Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Officials Moving Away From 2011 Afghan Date
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.
A U.N. report issued in August showed that civilian casualties rose 31 percent during the first half of the year compared with the previous year, 76 percent were caused by the Taliban, it said. So far, more than 400 U.S. troops have been killed this year. (REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly)
The new policy will be on display next week during a conference of NATO countries in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the year when Afghan President Hamid Karzai once said Afghan troops could provide their own security, three senior officials told McClatchy, along with others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy.
The Pentagon also has decided not to announce specific dates for handing security responsibility for several Afghan provinces to local officials and instead intends to work out a more vague definition of transition when it meets with its NATO allies.
What a year ago had been touted as an extensive December review of the strategy now also will be less expansive and will offer no major changes in strategy, the officials told McClatchy. So far, the U.S. Central Command, the military division that oversees Afghanistan operations, hasn't submitted any kind of withdrawal order for forces for the July deadline, two of those officials told McClatchy.
The shift already has begun privately and came in part because U.S. officials realized that conditions in Afghanistan were unlikely to allow a speedy withdrawal.
"During our assessments, we looked at if we continue to move forward at this pace, how long before we can fully transition to the Afghans? And we found that we cannot fully transition to the Afghans by July 2011," said one senior administration official. "So we felt we couldn't focus on July 2011 but the period it will take to make the full transition."
Another official said the administration also realized in contacts with Pakistani officials that the Pakistanis had concluded wrongly that July 2011 would mark the beginning of the end of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.
That perception, one Pentagon adviser said, has convinced Pakistan's military — which is key to preventing Taliban sympathizers from infiltrating Afghanistan — to continue to press for a political settlement instead of military action.
"This administration now understands that it cannot shift Pakistani approaches to safeguarding its interests in Afghanistan with this date being perceived as a walk-away date," the adviser said.
Last week's midterm elections also have eased pressure on the Obama administration to begin an early withdrawal. Earlier this year, some Democrats in Congress pressed to cut off funding for Afghanistan operations. With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives beginning in January, however, there'll be less push for a drawdown. The incoming House Armed Services chairman, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., told Reuters last week that he opposed setting the date.
On Tuesday, a White House official who spoke with reporters in a conference call arranged to discuss the December review, said the administration might withdraw some troops next July and may hand some communities over to Afghan authorities. But he said a withdrawal from Afghanistan could take "years," depending on the capability of the Afghan national security forces.
He also said the December review would measure progress in eight areas, though he declined to specify what those are. Congress will get a report by early next year, but Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S.-led international forces in Afghanistan, will not testify.
"This is designed to be an inside the administration perspective," he said, adding it will "set the policymaking calendar" for the Obama administration's first six months of next year.
De-emphasizing deadlines also allows the administration greater flexibility in responding to conditions in Afghanistan, officials said.
While the Taliban are facing increasing coalition airstrikes, they have no driving incentive to negotiate with an unpopular government. Officials here quietly worry that while they, too, are seeing some drops in violence and the Taliban's hold in pockets of Afghanistan, those limited improvements aren't leading to better governance.
A U.N. report issued in August showed that civilian casualties rose 31 percent during the first half of the year compared with the previous year, 76 percent were caused by the Taliban, it said. So far, more than 400 U.S. troops have been killed this year.
Many officials here privately worry that talk of a withdrawal without results will cost the military credibility, with Americans and Afghans alike.
"What we ultimately need in Afghanistan is good governance," said one senior military officer. "Right now there is a gap" between security gains and governance.
Christopher Preble, the director for foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, said he's not surprised that the scope of the December review has narrowed and that Obama administration officials are no longer highlighting the July 2011 date.
"The very players who were arguing so strenuously for a deepening of our involvement in Afghanistan a year ago are unlikely to now declare that their earlier recommendations were faulty," he said.
(Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.)
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

36 Comments so far
Show AllQuelle surprise!!
What with the re-emergence of W, did O feel the need to whip it out?
Let's see just in the past week what hath Team Obama done to reinforce the brilliant decision by the Nobel committee to award the Peace award to Prince Barry:
1) Went to land of Gandhi to negotiate 6th largest weapons deal in history;
2) Sec. of Defense for Team Obama said they would be pleased to help out (occupy) in Iraq for years to come- but only if invited of course;
3) Stated that U.S. will continue to slaughter Afghanis beyond the appropriately called "deadline"- with only noble intent to bring democracy of course;
4) Returns to the place where he grew up promising military cooperation- continued support of assassination squads etc.;
5) Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones.
It is only mid-week so there is lots more to come! Not bad for a peace prizer eh?
We agree.
Maybe he can double dip and get the peace prize twice.
