Obama's Timeline No Guarantee of Afghanistan Withdrawal

by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke | December 3, 2009 at 10:14 am

356 views | 32 Recommendations | 20 comments

Since President Obama's speech on Tuesday evening at West Point, there has been a lot of speculation and confusion as to the Administrations interpretation of the announced withdrawal strategy. President Obama had announced that the United States would accelerate deployment to have the surge troops in place by June of 2010. Withdrawal of the surge troops would then start in July 2011 depending on the situation on the ground.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified in front of the Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John McCain.

Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen stated that the June 2011 start date was not an arbitrary date but a target that was dependent on the progress on the ground. The Administration intends to do a comprehensive review in December 2010 to determine the progress and base their start date on an exit strategy on this review. Admiral Mullen indicated that the inital surge may be 18-24 months.

General Richard Myers, former Chief of the Joint Chiefs, in an interview this morning endorsed this strategy. His opinion is that some 68,000 troops are on the ground in Afghanistan now and 21,000 of these had been deployed shortly after President Obama took office.

Earlier this year Operation Strike of the Sword was initiated. This mission was to disrupt, dismantle and deny the Taliban and Al Quaeda influence on the local population. To this end, Canadian Forces are now deployed in a security cordon outside of Kabul.

The additional surge troops will help with gaining security throughout Hellman and Kandahar Province, the traditional home of the Taliban. In Myers judgment this would pave the way for the expedited training of Afghan Security Forces, both police and military.

In conjunction with this troop deployment Hillary Clinton emphasized that there would also be a surge of civilians, providing diplomatic and development assistance.

While the withdrawal date of July 2011 is a target, there is flexibility to move that date after the December 2010 review. In other words Obama is in this, to get the job done.

On the day after President Obama laid out his new Afghanistan strategy, the question of when American troops would leave the country quickly drew the most attention, and at times the most confusion, during a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, went to Capitol Hill to explain to senators the finer points of the plan.

Gates took the lead, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that an extended commitment from the United States is an "arduous but vitally necessary mission...to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and prevent its return" to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Key to that mission, he said, would be an "extended surge of 18 to 24 months," beginning as early as several weeks from now. With an additional 30,000 U.S. troops, the American combat force will number about 100,000, with 52,000 troops sent to the country by Obama since his election.

4 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Hugh Askew

at 10:24 on December 3rd, 2009

Thanks for the clarification on the withdrawal issue. Seems to be almost the issue.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 10:28 on December 3rd, 2009

It is indeed an issue. This seems to clarify it though sufficiently. I still have the question, why is there so much confusion with the Allies and Pakistan. Supposedly the President phone them all during the course of the day on Tuesday. Reports indicated that President Obama talked to President Karzai for an hour.

snuffysmith

at 10:31 on December 3rd, 2009

Timetable for Drawdown Sets Off Afghan Alarm

snuffysmith

at 10:34 on December 3rd, 2009

Will Taliban ‘Wait Out’ US? Afghan Officials Slam Pullout Timetable

snuffysmith

at 10:36 on December 3rd, 2009

Key Senate Dem Questions Lack of Afghan Forces to Aid US Surge

snuffysmith

at 10:39 on December 3rd, 2009

Analysis: Afghanistan pullout date not definite

Analysis: Obama's July 2011 date to start Afghanistan pullout looking less like a deadline

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/12/03/analysis-afghanistan-pullout-date-not-definite/

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 10:49 on December 3rd, 2009

Thank you for the additional links snuffy.

a211423

at 11:20 on December 3rd, 2009

I watched all three and one half hours of the congressional review, and the withdrawl date was the issue for many. Evan Bayh senator from Indiana clarified at the end, which was for me the best explanation.

The withdrawl date of July 2011 represents a time when some withdrawal can begin based on the President's statement of assessing what is happening on the ground. The withdrawal could be in some areas/provinces that are secure and have sufficient Afghan troop numbers with as few as 100 or thousands withdrawaling depending on the progress of the current stratedgy, which will also have been reviewed in December 2010 with a preliminary report of progress which Clinton, Gates, and McMullen believe will be a valuable tool on how to continue. The July date is a strong message to Afghan Adminstration that it is not the intention of the U.S. to occupy Afghanistan, but to give them the tools to rule and govern their own country.

