Obama's Speedy Withdrawal From Afghanistan
The headline on the New York Times story about the president's Afghanistan speech says "Obama Will Speed Pullout From War in Afghanistan." Here are the details:
Mr. Obama announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 "surge" of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the drawdown would continue "at a steady pace" until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014.
A 30 percent reduction within a year, bringing the troop level back to where it was when Obama took office, followed by further reductions continuing for two more years. Speedy! And does this mean U.S. troops will be gone in 2014? Evidently not. Obama promises only that "our mission will change from combat to support" and "the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security." Later he mentions that U.S. forces will "continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government."
And what will we have to show for this 13-year (at least) war in which thousands of people have been killed, a war that is currently costing about $120 billion a year?
The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: No safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people, and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace.
Couldn't the same deterrent effect have been accomplished with a quick retaliatory strike against the Taliban regime in 2001, as opposed to an invasion followed by a 13-year occupation? I'm glad the U.S. government finally has given up on transforming Afghanistan into a paradise on earth, but it's scandalous that it took so long.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In Soviet Russia, Army withdraw from YOU!
Tell me about it.
In Sovet Russia, comments thread you.
What...happened...to you?
Tell me about it.
You know, the rhythm method is very unreliable.
Do know what nurses call women who rely on the rythm method?
Mothers
What are you saying about rhythm and our president?
Well yeah so is withdrawl. Because once you are in and things get beyond a certain point you just have to stay in.
Tell me about it...
Afghanistan lacks any real penetration of the formal government into the hinterlands. By Jove, it really is paradise on Earth. It's like the new Somalia!
Stop with the Weiner jokes already (being sacastic - I love never ending Weiner jokes!!!!)
Conservatives in theory are opposed to quick, ill informed change, right? Why would they think imposing democracy in other countries where individualism isn't part of the culture would work? Either they're incoherent or really do want to be there for a long, long time.
Whereas neoconservatives are (oxy)morons.
"Couldn't the same deterrent effect have been accomplished with a quick retaliatory strike against the Taliban regime in 2001...?"
_
you mean like carpet bomb the rubble?
Yeah-Afghanistan is pretty much a shit place to fight (or do much of anything else for that matter).
"He said the drawdown would continue "at a steady pace" until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014."
Won't.Fucking.Happen.
Yes. It. Will. If not sooner. 2014 is yet another election year. If the troops aren't out by then, you'll have near unanimous public support for ending it. Only Obama fellators and
McCain doctrinists (but I repeat myself) will have any stomach for continuing in Afghanistan.
I wish you were right, but we're still in German, Japan, and South Korea. Its a volunteer force, and undoubtedly the number of casualties will decrease...
And besides, the moment we leave, the Taliban, with their advanced technology nuclear weapon and intercontinental missiles, trillions in GDP and natural resources, will unleash thermonuclear hell upon us. Yup. Not to mention the dozens of young men willing to blow their own balls off in an airline seat, should they learn how to operate a zippo...
"No safe haven from which al Qaeda the United States or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies."
FTFY
wait right there ayman. we got something for u
Seal Team 6: When it absolutely positively has to be destroyed (killed) in......err...ten years.
Okay maybe that isn't fair....but did it really take the CIA ten years to thaw out the carcass so they could shoot it again?
^^there he is now get the traitor^^
?I'm dreaming of a white Christmas!?
racist swine
I had a major case of deja vu watching that speech last night. Just needed a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background.
no one'll be that stupid again fo surr
What the fuck is an Afganastan?
that's the place we fucked the eyes out of
A hub of horrendously cheesy but lovable r&r:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymDSq7ChEXU
The whitest people I know dance better.
I wrote a comment to this article in the NYT yesterday accusing them of trying to spin the withdrawal to give people the impression Obama was doing something dramatic. They never printed it.
Fuck you, we've got an election to win!
So, it's like Vietnamization, just in Afghanistan, correct?
the horror...
Well, I understand that you could get so much poontang in Vietnam that your balls would swell to gargantuan size trying to supply sufficient joy juice.
But ineffective corrupt government, with the US not understanding that it wasn't really about us...yeah.
It's like Iraqization, only less likely to work.
Obama is withdrawing Speedy the Alka-seltzer mascot from Afganistan. That is all.
What choice is there other than the speedy retreat ? Unless genocide is committed in Afghanistan, there was never a chance of NATO winning.
One day China might also try to go on some foolish adventure in Afghanistan and also learn the hard way: sending armies into Afghanistan is not a good idea.
We'll be coming for the lithium.
