From an op-ed in yesterday’s NYT:
The first is uncertainty about how long America and its allies will remain committed to the fight. The question is still open, but President Obama and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, have effectively moved the planned troop withdrawal date from July 2011 to at least 2014, with surprisingly little objection. Congress and the American public seem to have digested without a murmur the news that far fewer troops will be withdrawn in 2011 than will remain. NATO is not collapsing because of Afghanistan. In fact, the International Security Assistance Force continues to grow, with one-quarter of the world’s countries on the ground in Afghanistan with the United States.
I do try to read the papers, and there’s nothing there about a commitment. Is this some new variation on the Friedman unit?
valdemar
Given the profound insights shown by experts of this sort re: the Middle East situation, the implicit assumption that we know what’s going to happen in Afghanistan before the end of this year is fascinating, never mind stuff about 2014.
Here in the UK it is true that people have become used to a steady stream of deaths, funerals, inquests. But the British army has not suffered a single shocking reversal, with many casualties concentrated over a short period. If that happened to the UK or any other ISAF member there’d be a withdrawal, faster than a mealy-mouthed politician could say: ‘Of course we remain committed to the overall objectives.’
Also, the phrase ‘NATO is not collapsing because of Afghanistan’ can be read in more than one way.
Kryptik
Wait, what. I missed the big announcement about Afghanistan and all that. Especially with the teanuts basically trying to turn us into another Somalia.
Dork
Fixed the dyslexia’d typo.
Why not just make Afghanistan our 51st state?
soonergrunt
Well, it was in the Military Times a year ago that the stated goal of leaving by July of 2011 wasn’t going to happen no matter what conditions looked like because it was logistically impossible.
It was in there, and in Foreign Policy magazine a few months back, and it was reported briefly on the NBC nightly news where I saw it, as well as MSNBC, that it had been pushed back to 2014.
The reports in public press that conditions on the ground have changed favorably is new, but it tracks well with what I’m hearing from friends in Embedded Training Teams, and in units doing Full Spectrum ops in country right now or recently. There is guarded optimism that given a couple of other things breaking our way, we might have this thing down.
I don’t know anybody who knows what they’re talking about who thinks we’ve got this thing won.
@valdemar: I wouldn’t mind seeing NATO go away, anyway. It’s far more burdensome than useful. The fact that this now a feature for our European “partners” and not a bug is all the indicator I need that an organization that was created to defend against Soviet invasion into Western Europe has morphed into the machinery by which Europe attempts to expropriate the American military (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, for examples) for their own goals.
arguingwithsignposts
It’s like we’ve crawled into Nixonland to stay. sigh.
joe from Lowell
The reporting on this timeline has been awful.
In the fall of 2009, Obama stated that we would begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, but didn’t provide an end date.
Last year, he provided an end date, saying we’d be out completely by 2014.
Somehow, when the media interpreted this to mean that he had set 2011 as the end date, and then changed it to 2014.
Punchy
They need until 2014 to fully uncertify the Afghan public unions.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt:
There was no stated goal of leaving by July 2011. Ever.
That was the date for the beginning of the withdrawal, not the completion.
valdemar
@soonergrunt I’m inclined to agree, with the important proviso that most NATO members certainly did not want to intervene militarily in Bosnia or Kosovo. Tony Blair, however, was very keen to ride to the rescue and he had a friend in DC.
Also, while nobody expects Putin to send his tanks into Poland next week, take a close look at the ultra-nationalist lunacy and gangsterism going on in Russia. Some variation on the theme of NATO may still be needed.
stuckinred
Unass that AO!
WyldPirate
All we need is to lob a few more JDAMs into wedding parties to entertain the guests and bulldoze some more villages and those Afghanis will see the beauty of western-style democracy.
A few pallets of shrink-wrapped Benjamin for the upper leadership of Afghanistan to smuggle out to Swiss banks again couldn’t hurt either.
And maybe a few more CIA hitmen kiling civilians under diplomatic cover in the streets of Pakistan will help those nice men in the Pakistani ISI be a bit more cooperative in bring freeance and peeance to the region.
But then again, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan might hurt what is seemingly President Obama’s most effective jobs program.
mistermix a.k.a. mastermix
@joe from Lowell: Yeah, it’s the “at least 2014” that gets me – I thought 2014 was pretty much the end.