It was also stressed that the withdrawal will be coordinated with the number of Afghani troops replacing the American and Allied troops. The projection of trained Afghan troops is 130 thousand by July 2011; however McMullen stated it will be the challenge to train Afghans to coordinate with the timeline but indicated that it could be done.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 11:36 on December 3rd, 2009

It will indeed be a challenge to train that many troops by that date. One must remember that Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan has no Army to go reach back to. Consequently training has to start from scratch. Also keep in mind it takes up to a year to prepare NATO troops to function in Afghanistan. This can be reduced for Afghan nationals, but it is the other skills that have to be instilled.

I remain skeptical of a July 2011 withdrawal target date. December 2010 all the surge forces will have been on the ground for six months provided deployment goes without any flaws.

I still question who will fund and provide the equipment for the Afghan National Army or will we leave them to their vices in pick up trucks with small arms?

nanute

at 13:20 on December 3rd, 2009

I remain skeptical of the July 2011 withdrawal target date. I agree with your skepticism RCP. That is a very short window to get Afghan "security" forces capable of military or civilian police functions. As we've discussed previously, the Afghans are a undereducated and primitive society primarily. (I don't make this observation maliciously.) Furthermore, tribal systems of governing are the norm in this society. I just don't see this situation being resolved without a permanent presence. That is not an option, and eventually the reality will set in with folks that think this is a "winnable" conflict. I've yet to hear anyone define winning here.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 13:29 on December 3rd, 2009

I agree nanute, I would have thought that a win would have been defined on Tuesday evening at Westpoint. I feel that Obama's speech raised more questions than it answered. We already knew what the decision on the troop surge was going to be before the speech, there were certainly enough leaks and indications for those that wanted to pay attention.

Personally I think Obama made this decision halfheartedly trying to appease both sides of the political spectrum. His job on Tuesday night was to sell his strategy and lay it out.

Babel-Fish

at 19:09 on December 3rd, 2009

poppies? (tongue in cheek).

According to the U.S. Geological Survey and the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Industry, Afghanistan may be possessing up to 36 trillion cubic feet (1,000 km3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570,000,000 m3) of petroleum and up to 1,325 million barrels (2.107E+8 m3) of natural gas liquids. This could mark the turning point in Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts. Energy exports could generate the revenue that Afghan officials need to modernize the country’s infrastructure and expand economic opportunities for the beleaguered and fractious population.[29] Other reports show that the country has huge amounts of gold, copper, coal, iron ore and other minerals.[26][30][106] The government of Afghanistan is in the process of extracting and exporting its copper reserves, which will be earning $1.2 billion US dollars in royalties and taxes every year for the next 30 years. It will also provide permanent labor to 3,000 of its citizens.[1

I expect Afghanistan is good for a few loans and much investment. Whilst this wars been going on the corporates have been very busy view future exploitation. lol

What did you think Obama was doing in Asia and particularly China? One's got to watch the slight of hand of these damn elitist. Notice the question about the involvement of oil being one of the important factors concerning these oil war's.

The global picture is getting more interesting and once again, corporate world order see the need of another chess piece to be moved. Oil makes the world go around, copper and gas too.

Yep Afghanistan needed a regime change.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 19:21 on December 3rd, 2009

Some of the information in that Wikepedia article is true. You need security, good roads hopefully to a seaport and pipelines to make it all happen though. Where is the nearest ocean? Draw your own conclusions from this picture.

Babel-Fish

at 21:00 on December 3rd, 2009

China already wants to exploit the oil, gas and copper (mining operation underway), They have a finish pipeline just across the border. Afghanistan is being turned into an investment the money is already poring in. That ten year tax break is also a good incentive, banks going on line yes I certainly do see the picture. Obama been on a sales pitch and there is gold in them there hills and possibly errrrr uranium at a good guess.

Improve the infrastracture, money from oil and gas, step up the supply... snap shot!

Afghanistan is the quickest way to China and India for Russia, and those oil rich ex-Russian satilites within the very rich oil and gas Caspian Basin and now oil and gas has been found in Afghanistan it self, bingo, good investment for the elite.

a211423

at 12:06 on December 3rd, 2009

I still question who will fund and provide the equipment for the Afghan National Army or will we leave them to their vices in pick up trucks with small arms?

