Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Coming Military Offensive Against the July 2011 Timetable
The military has put together a game plan, set up their strategy and deployed their troops into the field. They are ready to storm with full-spectrum pressure to achieve their objective.
American and Afghan soldiers on a joint patrol last week in Kandahar Province. Military officials say the counterinsurgency strategy needs time to work. (Yuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images) I’m not talking about winning the war in Afghanistan, whatever that means these days. I’m talking about winning the war on the end of the war in Afghanistan.
American military officials are building a case to minimize the planned withdrawal of some troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, in an effort to counter growing pressure on President Obama from inside his own party to begin winding the war down quickly.
With the administration unable yet to point to much tangible evidence of progress, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who assumed command in Afghanistan last month from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is taking several steps to emphasize hopeful signs on the ground that, he will argue, would make a rapid withdrawal unwise. Meanwhile, a rising generation of young officers, who have become expert over the past nine years in the art of counterinsurgency, have begun quietly telling administration officials that they need time to get their work done.
“Their argument,” said one senior administration official, who would not speak for attribution about the internal policy discussions, “is that while we’ve been in Afghanistan for 9 years, only in the past 12 months or so have we started doing this right, and we need to give it some time and think about what our long-term presence in Afghanistan should look like.”
No military commander in the history of armed conflict has asked for less battlefield resources. The drive from the military for a longer, stronger, deeper commitment should be baked into the cake of the Administration’s thinking on the July 2011 transition point.
But, the offensive appears to already be working. Both Joe Biden and Robert Gates have sought to minimize the importance of July 2011, saying that any withdrawals would be limited, perhaps as few as a few thousand troops. You can be sure General David Petraeus will join them in that assessment this Sunday, when he appears on Meet the Press.
Remember, this would be a total reversal of Petraeus’ own word. In Jonathan Alter’s book The Promise, he describes a meeting between Obama, Petraeus and former Afghan commander Stanley McChrystal:
OBAMA: “I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?”
PETRAEUS: “Sir, I’m confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame.”
OBAMA: “If you can’t do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?”
PETRAEUS: “Yes, sir, in agreement.”
MULLEN: “Yes, sir.”
The July 2011 transition date was the necessary concession by the military commanders in exchange for getting a larger commitment of forces in December of last year. It wasn’t something to be thrown over because “we need to give the counter-insurgency some time.” In December 2009, David Petraeus said affirmatively that the military would be able to hand over operations to the Afghan National Army, and if they couldn’t, they should leave. That was the agreement. That was the deal.
Petraeus is already breaking it. And it’s because the war hasn’t gone well. Petraeus hopes to scrounge up whatever progress he can find to justify staying longer.
So far the White House is staying neutral in this debate, with a formal assessment to come in December. Their top officials have vacillated between affirming a continued commitment to the region and stressing that such a commitment would not be open-ended.
By the way, we have a new Friedman Unit:
At the core of the timetables, they say, is what White House officials call the “two-year rule.” During the review of Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, Mr. Gates made the argument, according to one participant in the White House Situation Room discussions, that “in any particular location you should be able to clear, build, hold and transfer” to the Afghan forces within two years. Military officials said two years was roughly how it took to make headway in difficult places, once troops were in place.
“If it takes longer than that,” the official said, “there’s a problem, and you have the temptation to drift.”
Those two years are rapidly approaching. The counterinsurgency policy has actually been in place since March 2009, with more resources, from an initial escalation of 21,000, than during the Bush Administration. The White House starts the two-year clock in June 2009. But either way, nobody, not even Petraeus, can say that the time frame has been rushed.
- Posted in



32 Comments so far
Show AllThe various wars now being waged by Obama, whether in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine -- will be ended as other post-World War II wars have been ended: not by a "push" here at home, but by those in whose country we are waging war, who will make continuing incompatible with the continued coherent structure of the military. The deep grief is that many hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost or otherwise destroyed in the process, while those who give the orders here at home continue to enjoy a privileged, rich life.
Wise up. Just shoot the criminals and be done with it.
That this strategy by the military industrial national security complex is already in motion shows what a weasel we have in the White House. Had he any guts he would have put kibosh on this from the start.
AD
He has no guts--sad but true.
Too bad the truth hurts for some.
Who flagged AD?
AD--well said!
Probably someone from Huffpo. Anything negative about the corporate lawn jockey is automatically flagged there.
End the wars? Are you kidding? These bastards are having way too much fun at making way too much money.
I’m talking about winning the war on the end of the war in Afghanistan.
No doubt this is one "victory" these swine will achieve.
Nader warned about Obama, didn't he?
There is a way we can turn this war around in our favor. We can engage the enemy and protect the civilians but for some reason Darpa refuse to build this weapon system and the senators don’t want to listen to the complaints of veterans about this issue. Something is wrong here.
Eisenhower had it right when he warned us about the military-industrial complex. Young lives are made expendable by old men who profit.
