Kudos to President Obama

[Brainfade]

He recognized a good thing and is using it as part of his strategy in Afghanistan. From the NYT:

The new strategy draws heavily on lessons learned from President George W. Bush’s “surge” and strategy shift in Iraq in 2007, which Mr. Obama opposed as a senator and presidential candidate. Mr. Obama’s advisers are even referring to his troop buildup as an “extended surge.” However officials said that Mr. Obama in his speech will give a time frame — something Mr. Bush did not do — for when the United States will start pulling the reinforcements out and begin turning over security responsibilities to Afghan forces one province at a time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html Some of us have contended that GWB's surge strategy in Iraq provided enough stability there that Pres. Obama inherited the luxury of withdrawing on a time-table. It looks like the President himself agrees. A difference in the approach is that GWB's govt did not give a public time-table, but Pres Obama does, even at the cost of not meeting it. To some, that in itself represents a major policy shift. To others (like me), it is not. PS: I was against the Iraq war, but felt that the 2007 surge was a good strategy to expedite the attainment of stability, so they could get out quicker.

[The Outsider]

I feel we are heading for a huge, huge mess in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region : 1. America and NATO have openly started striking deals with Taliban - what does this achieve in the long term? Absolutely nothing. They'll take the money being offered in the form of the deals and sit quiet till the forces evacuate the area to be back again. 2. The Afghan government and US have started creating local armed cells to counter Taliban - this is a repetition of how Taliban was created to start off with. Once US troops leave what will these people do? Of course, fight more and try to get greater areas under control. Even join forces with Taliban. 3. The surge worked so well in Iraq because the conflicts were in confined areas in accessible terrain. The Afghan conflict is much more of a guerrilla war and if one is to draw a parallel Vietnam would be more instructive where the highest casualties happened at the times of the highest troop strength because of the more targets to aim at theory. It was after the "surge" in '68-'69 and the increasing American casualties that the futility of the effort started to dawn upon everyone. 4. Unless, Pakistan at the other side of the border is successful in it's battles this is going to be a very tough task ahead of the US. My view is that nothing is being gained by staying there even for a minute - you are not destroying the enemy in their home but are creating more and more enemies. It's best for the US to cut it's losses and withdraw immediately from the region.

[Brainfade]

I feel we are heading for a huge, huge mess in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region : 1. America and NATO have openly started striking deals with Taliban - what does this achieve in the long term? Absolutely nothing. They'll take the money being offered in the form of the deals and sit quiet till the forces evacuate the area to be back again. 2. The Afghan government and US have started creating local armed cells to counter Taliban - this is a repetition of how Taliban was created to start off with. Once US troops leave what will these people do? Of course, fight more and try to get greater areas under control. Even join forces with Taliban. 3. The surge worked so well in Iraq because the conflicts were in confined areas in accessible terrain. The Afghan conflict is much more of a guerrilla war and if one is to draw a parallel Vietnam would be more instructive where the highest casualties happened at the times of the highest troop strength because of the more targets to aim at theory. It was after the "surge" in '68-'69 and the increasing American casualties that the futility of the effort started to dawn upon everyone. 4. Unless, Pakistan at the other side of the border is successful in it's battles this is going to be a very tough task ahead of the US. My view is that nothing is being gained by staying there even for a minute - you are not destroying the enemy in their home but are creating more and more enemies. It's best for the US to cut it's losses and withdraw immediately from the region.

It will not happen. The President has stated - starting with his campaign - that the Afghan was the real war. He is hanging his hat on this one, and will not back down. Is he right? Under the current circumstances, a surge is his best option (and good for him that he recognized it). Only time will tell if it will work in the long term.

[Rajiv]

But will this solve anything?

[gs]

Addressing the symptoms without curing the root cause (ISI) will not help at all, not matter how strong the measure is. As far as I see it, its just a show of force, waste of time, money, resources, lives and a financial windfall to the US arms industry.

[Macj]

He recognized a good thing and is using it as part of his strategy in Afghanistan. From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html Some of us have contended that GWB's surge strategy in Iraq provided enough stability there that Pres. Obama inherited the luxury of withdrawing on a time-table. It looks like the President himself agrees. A difference in the approach is that GWB's govt did not give a public time-table, but Pres Obama does, even at the cost of not meeting it. To some, that in itself represents a major policy shift. To others (like me), it is not. PS: I was against the Iraq war, but felt that the 2007 surge was a good strategy to expedite the attainment of stability, so they could get out quicker.

Timetables are very relative and fluid. So Bush orders 20,000 troop surge in Iraq and is taken to the cleaners as a child killer, Obama orders a similar troop buildup and is exalted. Interesting reactions.

[yoda]

Timetables are very relative and fluid. So Bush orders 20,000 troop surge in Iraq and is taken to the cleaners as a child killer, Obama orders a similar troop buildup and is exalted. Interesting reactions.

cause one is a legit war and must be won and the other was a bogus war and must end soon.

[Macj]

cause one is a legit war and must be won and the other was a bogus war and must end soon.

Why isnt Obama ending the bogus war then?

[yoda]

Why isnt Obama ending the bogus war then?

He has set a timetable for troop withdrawal which his predecessor refused to do in Iraq.