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans for Afghanistan.
that's allah to you infidel
Couldn't the same deterrent effect have been accomplished with a quick retaliatory strike against the Taliban regime in 2001
No. We did that in the 1990s and it accomplished nothing. Also remember that in a year or two Iran is probably going to have nukes. What are the chances of neighboring countries letting us use their bases as a staging area when faced with a nuclear Iran especially after we already abadoned our allies in Afghanistan? Zero
There are no good options here. But don't kid yourself and think that if we leave and Afghanistan lets terrorists train and operate against us there will be shit we can do about it short of nukes.
So Iran is going to launch nuclear weapons at us or train unstable radicals in how to use them against us?
I don't know that Iran won't launch. The crazy fuckers believe the 12th Imam is coming. They are not the Soviets. They really might be suicidal.
Once they get nukes, they will be able to hit us with impunity. What if 9-11 had been traced back to a nuclear Iran instead of Afghanistan? What would we have done about it? Going to risk nuclear war over a few thousand dead? Ready to sacrifice all of New York and Washington and a couple of other cities over it? What would we have done?
I am not optimistic. Iran is going to get nukes and either use them in some kind of fucked up suicidal attack or they will terrorize the shit out of us and Europe figuring we won't do anything to risk a nuclear war. It is going to suck bad.
Please..... Iran launches and it's game over...for Iran.
They may be crazy but they aren't stupid. It is sometimes in their interest to appear crazy.
"""What are the chances of neighboring countries letting us use their bases as a staging area when faced with a nuclear Iran especially after we already abadoned our allies in Afghanistan? Zero""
I disagree. I think it very possible that countries around Iran would allows to take care of something they too see as a problem.
That's why I think we should use only nukes. Serious or nuthin'.
Go big or stay home.
"Obama Will Speed Pullout From War in Afghanistan."
I promise I'll warn you in time, so you don't get any in your mouth, baby. I really promise this time.
But...what about our national greatness?
We should have just nuked them in 2001. The world would have whinned. But they wouldn't have done shit about it. There would have been no Iraq invasion. I am thinking Saddam would have not called our bluff and done everything up to and including making George Bush Emir after watching us nuke Afghanistan. We would have avoided two protracted occupations. And achieved one hell of a deterent effect.
We should have just let India nuke Pakistan in 98. Same outcome.
Best Troll I've read in a long time
I am not trolling. I am serious. Why not nuke them?
Can we kill everyone you love and care about first? Seems only fair.
If they plot and make war on the US? Sure.
Nah we'll just kill everyone you love first. It's only fair, I mean you wanna kill people who had nothing to do with the attacks. Lets start with your family.
And making war on them for 11 years is so much better? I wish I lived in your world were it was all unicorns and rainbows.
And we could have used tactical nukes and just got Bin Ladin and the Taliban leaders. We didn't have to use many or nuke much. Just a couple of well placed ones would have done the job.
Nuke what? Kabul or a few isolated Al Queda training camps????
The cave complex at Tora Bora would have killed about all the right people and not created much collateral damage.
Where's the profit in that??
lolz
Sadly, there is some truth to that. The amount of money contractors are ripping off over there is umbelievable. We could fight that war for half of what we are paying right now.
""The amount of money contractors are ripping off over there is umbelievable.""
I think the money that's being ripped off is over here.
That says more about here than it does there. Trust me the scale of the graft is mind boggling.
Oh yeah.
All you need is an enemy, a scared citizenry, and big military industrial complex.
nuked them in 2001...And achieved one hell of a deterent effect.
You say you're not kidding. I believe you. I worry about you as a result. But I believe you.
LOL I don't know that we should have nuked them. But there is a rational case to be made for it. People act shocked by that. But they might want to consider how waging war on them for a decade was any better. All the options are nasty and awful.
they might want to consider how waging war on them for a decade was any better.
I have been against the war in Afghanistan since before it started, so on that we agree. But not all the options were as nasty and awful as 10 years of war or dropping nukes.
While the consequences for Afghanistan may be similar between war and a nuclear strike, I think the negatives for the US are worse for the nuclear strike...and that is saying something.
So you think that country can allow a terrorist group to operate within its borders. And when that terrorist group attacks another country and kills three thousand civilians, the agreived country shouldn't go to war?
If you didn't suppor the Afghan war in 2001, you basically think we shouldn't defend ourselves. Yeah, dying is always an option. But even I am not negative enough to think it is the best one.
We had to go into Afghanistan and go after the Taliban and Bin Ladin after 9-11. To do otherwise would have amounted to telling the world that it was perfectly fine with us to kill and terrorize Americans.