WyldPirate
@stuckinred:
Doncha know that we have always been at war with Eastasia, stuckinred? C’mon, pay attention. :)
joe from Lowell
Seeing anti-Iraq War arguments applied to Afghanistan, without any apparent awareness of the differences, is a good way to spot people whose comments can be safely scrolled past.
Remember when we invaded Afghanistan to install western democracy?
cat48
This happened late last year, I think. It was a Nato meeting overseas somewhere?? right after his “shellacking”, as the liberal media love to say.
I pray the “restrict abortion, redefine rape, dissolve the Unions” Goopers are obliterated next election. Shellacking is too easy for them. Their “cuts b/c we’re broke” will hurt many people.
stuckinred
Send the Marines!
When someone makes a move
Of which we don’t approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!
We’ll send them all we’ve got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they’ve seen the light,
They’ve got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
‘Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They’d rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
agrippa
Afghanistan is the invisible war; the ignored war. We have no draft, so no one really cares.
eemom
in other news, via Steve Benen:
stuckinred
@eemom: I like it better when they kill people in a non-brutal way.
Rpx
We can piss around in Afghanistan for a long time before giving up the fantasy that the country will turn into something other than it is. We’re a nation of optimists.
liberal
@joe from Lowell:
Yes, they’re different. IMHO our attack on Afgh was legal, whereas our attack on Iraq was not.
OTOH, good or poor analogies made to Iraq notwithstanding, the chance of successful nation building there is pretty small. So it’s entirely a waste of blood and treasure.
liberal
@Rpx:
Do polling results show that, or is it another example of the elites doing what they want?
OTOH certainly there are plenty of O-bots and others in these comment threads who appear to entertain fantasies regarding Afgh.
WyldPirate
@liberal:
There. Fixed that for you.
Jinchi
@Dork:
And add 30 million poor, minority Muslims to our population?
Come to think of it, nothing would get Republicans to demand an end to our Afghan adventure faster than that.
Bob Loblaw
I’m just looking forward to what happens if some Afghans try to make their own little Tahrir get together while ISAF is still in the country. That would just be perfect.
joe from Lowell
@liberal:
But the most important distinction between that war and the Iraq War is that “successful nation building” and the installation of a stable ally/client government – the purpose of the Iraq War – isn’t the goal in Afghanistan.
We’re in Afghanistan for a defined military purpose, which can be achieved through military means: striking hostile military and para-military forces, denying them territorial and political control, and diminishing or destroying their ability to conduct operations against us.
If we leave Afghanistan with no government authority beyond village and neighborhood head men, but achieve our military goals, then the war will be a success. Contrast this to Iraq, where – post WMD scam – the only measure of success is the fortunes of the new government.
joe from Lowell
@liberal: @WyldPirate:
Oh, I see.
This issue is just a proxy for your bitterness at Obama.
OK. Bye.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@joe from Lowell: I don’t know much about liberal, but that statement is true for most of WyldPirate’s posts. I have to consciously not skip of his/her comments, though, because occasionally a valid argument comes through.
John Emerson
“We’re in Afghanistan for a defined military purpose, which can be achieved through military means: striking hostile military and para-military forces, denying them territorial and political control, and diminishing or destroying their ability to conduct operations against us.”
And after almost 10 years fighting a few hundred people, we’ve devastated Afghanistan, destabilized Pakistan, and are no closer to success than when we began.
When and where was the war in Afghanistan “defined”? All I hear about is the global war on terror. How can we possibly ever know that we’ve won that war.
Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
If we leave Afghanistan without a strong central government in place then our military success will be reversed in just about the amount of time that it takes the various factions to reload their weapons. That outcome may obtain even if there is a strong central government in place. We can only keep the lid on in Afghanistan by extending our presence there indefinitely.
Bring the troops home now.
cleek
@joe from Lowell:
maybe that was true at the start. but that changed:
Bush said in 2008: “The interest is to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology.”
thankfully, Obama appears to have scaled this back to the relatively more modest goal of wiping out the Taliban, though.
Gravenstone
@joe from Lowell:
FTFY. Where those two are concerned, at least.
WyldPirate
@joe from Lowell:
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on here.
