18, only begin to) but now they will have to face a stronger and better organized Afghan army. So let them hide. Let them think it's better to wait 18 months. That would be great. Honestly, I think it would be the best thing and Obama and the U.S. couldn't hope for more. Think about the benefits: Immediate cease of violence Less American troop loses Opportunity to build economy Opportunity to build afghan army Beautiful.
Sadly as defined by the Obama Administration that is almost assured. They incorrectly see the existence of a non-defeated Taliban as the same thing as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. They also get a bit into the Bush thing of trying to be very scary and trying to act like having some Al Qaeda anywhere in Afghanistan means we have to spend $100's of billions and sacrifice the well-being of the approaximately 1% who pay the human price for this war. If Obama would actually only waste money and lives for 18 months, I guess it is better than another 30 years as propposed by the GOP/neo-cons.
I would not have supported the troop increase without a date of withdrawal. Does any responsible CEO undergo a proposal without a deadline to get things done? If you don't have a fixed date, no one will have incentive to get anything done - that's what you get - a quagmire. A fixed date creates urgency. A oh **** we better get going desperation. That's good. And it gives Obama the political capital to send more troops. Without it, he'd be critcized for not having an exit strategy.
The Taliban is capable of nuance as well. They know the battle is for the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. If the Afghani people believe that the U.S. is committed to leaving, they will know that the Taliban will still be there after we leave, and that they will suffer at the hands of the Taliban for any cooperation they give to us. The only way that we can win the support and commitment of the Afghani people is if they have confidence that we will stay the course and finish the job. They must know that we will not leave until a self-sustaining Afghani government is in place, supported by an effective Afghanistan army and police. This is the kind of leadership that George W. Bush effectively provided in Iraq (despite any other mistakes that may have been made), and this is the standard of comparison with which the leadership (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama will be measured. Unfortunately, President Obama has sent the signal that the U.S. is looking forward to withdrawing as soon as reasonably possible, with draw-downs scheduled to commence in 18 months. This sends the signal to the Aghani people that we are not committed to finishing the job, even though we will probably be forced to continue our campaign in Afghanistan long after 2011. Barack Obama has crafted his policy statement regarding the initiation of troop withdrawals in Afghanistan in hopes of winning some cheap political points with his liberal base. But these points were actually bought at a very high cost. As the dust settles from this speech, we are left with the worst of both possible worlds. We appear to be on track for a long-term commitment in Afghanistan, President Obama's stated date to begin withdrawals notwithstanding. At the same time, we have sent the signal that we are leaving, depriving us of any realistic basis for expecting the essential and whole-hearted commitment of the Afghani people to this effort. The Taliban is not going to go hide, and the requests for troop increases are an indication that the generals do not believe they are going to go hide either. The Taliban are expected to continue engaging in guerrilla warfare against coalition forces and insurgent tactics against the local population. The suggestion that all of this is going to get fixed over the next 18 moths in a window of peace and calm is an Alice in Wonderland class pipe-dream. Emphasis on the pipe. We have seen how long this kind of exercise takes in Iraq. It is clearly going to take even longer in Afghanistan.
I would say the situation in Iraq was due to a soft withdrawl date of the end of Bush 43 presidency. Given that the next President was going to be unlikely to sustain the Iraq occupation at anywhere near the level that Bush 43 had done gave that Admin. some impetus to act more forcefully than they had. It looked like Major beat again. Damn You!
Of course there is room for nuance but considering about 70% of your post was bashing Obama that seems to be more of your interest. Perhaps I am being a little too hard on you though and this might be a poorly structured argument on your part. If you acknowledge a nuance its difficult to do so when you state something at one point then completely ignore it to make a criticism. That is a contradiction and not a nuance since there is a disconnect between what you are trying to say. I agree with you that Obama's withdrawl date has a lot to do with politics but he also articulated some very clear reasons not having to with politics why a withdrawl date is important. At the sametime as other posters have pointed out if the strategy of the Taliban is to just wait things out the problem with that is that the US, NATO and the Afghan government aren't going to be doing nothing in the meantime and will be pressing the attack.
It may take longer, but you have to put pressure on the Afghan gov't to get it's act together or we will be there forever. You have to give them a deadline.
I think this is a valid criticism of the plan. The Taliban won't lay low, and they will be telling people they will still be around when America leaves. That will be effective as propaganda and intimidation. But, I don't think it is insurmountable. There are also benefits to having a deadline, and those may outweigh this detriment. The solution, I think, is achieved on the ground. If the Afghan government looks a little legitimate, if the Afghan Army looks competent, and if the Taliban have been pounded on for the last 18 months, the populace could swing to the apparent victor and hasten the Taliban's demise. Of course, the risk is that the Taliban acquits itself nicely in battle, the Afghan troops remain inadequate and suffer from constant desertion, and the Afghan government is still seen as corrupt and weak, then the populace may well be swinging away from us. Of course, in the latter case, maybe it'd be time to admit we lost. I don't necessarily agree that we will be forced to extend the deadline. We may, to basso's delight, cut and run. And, that might be okay... for us. The Taliban could take over the country, oppress their women, cripple their own economy, hate America, and harbor terrorists. But, we might want to explore other options for containing the threat of terrorism.
Apparently he the Labour Party Defense Secretary missed the part of the plan that mentions it will depend on conditions on the ground just as mentioned here. It really makes people look bad when they rail against something imaginary. We've seen it with the health care reform opponents and we see it now.
