Joe Biden played down expectations for the celebrated July 2011 “inflection point” in Afghanistan by lowering the bar on the number of troops that may leave the country in the first phase to an almost comical number.
As few as “a couple of thousand” U.S. troops may leave Afghanistan in the first phase of withdrawing forces from there beginning a year from now, Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
“It could be as few as a couple of thousand troops; it could be more,” Biden told ABC’s “This Week.” [...] calling the July 2011 withdrawal date “the beginning of a transition” based on the ability of Afghanistan forces to provide security around the country.
You get the sense that these guys are petrified to be left with no wars to fight and no toughness to display. The raising of conditions and tempering of numbers of troops to withdraw has turned the “inflection point” into a point of meaninglessness. You can only find 4 in 10 Americans who think this war worth the costs, and that has even emboldened political leaders to speak out, though in opposite directions. Jim Webb has called specifically for an endpoint to operations in Afghanistan, while Dick Lugar’s concern seems more focused on keeping the 2011 date as mushy as possible, saying that withdrawing any troops at that time could ruin… whatever it is we’re supposed to be doing there.
In six months, the president expects a review by his commanders on the status of our efforts in Afghanistan. This review presumably would determine the shape of an expected transition of responsibilities to Afghan security forces in July 2011. But absent a major realignment on the ground, it is unrealistic to expect that a significant downsizing of U.S. forces could occur at that time without security consequences. This conclusion is reinforced by recent GAO and Inspector General reports that have raised deep concerns over the viability and quality of training for the Afghan National Army and police.
I don’t think that Congress will find much of a backbone on this. Those supposedly predisposed to break with the DC wisdom of more wars and occupations, like Rand Paul, don’t want to talk about the war. And the only media figures showing any Cronkite-like backbone in speaking the truth about the war are people like Rachel Maddow, who in our fractured media landscape doesn’t command the universal attention she deserves, especially on this issue.
Many of us don’t see the point in keeping on with this war because of walking some imagined tightrope between acting “tough” and acting smart. A hundred or less Al Qaeda in the region do not provide enough of a reason to spend a decade putting together the pieces of a puzzle that simply does not fit.
P.S. It may well be that Mullah Omar is issuing calls on targeting women, but it sure is convenient to have it come out from US intelligence sources when public opinion on the war sits at a low ebb.





24 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
But if we don’t have big scary enemies, what will we do with all those defense contractors?
All we have to do is accomplish the goals stated in our declaration of war is find that document, other wise we’re pissing into a strong wind.
Congress is supposed to define the parameters of the fight and fund activities to get us there, then the president directs the action.
By asking the president to define what the end is, is a direct refusal to carry out their duties defined by the constitution.
We’ve elected great candidates who lack any respect or even understanding of their constitutional obligations.
Biden time in 2012 or “Head fakes for Peace” in 2012/s
Meanwhile I just read an article titled, “Afghan About-Face: An Emerging GOP Schism”
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/18/afghan-about-face-an-emerging-gop-schism.html
“Some newer GOP members of Congress allied with the Tea Party, like Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, say doubts about the endless drain of Afghanistan are beginning to penetrate a movement that has, until now, been obsessed with the domestic aspects of big government. “America is weary,” says Chaffetz. “We’re fast approaching a decade [of war] and no end in sight. And I think you have a lot of people who have less and less confidence in the president.” Chaffetz, like other congressmen who have voted against Afghan funding, says more of his House colleagues are quietly cheering him on.”
Biden — or Clinton, or Gates, or Petraeus, or even Obama — needs to answer Rachel Maddow’s central question about Afghanistan: how can we build a ten billion dollar Afghan military and expect it not to overwhelm a fourteen billion dollar Afghan economy when we leave?
No one will ask a decision-maker this question.
The military looses track of more money than anything the government does – with the exception of the ongoing Fed and Treasury schemes to protect those on the financial bailout dole. If the money spigot were shut of the problem of Rome and it’s pretorian guard becomes ours. This was Eisenhower’s admonition and is now our problem. Every combat ready individual trained for years in semi-urban conflicts – this being our longest running military campaign – that comes back to an economy lacking the employment opportunities of 10 years ago is a potential problem. When the troops came back from WWII most of the women who had been working factories returned to cheap new homes that the government proceeded to build. Cheap new homes for returnees aren’t an option and neither is replacing one’s spouse at the check-out counter.
Like the bailouts, this is about spending hundreds of billions each year to kick the can down the road because the only part of the economy that is functioning is the one that generates money from debt and it’s cousin gambling with other people’s money.
GOP: The Peace & Pot Party!
(hey, it could happen)
Withdrawal.
Promised by men in Power.
One of the three great lies…Correct?
You cannot take seriously anything Biden says. He continually speaks without thinking. He’s an amusing gaffe machine, that’s all.