Yes..He knew it well..after all he helped to create it
On a drive today I listened to one of my old albums. Nothing has changed since 1971!
Ten Years After - A Space In Time:
Song - I'd Love to Change the World
Spoken 'Now, turn on'
Everywhere is freaks and hairys
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity?
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till we run out, rich no more
I'd love to change the world
(Dee-dee-dee-dee)
But I don't know what to do
(Dee-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)
So I'll leave it up to you-ooo-ooo
(Be in my prayer)
Population, keeps on breedin'
Nation bleedin', still more feedin'
Economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees made honey, who needs money?
Monopoly
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
(Dee-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)
So I'll leave it up to you-you-ooo
(We-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)
Oh, yeah!
(Rich or poor)
(It's your fault)
(Screw you)
More pollutions, there's no solutions
Restitution, mass confusions
Spread the word
Rich or poor
Save the earth
Stop the war
Spoken:
(And we've got nothin' to do)
(Just turn on)
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you-ooo-ooo, woo-ooo
Woo-ooo-ooo-ooo
(Dee-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)
Just turn me on.
********************************
How would you like to be the kids who get handed this mess? Only thing that has changed is that you can't just turn on and tune out anymore. Walmart does drug testing.
They won't wind down this one without having another in the mill. These people, who create war, are addicted to killing, stealing and deceit. Until we change our thinking patterns, the wars will continue.
Remember Iran? The Ha'aretz is already bragging about the US going to war with Iran within a year.
They should know.
De-Countrify Israel Now and force Zionists to pay Reparations.
This is all more Afghanistan blah blah blah, Iraq blah blah blah, war blah blah blah, kill blah blah blah, Obama says blah blah blah, Petreus says blah blah blah.
lol.
Well stated.
"So far the White House is remaining neutral in this debate, with a formal assessment to come in December [2010]."
Debate? Debate between who and who?
The gist of this whole article by David Dayen is that an agreement for an 18-24 month time frame to either actually turn things around or else withdraw from Afghanistan was struck between the Pentagon and President Obama, but now there's a faction inside the military and US intelligence community bureaucracy that wants to break that agreement and make the Af/Pak committment open-ended. That faction wants to frame signs of recent "progress" on the ground as an argument to stay longer, rather than an argument to declare a partial "mission accomplished", bring the troops home on schedule, and end the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration should not "remain neutral" about civilian control over the military. If guys like McChrystal, or Petraeus, or some "rising generation of young officers" who are gung ho about COIN doctrine want to play partisan politics in the arena of foreign policy decision making, the Commander-in-Chief should assert his authority. A withdrawal timetable having been announced, there should be nothing to debate.
Bill from Saginaw
Most of the world's peoples simply cannot understand what the US is fighting all these wars for. Oil; no, that will still go to the highest bidder. To stop terrorism; no, these wars only increase it, and cutting subsidies to Israel would work far better. To keep the military industrial machine going; maybe, but expensive. The world now looks at the US with astonishment. Perhaps that's it?
Just boys being boys I guess. Posterity will look back upon it all and wonder.
$
"So far the White House is staying neutral in this debate..."
Of course! Obama won't use Petraeus to betray us until the last minute. In other words, the White House is staying publicly neutral, but you can bet they've already committed to staying on and on and on...
The WH won't say much until after the elections--they'll bob and weave just to get more corporate Dems elected, then like the Repugs, they'll keep the wars/occupations going and going.....
You just wait and see.
It all doesn't matter cuz good ol' Mom Earth is getting us all ready for the next extinction.
Wherever General Betrayus &/or his young officer stooges appear & to engage in politics they should be met by war protesters chanting "Hey, hey, General Betrayus & rogue officers, how many of our soldiers you gonna sacrifice today", followed by "Hey, hey, General Betrayus & rogue officers, how many Afghanis you gonna kill today". The goal being to tarnish the image & reduce the popularity of all things military.
But... but.... but.... we should "support our troops."
Assholes!
On the day before commiting suicide, Hitler sent his last message to his favorite General responsible for the defense of Berlin-it read: "Where's the counter attack?"
Military leaders just don't like admitting getting their ass kicked. It does not look good on their resumes-regardless of the number of peasants who die in the useless effort.
Nothing changes. "Were #1, Were #1, Were #1 . . . . "
"Were #1" is correct. That was what, back in the 50s and 60s when we were #1? Perhaps we now are #2 which you may remember from childhood...
The latest scoop? Remember that picture of the Girl on the time Magazine Cover?
It turns out the journalist who wrote that story is married to a man who allegedly benefits directly from the war.
>>But there was more than a question mark missing from the Time story, which stressed potentially disastrous consequences if the U.S. pursues negotiations with the Taliban. The piece lacked a crucial personal disclosure on Baker's part: Her husband, Tamim Samee, an Afghan-American IT entrepreneur, is a board member of an Afghan government minister's $100 million project advocating foreign investment in Afghanistan, and has run two companies, Digistan and Ora-Tech, that have solicited and won development contracts with the assistance of the international military, including private sector infrastructure projects favored by U.S.-backed leader Hamid Karzai.