So you think that country can allow a terrorist group to operate within its borders. And when that terrorist group attacks another country and kills three thousand civilians, the agreived country shouldn't go to war?
It certainly isn't the only option.
If you didn't suppor the Afghan war in 2001, you basically think we shouldn't defend ourselves.
False dichotomy.
Yeah, dying is always an option. But even I am not negative enough to think it is the best one.
False dilemma.
We had to go into Afghanistan and go after the Taliban and Bin Ladin after 9-11.
There were other options than the ones pursued.
To do otherwise would have amounted to telling the world that it was perfectly fine with us to kill and terrorize Americans.
Well, just for example, we could have restricted out "going after" to AQ, so there were lots of "otherwises" that wouldn't have sent this message. Given your concern with the semiotics of our foreign actions, I find it interesting that you don't consider the message that nuking the country would have had to be a definitive argument against that particular action.
There were other options than the ones pursued.
Like what? Would you care to explain anything or just grunt out "false___"
You want to go through options for our response to 9/11 almost 10 years after the fact?
Really? If the broad strokes above aren't precise enough for you, then you'll need to find someone else to have that discussion with.
I can't come up with any actual plan or strategy so fuck you.
correction to that...
I If you can't come up with any actual plan or strategy without my help, so fuck you and your unimaginative lazy ass.
You haven't made any effort to elucidate your 'alternatives' and place the burden on me? Cripes you're an asshole.
My plan? Should've used overwhelming force with no punches pulled. Raze villages that shelter our enemies. Trade with friendly forces of Afstan (includes buying heroin). Consider annihilation of villages and their occupants if they repeatedly shelter or otherwise aid America's enemies. Invade Iran.
The Taliban refused to turn over Bin Ladin. The UN authorized war. What other option was there? Sanctions? A harsh note? There would have been more 9-11s. And even there hadn't been, 3000 Americans would have gone unavenged. It would have told the world that the US no longer had the will to live or defend itself.
""If you didn't suppor the Afghan war in 2001, you basically think we shouldn't defend ourselves. ""
There's a difference between defending and retaliatory. We are punishing the taliban for refusing to hand over OBL, and information on AQ bases. Not that I have a problem with that, in general.
""There would have been more 9-11s.""
The phrase that sparks the fear that brought us the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, full body scanners, and TSA groping.
Just because their was irrational response to the fear does not mean the fear was irrational.
3000 Americans would have gone unavenged
Foreign policy based on vengance? Really?
urhh....vengeance.
It is a tough world NM. You can pretent that you can live in it by being nice and forgiving people for killing your people all you wnat. But it doesn't work that way.
What are you basing yoru foreign policy on hope? Unilateral niceness?
Geez that and free trade as a FP panacea just about describes interventionism to a T.
*noninterventionism
What are you basing yoru foreign policy on hope? Unilateral niceness?
Cooperative self-interest, perhaps. Oh, and that who morality thing...you know, whereby some things are immoral at their roots...like vengeance.
who = whole
There's nothing moral about your FP proposal. It consists of America's government sacrificing the interests of its citizens for the interests of people who have initiated violence against the American people. It amounts to abdication of the government's reason to exist.
Wait. The government's reason to exist is to exact vengeance?
""LOL I don't know that we should have nuked them. But there is a rational case to be made for it. ""
But it's only rational if we do it, right? If we blew up a few buildings in Iran or Pakistan, would it be rational for them to nuke us?
I'm not anti-nuke, but I believe they are reserved for something better than nation building after terrorist attack a couple of buildings.
John deserves a giant internet cookie for this idea. I still would've sent in ground troops on a Shermanesque punishment tour but nukes would've been awesome.
1. Saudis announce they want to open the spigots to "crush" Iran.
2. T-Prompt speechifies about troop drawdowns in Afghanistan.
3. IEA releases 60 million barrels of oil.
Saudis set the agenda, US frees up the troops, US & EU free the oil. All we need now is the Gulf of Tonkin incident: I'm guessing "terrorist" attack on Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
good theory Jersey. But I seriously doubt it. What odds are you giving that we are at war with Iran before November 2012?
I'd say "Operation Yemeni Freedom" has priority with this Administration. Iran is more of a republican frtish.
About 2 in 3. It's the next level of Keynesianism: break some windows.
I sure hope you're right!
I hate to break it to you, but troops levels are still going back to 20,000 higher than they were when Obama took office. The 30,000 was just one of two batches of reinforcements he sent.
Naturally, you'd expect such basic facts on such a high profile enterprise to be well known among the supposed experts. But, interestingly, the press often finds it easy to avoid publicizing or learning basic facts when it comes to the Obama Administration.