This is where the efficacy of the civilian surge together with the military surge is effective in creating infrastructure in the wake of securing provinces, establishing relationships with governors, and Karsai government progressing towards trusted governance. It is a multidisciplinary, integrated approach I hope will work. Afghanistan has to become economically stable in order to support a defense budget, but until that happens they most likely will be receiving aid, as do many other developing countries, including Pakistan that is twenty years ahead of Afghanistan.

I was glad to hear last night that the mistakes made in Iraq with civilian support will not be repeated in Afghanistan. This is encouraging. People are being chosen for positions based on competancy, not on favoritism, which raises the possibility of success.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 12:35 on December 3rd, 2009

You will recall from earlier reports of mine that the 3 D (or as you call it, the efficacy of the civilian surge along wiht the military surge) approach being advocated now, was Canada's strategy as early as 2004.

One must remember that Afghanistan is not Iraq. In a country where bribary and bartering is the rule rather than the exception, I wouldn't be too quick to point fingers at the competency of people used in Iraq. Iraq had its challenges too, but a more educated citizenry than Afghanistan.

I would like to see some specifics on how the Obama will not chose its people on favouritism but comepetence. Is this the same Administration that promised transparency and line by line scrutiny of legislation? I think we really have to be careful about what we hear coming from politician's mouths these days and I mean all of them.

a211423

at 13:02 on December 3rd, 2009

I don't know if Bush would have taken the lead from Canada in 2004. : (

Please allow me to explain what I mean by chosing civilians for competancy.

This is exerpt from Frontline documentary about Iraq where Bush sent L. Paul Bremer to Iraq with no plan or guidelines and it turned into a disaster.

As American forces realized they were unprepared for the looting that followed the invasion, plans for a swift withdrawal of troops were put on hold. With only a few weeks' preparation, American administrator L. Paul Bremer was sent to find a political solution to a rapidly deteriorating situation. Bremer's first moves were to disband the Iraqi military and remove members of Saddam Hussein's party from the government. They were decisions that the original head of reconstruction, Gen. Jay Garner (Ret.), begged Bremer to reconsider at the time. Now they are seen by others as one of the first in a series of missteps that would lead Iraq into a full-blown insurgency.

One of the first things Bremer did was remove all the civilian heads of departments, educational positions, and most of the professional people together with as stated above disbanding the Iraqi military. Those were the first mistakes. He robbed the country of its most precious resource: its people. The American position in Afghanistan is decidedly the opposite. Next, he began to replace the Iraqi positions with Americans who were arbitrarily chosen for positions. Some jobs were favors given to new college graduates, for example, a woman with no previous training was made director of transportation in Bagdad who had no experience in city planning or transportation. Some were given a six month assignment as a stepping stone to the choice international assignments like London or Paris. They were there to serve their time and move on. These were American civilian jobs. I am not referring to Afghanistan civilians at this point, although through education their population will eventually be able to fill the jobs themselves.

In the testimony I watched, they spoke specifically of chosing people who are dedicated to the mission and are competant, not just filling a position with their eye on greener diplomatic pastures. Actually, I think Clinton even stated they learned lessons in Iraq.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 13:16 on December 3rd, 2009

You know hindsight is always 20/20 and I would certainly hope that as we go along there are lessons learned that are not repeated. Disbanding the Iraqi Army we all know now was a mistake. Had that institution been taken aboard and brought onside, Iraq may long have recovered from the shock and awe of the US invasion.

You can't expect to have people come on side if you make their lives miserable. No electricty, water, proper shelter, food, jobs, I could go on. Almost every principal of nation building or reconstructing was violated there.

Those lessons, unfortunately, were learned in post WW I Germany and not repeated after WW II. Thus a prosperous nation emerged, which now leads economically within the EU.

snuffysmith

at 12:07 on December 3rd, 2009

Most of the US soldiers willing to be interviewed at Bagram Airfield said they doubted swelling their ranks alone would help the war effort, so soon after Karzai swept back to power in a fraud-tainted vote. Photo courtesy AFP.