Why would TIME not reveal this information?
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/its-horrifying-cover-story-time-gave-war-boost-did-its-reporter-profit?page=0
it also turns out that the photo is over a year old. pulled out just in time. As we would have expected.
Bretigne Shaffer had this to say about a memo in the big wikileaks dump:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/shaffer-br7.1.1.html
quote
As if the implicit pitch for more war as a solution to violence against women did not provide enough cognitive dissonance, the woman pictured was actually disfigured by family members at the order of a Taliban official last year – eight years after US forces entered Afghanistan.
In fact, the Time piece fits very neatly with something found in one of the leaked documents that has the White House so concerned. Titled "CIA Red Cell Special Memorandum: Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission-Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough," the document ."..outlines possible PR strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan."
The (leaked) Memorandum continues:
"The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For France it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women... Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission... Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences."
unquote
Time Magazine. Bought and Soldout.
and more here:
split URL[http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/
2002-timebends-the-further-fruits-of-revelation.html]
We will leave when AIPAC gives us permission
or hell freezes over, either one.
De-Countrify Israel Now and force Zionists to pay Reparations.
The "withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011" is a non-binding promise that can be easily ignored by the Obama administration with the time-honored excuse of "the situation on the ground will be taken into account" which Mr. Obama cannot evaluate because he lives in Washington. That evaluation will be done for him by General Petraeus, assuming that he will still be the top dog in Afghanistan then. You cannot lose money betting on "the situation on the ground will demand in the summer of 2011 that no or only a few troops can be removed from Afghanistan now". Wars and occupations have become the bread and butter of the military of our nation.
For me the more interesting "withdrawal of troops" is the case of Iraq. In November of 2008 President Bush signed the "Status of Force Agreement with Iraq, a. k. a. SOFA-Iraq. It has two articles which contain sections which can only be interpreted in one way because they are crystal-clear, namely:
Article 24, sub 1: All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011 [Notice the double "all"!] and
Article 30, sub 2: This agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries.
Although Mr. Bush did not submit SOFA-Iraq to confirmation by our Senate, the much-vaunted "international community" holds that Mr. Bush was, and his successor Mr. Obama is beholden to carry out this agreement as is unless it is amended.
The main problem with the first article is that our State Department wants to keep a huge army of diplomats and spies in Iraq and they require protection either by armed soldiers or armed mercenaries (or both)who will be spies themselves. The standard procedure with any foreign country is to negotiate with its government how many of these armed "protectors" are allowed into the country and what the rules of their conduct are.
Obviously SOFA-Iraq does not contain any answer to these issues. Since any negotiations with any Iraqi government are likely to be tedious and prolonged, the Obama administration may already be too late to get an agreement on "protection" before January 1, 2012. My expectation is that the Obama administration will simply tell the Iraqi government on that day how many soldiers and armed mercenaries will remain in Iraq to "protect our diplomats". Expect huge troubles from El Sadr.
The second article is interesting in that it seems to rule out "secret understandings" let alone "secret agreements" that violate SOFA-Iraq. Given the huge troubles which Mr. Bush had to get this agreement in the first place it is highly unlikely that any emendation will occur before SOFA-Iraq expires on December 13, 2011 at exactly midnight (in principle earlier emendations could shift the expiration to a later date but don’t bet on that to happen). In the absence of a new agreement at that moment Mr. Obama may place our country in a state of war with Iraq if he has violated Article 24, sub 1.
Whenever you encounter the now obvious "trial balloons" from the Whitewash House such as “The reality in Iraq may defy that deadline, because many American and Iraqi officials deem the American presence to be in each nation’s interest” ask immediately: "where in article 24 of SOFA-Iraq is the clause that our government is allowed defy this agreement"?
The truth is that Mr. Obama has already trod onto this quicksand which is bound to sink him at least internationally, especially in “Muslim” countries whose rulers, elites and probably people know exactly what is written in SOFA Iraq.
Here is a note in closing. The entire text of SOFA Iraq shows the cunning and sophistication of the Iraqi negotiators who bested Mr. Bush and his advisers. If the Obama administration believes that it can “best” any team of Iraqi negotiators it will receive a richly deserved defeat from these people who are embedded in a centuries-old tradition and culture of negotiating, if necessary of endless negotiating. They may even succeed in tying Mr. Obama, and thereby our nation, to a refurbished “tar baby named Democratic Iraq”.
I swear that I had no information that General Petraeus was going to state publicly the "the draw down from Afghanistan in 1011 will depend on conditions on the ground" which he did yesterday! Prediction: there will be no or only very marginal draw down in 2011. War and occupation are the bread and butter of Petraeus. What is he going to do without war and occupation? Moreover, in that case he will never again be on TV. He will be forgotten.