The best we can hope for is that the Taliban figures that life is a lot better when they are not fighting the US. And the next time a friendly rich Arab shows up with cash wanting to train to fight the infidel, they blow his head off. If they want to make Afghanistan into Allahland, have fun as long as they don't let people make war on us from there.
But, interestingly, the press often finds it easy to avoid publicizing or learning basic facts. when it comes to the Obama Administration.
There, that's better.
Let's not pretent that a screwed up media with their own agenda is something that relates to the Obama admin. They media was that way before Obama, and they will be that way after Obama.
The media always has its own agenda. This is true.
But large portions of it are also uncomfortably close to the Obama Administration, both politically and ideologically, with predictable results in its reporting. I don't think that should be controversial to say, either.
I'm pretty non-ideological when it comes to foreign policy, but I've been advocating a significant down-sizing in Afghanistan since around 2007. That was when I seriously studied the theater and realized that from the beginning we'd never had a clue regarding our determined endstate and we were bumbling around in a place where very little good would happen. Seriously, studying the ad hoc development of our non-campaign plan from 2001 onwards and the establishment of ISAF was a pretty shocking experience. In 2008-2009 we decided on an end-state, but, alas, it happened to be (as I said at the time) a utopian goal based on the incredibly flawed nation-building strategy popularly known as politically correct COIN (to be distinguished from non-ideological COIN, which involves a lot of different operational alternatives).
There really are no great solutions for Afghanistan. That's part of the reason the PC COIN crowd won - while other people were forced to put forward non-ideal alternatives they were promising the moon, using the largely misunderstood and difficult to replicate example of Iraq. For what it's worth my own (necessarily imperfect) proposal would be to radically downsize our force and goals and turn Afghanistan into a low-resource SOF theater, essentially a free-fire zone against externals. Accept it's not going to be pretty and work on a short-term basis with whomever, militia or nation-state, that's willing to go after the same people we care about. Don't count on shit from Pakistan or assume you'll leave a stable central government. Just keep the water boiling.
That said, I don't think the Taliban is going to seperate from Al Qaeda. The Afghan Arabs been interacting, even intermarrying, in the tribal areas for decades at this point. And I doubt any Afghan or Pakistani government is going to have control over its territory to the extent that it'll be able to prevent foreigners from using it either covertly or openly. They just won't. The notion that we must ensure every government is run from the capitol and has total control of its territory is just a Progressive fantasy/assumption playing itself out in our foreign and military policy.
On the bright side (speaking in practical not moral terms), the coming civil war is likely to be pretty ugly. And in most civil wars the factions/leaders that go in aren't necessarily the factions that come out. Win, lose, or draw, it's likely that the Taliban and Haqanni networks are going to be torn up pretty badly, if not displaced by new actors. At the end of the day, they're not 10 feet tall either and like us are just men organizing in a very chaotic and inhospitable country. In any case, most of the local combatants in Afghanistan are going to be too wound up in sheer survival to worry about launching attacks against the United States.
Tribal Pakistan's a little different since it's more of an established sanctuary and allows the time and space for international planning. But our gigantic presence next door isn't really affecting that in any case.
Apologies. I could go on, but it's long enough already.
You need to tell this to Bill O'Reilly.
He's convinced the Taliban is militarily superior to everyone except the U.S. forces and, the minute we leave, will control Afghanistan and launch innumerable 9-11 type attacks on the U.S.
Most pundits operate and argue along superficial soundbites and cliches, not serious thought.
Nothing new.
Indeed. But sadly it isn't just the pundits that say that.
I don't agree with the 9-11 attack part but I wouldn't put faith in the people that allowed, or couldn't stop the the Taliban from taking over in the first place. Whether or not it's our business is a different arguement.
You need to tell this to Bill O'Reilly.
Why on earth would you watch him? Every time he opens his mouth he subtracts from the sum of human knowledge.
I am glad we are still sending troops. But a number we can see in front of us. It sounds reasonable, to relieve the troops ready to come home. We have to support our American troops. In fact, we are there to represent this Nation. It is our people over there. I can only believe that if we did not have so many people here that can't get jobs that are living for free, and a middle class that I am not sure how they help our economy becasue this is a nation of people that are lazy and become slaves and complain when offered freedom, and rich people they say could not help our deficit even if they all gave the Government all their money. I mean, at least our Troops are doing something for our Country. Not really making it such a mess as the people in this country.
I'll believe it when I see it. Obama has a tendency to go back on his word.
*Obama* has a tendency? As opposed to other politicians?