As few as “a couple of thousand” U.S. troops may leave Afghanistan in the first phase of withdrawing forces from there beginning a year from now, Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
How many would just be shifted to attacking Iran and how many would just be replaced by more expensive, less accountable contractors?
Not sure if there are only three but withdrawal is certainly high on the list of old lies.
You’re the first person that I’ve ever loved.
The check is in the mail.
This time it will be different.
If they shift to attacking Iran they will be moving more than a few thousand. You’re right though, there will be probably be a large new age Hessian contingent. Mercs are often considered cheaper because they have no code of justice to adhere to which means that little money will be wasted investigating misdeeds.
“If they shift to attacking Iran they will be moving more than a few thousand”
Yes. My point with Iran is the re-arranging the deckchairs type aspect of the Obama administration. With the so-called Gitmo closure for example, it’s not really a closure but instead simply shifting things to the Thomson Indefinite Detention Center…no actual change, except for change in location.
History repeats itself. I remember when Nixon won saying that he would get us out of Vietnam, then he preached someing called “Vietnamization”. Funny that it took until 1975 and the North Vietnamese Army invading South Vietnam-and our great congress refusing to give bombs and bullets to South Vietnam-before we finally left in a very humiliating defeat.
Is that our future in Afghanistan?
We have had massive mission creep.
Thrown out the Powell Doctrine-have a way out, no mission creep, no changing mission in the middle, and most important, have the backing of the american people.
We went in to destroy alQaeda and catch/kill OBL, no?
That pretty much became a wash after the Rumsfeld fuck up at Tora Bora. Then we changed the mission, or….did the bush regime simply put it on a back burner while we invaded Iraq for the bush corporate backers?
Either way, we have now moved into new and unexplored territory, setting up a govt in Afghanistan. An impossible task IMO. Because we are backing Karzai, the person who stole the last election. Whose govt might control parts of Kabul, but is in no way in control of the country.
Meanwhile the locals are 100% right. Why should they help the US against the “Taliban”(which is simply an umbrella name for lots of different groups with lots of different desires, not a monolithic organ by any means)when they will stay around-and as we all should know by now, Afghans hold grudges for.freekin. ever-and of course, we will leave. In a country with well over 90% illiteracy we can not even train their military/police(9 years of failure and counting)and by now everyone “knows” that we are going to leave next year. So our policy of “hearts and minds” is being countered by the “Taliban”. We don’t destroy the peasants crops of Grass and Poppy and so the drug lords-who are also Karzais buds and the local power structure-remain in power and we pass out billions to the corrupt govt-and when we attempt to put the brakes on giving our $$ away, the rethugs accuse Obama of not supporting our democratic buds(I really can not decide if the rethugs are that naive about the drug lords/corruption that exists in Afghanistan, or are simply so corrupt themselves that they do not realize the amount of “diversion” of our $$ that is actually going on) History continues to repeat itself.
Well, he better hedge on it: Obama totally fucking ate it, 24 hours after he sacked McChrystal.
We’re living in a Libertarian moment!
Here we go again. As a Vietnam Vet. I live in anger with this constant rerun of that experience ever since Bush invaded Iraq and Obama escalated the Afghan war this compounded by those who Demand Veitnam can’t be compared to the Afghan war. Bullsh*t! Been there done that. Promise to withdraw then doubletalk and drag it on as more and more die in vain. All for nothing but the egos of those who don’t want to admit they were wrong.
Indict ‘em, try ‘em, and, most importantly, [edited] after they’re convicted of war crimes.
[Mod note: Please do not advocate violence]
I am dismayed with the lack of protests and media pressure being applied to this administration! Many, many independents, and some in the GOP, are moving away from their support for the Afghan War.
Obama is Bush’s third term, and even worse in some respects. We knew Bush wanted war, Obama promised the opposite and look what he gives us.
This is exactly right. Biden is admitting the Administration lied. Unsurprising really, we knew they were. We should also call them on their calling this a withdrawal. A withdrawal is not a withdrawal if no one leaves.
We could have been out of Iraq within 9 months of Obama taking office, the end of October 2009. Obama ran on a much longer time frame 18 months. Now the plan is the end of 2011, maybe. That’s 35 months.
The commonality in both cases is that Obama is lying about them. We can already see Obama has lied about Iraq. Biden just made it official that he is lying about Afghanistan as well.
and another problematic strategy has to do with negotiating with the Taliban directly.There are a number of strategies by the US-led alliance and governments in the region to get the Taliban to lay down their arms. How to integrate the Taliban into politics will be one of the main topics at a donor conference in Kabul on Tuesday. http://www.newslook.com/videos/230421-intergrating-former-afghan-fighters?autoplay=true
Endless fascist aggression and imperial corporate occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq sponsored by Biden, Clinton, Obama, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush.
or a private Idaho.