The plan for July withdrawals in Afghanistan will be announced Wednesday, but the strong indication is that surge troops (numbering 33,000) will be removed over an 18-month time period. The fact that David Petraeus endorsed that number today leans strongly in that direction.
Formally, Petraeus wants to withdraw one brigade combat team of about 5,000 troops by the end of the year, and another 5,000 by the spring of next year. But mindful that the political environment in the U.S. and in Congress has turned sharply against the war, Petraeus is aware that the extra brigades he inherited cannot remain in place through 2014, when control of the country’s security is scheduled to be officially turned over to indigenous Afghan forces.
Petraeus is expected to be confirmed as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency by September. He wants his successor, Lt. Gen. John Allen, to keep the extra brigades operational as long as possible. If they stay in the theater until the end of 2012, their force presence would equal the duration that troops surged to Iraq spent there.
You can substitute Petraeus’ preferences for Obama’s pretty cleanly. I’d say this is what gets introduced.
This will be called a major withdrawal, because the number of troops, and not the time frame, will be stressed. But this would mean that, by the end of 2012, 70,000 US troops would still remain in Afghanistan, a figure that includes the 21,000 initial surge troops that Obama put in almost immediately in 2009. In other words, under this plan there would be more troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2012 than there were under President Bush at the end of 2008.
And remember that Bush-era formulation of “return on success” that drove many decisions around troops in Iraq? Obama clearly wanted to use that, but realized he couldn’t:
The administration had hoped to couple Obama’s announcement on troop withdrawals with news of progress on political reconciliation with Taliban leaders. But discussions have stalled following several rounds of talks this spring between U.S. officials and Taliban interlocutors, first in Qatar and later in Germany.
The question is whether this withdrawal timeline is adequate enough to stop a revolt, in the words of Rep. John Garamendi. I don’t think so. Garamendi’s request was for a force of just 10,000 in Afghanistan by the end of next year. This proposal would keep 70,000 there.
If Congress has an opinion on this, let them share it.




27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Not. Good.
Troops Home Now!
I hope this is the epitaph of our militarized foreign policy. This, and Libya.
Dennis should float a trial balloon on challenging Obomba. His anger is clearly righteous enough. If he mentions it, people will start talking and the pollsters may also get to work.
Heck, a poll may even push The-one-who-does-not-start-wars into cajoling Kasich to let Kucinich keep his seat…
So many wars, so few troops.
Maybe Obama plans on using Libya as his retirement home. Make it a Duchy. Duke Barak of Libya, of the Imperial Province of North Africa. He can offer rendition/torture sites as revenue centers.
I hope Dennis is at least enjoying some personal time debating: a primary challenge or an impeachment? Impeachment is more appropriate, but a primary challenge could also do the trick. :)
Troops Home is not enough. Outsourced war profiteers and their minions must leave too, and be disarmed, and defunded. With something over 100,000 in country – whether U.S. citizens or not – bringing the troops home but continuing to fund warmaking is a minor policy change indeed.
Karzai’s edict for the removal of all FOREIGN contractors is notable, in that it only ensures the approximately 95,000 Afghan citizens who remain on the U.S. payroll will sell their weapons and – if the price is right – their services to the highest bidder.
And another foreign intervention explodes in our face.
An impeachment might succeed, while his chances of being elected President are zero.
Besides, if he succeeds a President who should have been impeached, he is is inheriting the Fuikiyama of political offices: a space so contaminated that anyone who enters is contaminated.
This, imo, is what happened to Obama.
What makes you think Petraeus et al (Hail Patraeus!) are telling the truth?
‘Our’ troops will be there for a long time. Got to get that lithium (and control the heroin.).
The troops are never coming home. I believe we will actually be sending more and more troops overseas in the future, at first to protect corporate profits, and eventually to protect the Chinese. Both’ll soon be all the same.
Remember we have a two party system
For most people, this is true. And it includes Obomba who — as Greenwald pretty clearly shows — is intentionally testing the spinelessness of the Congress.
On the other hand, Kucinich could turn out to be a great, such as George Washington or Cincinnatus. Neither of whom lusted for power. Finding someone of that nature in 2012 would be truly wonderful IMO.
Yes of course we have a two party system – the Republicans party with lobbyists on Fridays and the Democrats party with the lobbyists on Saturdays.
So, you go make it happen. He tried once before, if you recall.
It’s so easy to criticize, easy from a chair in your livingroom.
Tell me what you are doing to make a change in the midst of this downfall.
Congress won’t have an opinion. They just follow orders.
If the U.S. house of cards suddenly collapses those troops will be needed at home to protect the plutocrats from the “rabble.”
Don’t fool yourself. It’s a one party system with two wings. A conservative wing and a far quasi-fascist wing.
Criticize who? The President or the Congressman? Obama ran once and got elected and Dennis has run twice. I’m not sure to whom you refer. I’m certainly not criticizing Dennis.
When (not “if”) the US collapses, there won’t be any money or fuel to bring the troops home. The Soviet armies could drive or walk, ours will have to swim.
I hope the field commanders will have the intestinal fortitude to take their last remaining planes and fuel supplies and evacuate their people back to North America. They will certainly have to disobey orders to do it.
goddamit this makes me crazy. half of my lifetime my country has been occupying foreign countries & shooting peasants. I can’t stick around long, we are passing a statehood resolution in our local precinct (guess where I am?) in an hour, so I have to be there. But we need to find enough votes from anywhere in Congress to shut down the money gusher, even if it means leaving troops in foreign countries as mercenaries for Japan or China or Germany or whoever the fuck is willing to pay for them. But we are just bankrupting ourselves and even the car-dealer small-town-banker real-estate-broker Republicans know it. Over $200 billion a year as far into the future as the heart can stand to look. Not. Gonna. Do. It.
That’s what your comment @ 5 sounded like. Read your comment. It certainly seemed like that…
I hope Dennis is at least enjoying some personal time debating:
Sounded like snark. Sorry if I missread you.
OT – Jane will be on Cenk Uygur’s show in a couple minutes (She just tweeted…)
At least, the surge is working. As always…
We’re still in Cuba – and that dates back to the Spanish-American War! Not to mention Korea, Japan, etc.
Instead of waiting for Cincinnatus, maybe we could locate Congress, which hasn’t declared war this millenium, and remind them to keep up with the times.
These undeclared wars are Congress’ fault.
-
No. No snark at all. But if I were in his shoes (righteously angry, a credible alternative to the POTUS and likely losing his district) and I know I’m not… then I’d certainly have a few private moments to myself to consider the most viable way forward to a better future for America… and there’s no reason why Dennis can’t take some personal gratification in knowing his choice *could* make the world a better place.
And yes, I know both are long shots. But I don’t see anyone else in his shoes.
Personally, I think this is a somewhat reasonable proposal. One thing is certain, the Taliban could easily reverse whatever good the surge made this year. If they have enough for holding, not advancing, next year’s season, likely, things will hold.
For sure if Obama withdraws too much and the Taliban take it all back next year, he leaves himself open to the charge of blowing the entire operation.
He’s not in a good spot either way. But, if I was going to get blasted, I’d rather get blasted for leaving more troops longer and keeping whatever gains there have been while negotiating with the Taliban, than get blasted for taking too many out, having the Taliban get it all back and then refuse to negotiate with us because they figure they can just win it all.
“Blowing the whole operation”
We passed that milestone many years ago.
from a McClatchy Poll