It’s plain as day that all we’ve done is prop up a bunch of fucking thieves, drug addicts and smugglers and a bipolar President Karzai at “above the village and neighborhood” head men.
Yet you think more bloodshed and more wasted billions of US dollars will be a “military success” when we leave one day and it goes back to the exact same system they had before with the Taliban running the show.
Isn’t it time you go get ready for your midday wankfest at your life-sized Obama shrine, Joe?
John Emerson
@ Joe from Lowell
Oh, I see you’re an Obamabot. Bye.
liberal
@joe from Lowell:
No, it’s a reasonable assessment of many commenters at Balloon Juice. If you’re deluded or ignorant, that’s your problem, not mine.
I don’t have any bitterness towards Obama; IMHO he’s a disappointment, but just a mild one, since I didn’t have much faith that he’d do what the nation needs, given his US Senate voting scorecard (i.e., not much different from Hillary’s).
John Emerson
Obama’s military policy is one of the reasons for my anger at Obama. I’ll grant you that.
WyldPirate
@joe from Lowell:
The shit you write just reeks of stupid, Joe…
This “military objective” could be fucking achieved by us not being in the country at all.
But you want to help prop up a bunch of thieves and drug smugglers at the upper echelons of their government.
Afghanistan is not an existential threat to the United States. But, I’m sure the families of the dead American GIs take great comfort in the sacrifice of their loved ones to make billionaires out of Hamid Karzai and his cronies.
liberal
@joe from Lowell:
Apart from the question as to whether that is our actual purpose, it’s not coherent policy for the following reasons:
(1) It makes no sense whatsoever from an overall cost/benefit viewpoint
(2) It’s incoherent insofar as it’s at cross-purposes with our notional ally Pakistan
(3) Expanding (1), it seems to be an added factor favoring destabilization of Pakistan, which as a cost far outways any putative benefits you list.
James Hare
@joe from Lowell:
That’s why I hope and pray for capturing OBL or one of his top lieutenants. Just something big and splashy that lets us declare our goals met and leave.
liberal
@John Emerson:
I think his policy in Afgh is a complete waste, but one could make a plausible argument that it’s optimal. Why? Because if he really tried to get us out, the threat of Dolchstoßlegende might make the whole thing backfire. So one could claim that this is the “optimal” path for getting us out of there.
I don’t quite believe it myself, but AFAICT it’s not easy for democracies to get out of armed conflicts.
OTOH, his continuing of Bush’s pro-bankster policies is another matter.
liberal
@cleek:
Don’t see how that goal is going to be met given that the Taliban appears to get support from Pakistan.
liberal
@Gravenstone:
Oh, so wise and witty you are.
General Stuck
@Gravenstone:
This. And recently in every thread, no matter the topic, followed by obligatory whining about being stifled for “any” criticism.
You lie! again. Few Obama supporters on this blog support continuing the ground war in Afghan, nor believe continued nation building will be successful. And have felt that way for some time now.
liberal
@James Hare:
Yes, but given the apparent absence of that kind of success, seems like the best thing to do is just declare victory and leave anyway.
John Emerson
When al Qaeda got its foothold in Afghanistan, Afghanistan was a failed state, more or less. If we leave a failed state behind us (joe from lowell’s proclaimed goal: “no government authority beyond village and neighborhood head men,”) we will have accomplished nothing. But if that’s our goal, we’ve attained it and needn’t stay.
liberal
@General Stuck:
That’s pretty funny coming from an ignorant, stupid s4it like yourself who claimed I was a puma, even though I voted for Obama in both the primary and general and gave him $2K.
D.H.
We’re in the Middle East for the simple petty reason that no one wants to be the last politician to admit they made a mistake, and there we will continue to stay short of a sea change in opinion, no matter which party is at the helm.
That, or they really do believe their own bullshit about bringing democracy/whiskey/sexy to the region. I don’t know which is worse.
John Emerson
@James Hare:
We’ve captured or killed about a dozen of his #3 guys. Does that count?
General Stuck
@liberal:
One half percenter liberal struggles mightily for relevance on the blogs.
General Stuck
@liberal:
LOL, you can’t buy mercy in this hurtlocker.
John Emerson
What are you trying to say, Stuck? You seem to be one of those people who thinks that as long as you keep talking, you win.