[Brainfade]

He has set a timetable for troop withdrawal which his predecessor refused to do in Iraq.

The Bush administration set benchmarks, not deadlines that sound good when they are made, but will inevitably slip later. The Obama admininstration likes to set public deadlines/timetables knowing fully well that it will be near-impossible to meet them: e.g., "we will have 30,000 troops in Afghanistan at the beginning of 2010." The ground reality (according to a military source who was interviewed on NPR) is that it is impossible to meet that deadline. But by then the public has forgotten what was said in Dec 2009, and all is well. Pretty good strategy, if you ask me. Link and quote added in edit - read the bold-faced part. How is that any different from the previous admin's Iraq strategy? http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/06/obama-aides-say-troop-withdrawal-timetable-not-a-drop-dead-dead/

Top Obama administration officials and its military advisers today again tried to dampen criticism of the public timetable President Obama described this week for beginning to draw down U.S. troops in Afghanistan, saying variously the 2011 target date "is not a cliff, it's a ramp" and it does not amount to triggering "a rush to the exits" or a "drop dead deadline." Get the new PD toolbar! Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, all took to the Sunday talk shows to expand on the flexibility the administration would show when it came to the pace of the withdrawal after an 18 month effort to build up Afghan forces so they could take over the security of their own country. But Republican Sen. John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that while he supported the overall plan Obama laid out at West Point last Tuesday, he wasn't buying the reassurances being given out by the administration about the timetable. McCain pointed to a statement reportedly made by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs this week to CBS News correspondent Chip Reid when pressed on the flexibility question and Gibbs went to the president for clarification. "The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel," Reid wrote. "There is a significant contradiction between what Secretaries Gates and Clinton were saying (when they testified on Capitol Hill this week) and what the president's spokesperson said a couple of days ago, "McCain said on NBC's Meet the Press. "It has caused reactions such as you saw with the prime minister of Pakistan," McCain said. "Policymakers throughout the region...are now trying to figure out whether whether they can really go all in and support this effort or do they have to accommodate because if we leave, they have to stay in the region." "The rationale for war is to break the enemy's will...Do you break the enemy's will by saying we're going to be there for a year and a half or so and then we're going to begin to leave no matter what the circumstances are or do you tell them we're going to win and we're going to break your will and then we're going to leave. That's a huge factor in the conduct of war especially when you're conducting counterinsurgency, "said McCain. Gates played down that factor on CBS News' Face the Nation, saying, "The reality is the Taliban reads the newspapers. They know what popular opinion is in Europe. They know what popular opinion is in the United States. Whether you announce a date or not, they can tell as easily from reading the news media about political support for these kinds of undertakings themselves. They always believe that they can outlast us." "The reality is though what are they going to do? Are they going to get more aggressive than they already are?," Gates added. "We don't think they can. If they lie low, that's great news to us because it gives us some huge opportunities in Afghanistan. We think that we have the opportunity to engage these guys with the additional force we're sending in, make a significant difference in 18 months, get enough additional Afghan troops and police trained that we can begin this gradual process of transitioning security." Gates said on Meet the Press the administration decided to lay out a timetable for beginning to withdraw troops because there was "an important element here of balancing, sending a signal of resolve but also giving the Afghan government a sense of urgency that they need to get their young men recruited and trained and into the field and partnering with our forces, and then on their own." "In July of 2011 our generals are confident that they will know whether our strategy is working," said Gates. "And the plan is to begin transferring areas of responsibility for security over to the Afghan security forces with us remaining in a tactical and strategical overwatch position, sort of a cavalry over the hill. But we will begin to thin our forces and begin to bring the home. But the pace of bringing them home and where we will bring them home from will depend on the circumstances on the ground and those judgments will be made by our commanders in the field." Clinton added, on the same show, "We're not talking about an exit strategy or drop-dead deadline." Petraeus and Jones used similar language in their talk show appearances. Petraeus said on Fox News Sunday that the July, 2011 date "doesn't trigger a rush to the exits. It triggers a beginning of transition to Afghan security forces and, over time, a beginning of transition of tasks to Afghan governmental elements as well." On CNN's State of the Union, Jones said, "2011 is not a cliff, it's a ramp. And it's when the effects of this increase will be, by all accounts, according to our military commanders and our senior civilians, where we will be able to see very, very visible progress and we'll be able to make a shift. ..the end of the ramp will be predicated on exactly how much progress we're making with regard to the capability of the Afghan national security force, the better governance that we hope to see, both at the national and regional levels and local levels and tribal levels as well."

[Brainfade]

Timetables are very relative and fluid. So Bush orders 20,000 troop surge in Iraq and is taken to the cleaners as a child killer, Obama orders a similar troop buildup and is exalted. Interesting reactions.

I've been banging my head on a brick-wall trying to make people understand that Obama's ability to get troops out of Iraq is predicated entirely on the success of Bush's surge strategy. But for the surge, the situation would not be under enough control for Obama to announce withdrawal timetables of any sort. Having said that, it must be acknowledged that Bush and Cheney brought this on themselves. They were smug, brash, condescending of the media and had zero PR skills. And their legacy is being defined by that attitude.