Everyone, notice how the Obamabots have started to seem like regular old winger trolls?
General Stuck
@John Emerson:
Someone made a false statement about Obama supporters, and I called them on it. And take your “Obamabot” and shove it way up your ass
John Emerson
48 and 49 was nothing but troll snark. As far as that, so is 51. You called someone a PUMA who isn’t one.
General Stuck
@John Emerson:
Someone claimed I called them a puma, once upon a time. I don’t recall this, but it is possible, puma small case isn’t the same as the PUMA version related to Clinton voters. but then the perfectly good descriptive term firebagger was invented, and cleared up the confusion. And who the fuck are you? Snark is the mainstay of this blog, and “troll” is completely relative to POV. But stupid is always the same.
cleek
@liberal:
i don’t disagree, not a bit.
i was trying to be very subtly ironic in calling the elimination of the Taliban a “modest goal”.
it’s surely more modest a goal when compared to establishment of a democracy. but that’s like saying swimming from Cuba to FL is a more modest goal than swimming from Cuba to Rome.
John Emerson
No, there’s a lot of content here. Three straight posts without content isn’t typical.
General Stuck
Guess we have a new ombudsman. Content Police. teehee.
John Emerson
Four straight posts without content.
General Stuck
@John Emerson:
Are you like 12?
John Emerson
Five. You seem to be one of those people who thinks that as long as you keep talking, you win.
General Stuck
@John Emerson:
Of course. Last word and all that, though I have improved some in that department. Now We shall see if you are also one of those people.
General Stuck
Guess I won, unless someone else wants to have the last word.
soonergrunt
@General Stuck: Psych!!
joe from Lowell
@John Emerson:
Dude, WTF?
Where on God’s green earth did you come up with the idea that we’ve spent the past ten years fighting “a few hundred people?”
Anyway, we’ve been in Afghanistan for about 9-1/2 years, over eight of which consisted of Bush neglecting the situation for Iraq.
What you “hear about” is your problem. This president hasn’t used the term “global war on terror” since taking office. He’s deliberately redefined our policy to focus on the actual, declared war against al Qaeda, and the war in Afghanistan – that is, the operations actually authorized by Congress in September 2001. Again, seeing people blindly deploying the old favorites from the Iraq War days doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence that they know what they’re talking about.
joe from Lowell
@Dennis SGMM:
Your comment begs a lot of questions. The central government needs to have a military strong enough not to be overthrown by the Taliban, when it is backed by us.
It’s worth remembering that the Taliban themselves were only able to consolidate power with the backing of a major regional power (Pakistan) against the government that had absolutely no backing. With the situation reversed – the Taliban backed by no one, but the government enjoying NATO backing – they don’t stand a chance of getting back into power.
joe from Lowell
@cleek: I’m talking about Obama’s policy. I agree, Bush’s “Arab Spring through invasions” vision was deluded.
@WyldPirate: Since it wasn’t clear the first time, my “Bye” was a statement that I haven’t the slightest interest in having a conversation with you, because you’ve demonstrated that it would be a waste of time. Bye.
@liberal:
Actually, it’s what you have to say to say instead of being able to formulate arguments when someone disagrees with you, and it’s mind-numbingly boring.
joe from Lowell
@John Emerson: I should have been more clear: the installation of government in Afghanistan may be a necessary condition for achieving our goal, but it isn’t itself our goal, the way it was in Iraq. I agree, it wouldn’t be possible to leave behind a situation in which the Taliban remains out of power throughout the country without a government capable of keeping them out of power. That’s what we’re still doing there – building up the capacity of the central army.
My point was about the assertion that we were in Afghanistan, like we were in Iraq, for the purpose of installing a certain type of government in order to spread peeance and freeance.
Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
I think that you made my point with “…but the government enjoying NATO backing…” That NATO backing is mostly us. If the goal is to prop up the government of Afghanistan sufficiently for it to exert control over the entire country then I fear that our great-grandchildren will be serving there.
joe from Lowell
@Dennis SGMM: I think it’s a misreading of history to believe that a central government is impossible in Afghanistan absent an occupation. Governments have fallen to insurgencies in Afghanistan, like the Soviet-backed (and then not backed) government or the government the Taliban overthrew, because those insurgencies received significant foreign support, while the government was receiving none. With the situation reversed – the government receiving significant foreign backing, the insurgents on their own – a government should be able to stay in power. Especially given how unpopular the Taliban is.
sparky
this talk of “goals” is nothing more than a diversionary smokescreen. the real goal of the US military is to garrison the area. just think: the US has to occupy an entire country because there is a chance that 100-odd people who wish the US ill are on the loose. might as well invade Pakistan as long as we are at it. and all those other countries that don’t like us, like France.
don’t believe me on the real goal of permanent American control?
…
don’t EVER underestimate the desire of our betters to control the planet in their best interests.
edit to include linky: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1617809.php/Karzai-confirms-US-seeking-permanent-Afghan-bases-Roundup
joe from Lowell
Wow, that last comment is sort of a mess.
The Najibullah government was stable and exerted effective control until the Soviets stopped supporting it, and it fell to an insurgency backed by Pakistan.
Mohammed Zahir Shah ruled as monarch for 40 years between 1933 and 1973.
The idea that a stable central government is an impossibility in Afghanistan is a myth.
joe from Lowell
Ah, yes, the crucial geo-political position and vital resources of Afghanistan. How clever of you to understand that the real goal is to seize the country.
There were quite a few more than 100 before the war, you might remember. I love this argument: “There are only about 100 al Qaeda still active in Afghanistan!” Gee, how did THAT happen? Anyone remember?
This is like the wingnuts who argue that the elderly have the lowest poverty rate of any age group, so therefore, Social Security is pointless. Um, hello? How do you think that happened?
So, you’re using the fact that we’re establishing bases to target al Qaeda and the Taliban to “prove” that we’re not really there to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban?
Hokay.
joe from Lowell
Look, we actually had an administration – the George H.W. Bush administration – that genuinely was interested in expanding American control over the world. When they were faced with the Soviets leaving the country, leaving a massive power vacuum, and we had millions of grateful allies in the country, who’d we been arming for years, what did he do? He bailed on Afghanistan.
Do you know why? Because, in terms of strategic value, resources, and the other concerns that motivate imperialists who want to establish ever-greater American control throughout the world, Afghanistan is an irrelevant backwater.
The only way you can draw the conclusion that the American military presence in Afghanistan is motivated by imperialist ambitions is to do what sparky just did, and claim that it must be by definition.
James E Powell
The Pentagon’s main purpose in Afghanistan, and therefore congress’s main purpose, is to keep the money flowing to the military-industrial complex.
The Obama administration’s main purpose in Afghanistan is to prevent any charges of “weakness” or “cut and run” from becoming an issue in the 2012 campaign.
The main purpose of the American people who support the Afghanistan occupation is to continue killing scary brown people because it makes them feel like they are members of a strong country that is showing “them” that they are rough and tough.
All this adds up to a very long engagement.
sparky
nice try at ginning up a strawman, but i have to say, your comment utterly fails to address what i suggested–that the US intends to have permanent installations in Afghanistan. and that has permanence has nothing to do with AQ or anything else other than a desire to exert permanent American pressure there. it does give a nice fig leaf, though.
you, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that the US “won” when won is defined by, apparently, killing people. and you didn’t contest the low numbers of AQ people still there. so then i guess you are contending that the US should stay there at a cost of billions, even if there is one AQ member left there, notwithstanding that the US has, to your mind, almost eliminated the AQ threat, as it were.
in truth, i have no idea what the current propaganda about being there is, so please feel free to explain it to dunderheads like me again what exactly the US is doing there NOW. and, for bonus points, explain why the US should establish permanent bases in a nation on the other side of the globe. i look forward to it.
ps: thisis the kind of thing that will ensure the US has enemies as long as it exists in its current form:
WPost 2/21/11
if you want to defend this kind of behaviour, and prefer to hew to the official line, well that’s your prerogative. after this many years there, pretending today that the US is doing anything other than killing random brown people and throwing tax dollars* around with abandon is a sick joke.
*yeah, THOSE tax dollars. you know, the ones that might have gone for new jobs in the US, or repairing infrastructure. on the other hand, i suppose it’s appropriate that in learning about government that the Afghanis learn bribery from the masters of that black art.