Oführer has no shame.
The military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of will have its way regardless of who is President.
They do have a firm withdrawal date. It's the day the pipeline runs dry.
They've "recently discovered" oil in Afghanistan. We will not leave the place. Eventually, a majority of Americans will support occupation for resources out in the open, when given the choice between driving smaller cars or killing Afghans, Iraqis and other "terrorists".
In 2084 I predict a story will be printed in the New York Times about the history of the Afghan war. It's title will read; "The US is at war with Afghanistan, the US has always been at war with Afghanistan".
Did anyone really believe 2011 would be anything but a partial withdrawal anyway?
The more troops that stay the less the war machine will have for a new invasion like Iran or anywhere else... not bad for less war.
This does theoretically give Obama a better position to negotiate something with the Taliban and whoever does not want him there.. the vast majority.
The old problem for Obama is the Taliban aren't going anywhere... ever.
Another problem for Obama is his word is worth zero now.
I wish someone could show us one issue on which Obama has not backed down on.
The bail out to the banksters. There! I showed you.
Obama is a zionist war pig!
Take back the peace prize!
Obomber is nothing but a smiling and lying corporate fascist.
A variety of corporations are after Afghanistan's resources as well as the energy resources of Central Asia via Afghanistan which should actually be called Pipelineistan.
But the empire is bankrupt. Imperial over-extension is here.
Trillions of tax dollars have been wasted in Iraq and now the fascists plan to spend trillions of public dollars on the occupation of Afghanistan to subsidize corporate globalization plans.
This is public debt for private profit while our domestic economy is collapsing.
The answer to the question how long the U.S. intends to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan is not to be sought in any overt statement issued by the White House, but rather in the sheer size of the U.S. fortress-embassy already built in Baghdad (no less than 21 massive buildings on 104 acres, meant to house about 1000 U.S. "officials"), and of the one being expanded in Kabul.
Re. the embassy in Baghdad, see the articles posted at CD on 10/27/06 and at McClatchydc.com on 10/18/07.
Re. the embassy in Kabul, see the CD posted article on 11/3/10.
I could have puked when I saw Michael Moore say recently that he really thinks Obama is a nice guy. If MM can't even see reality what hope is there?
Well,gosh the pistol packing mama from Alaska, is probably a nice person too, just like Obama, Bush and Cheney. You betcha!
Yes, when it comes to the political life of the United States at the federal level, Michael Moore suffers from a very serious reality deficit.
Oikos,
You got that right!
C
I gave up on Michael Moore with Sicko. He was punked by Castro and, as a consequence, sold a bill of crap to the so called Progressives who now actually believe that Cuba is paradise lost and Communism the last bastion of democracy. Right now, Michael Moore is the Cuban people's second worse enemy.
As the US violently rapes Afghanistan, with one surge after another, it just can't bring its self pull out. Sorry Afghanistan but there will be no premature evacuation of the troops, unfortunately for you, when it comes to war, the US has staying power like no other country.
Remember in any form of rape it is the power the perpetrator has over the target that drives his/its actions.
Wow, no one saw that coming, what a shock.
Meanwhile, the catfood commission (so called deficit-reduction commission) will steal a big chunk of our social security and further gut medicare. The Fed is now initiating QE2 (so-called quantitative easing) which means creating 100s of billions of "new" money supply so the Banksters can invest in the international carry trade and arbitrage and make an even bigger killing than they already have. This will cause more stag-flation. The only thing that will decline in value will be housing. So we can expect rising health care costs, education, rising electricity costs, rising food prices and falling wages, sky-high unemployment, and lower wages and reduced benefits.
This is business as usual on steroids; steal trillions from the public and give it to the Corporate Mafia. This is the largest piece of kleptocracy in the history of the world. If you think I exaggerate, I invite anyone to disprove that claim.
This is becoming an all-out disaster, and our pessimism has not been unfounded. On the bright side, the system is heading for a brick wall and when it destroys itself then the opportunity for something a bit more just is possible. Otherwise the descent into dystopia appears equally likely.
Like Wilson, the Roosevelts, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson; Obomber is following in the footsteps of the "progressive" tradition that is responsible for the largest imperialist wars in U.S. history.
December 2009 quote from Obama at West point: " In 18 months we will begin to bring our troops home from Afghanistan ". Lie after lie after lie after....
Extending the war?
Again, where are all those Democratic party bloggers that were here for weeks before the election saying vote Democrat; otherwise things will get worse.
The following is Feingold's 10/29 press release. From his rhetoric, I guess is he won't oppose extending the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“I am pleased that the two dangerous packages originating in Yemen were intercepted. For years, I have called for an intensified focus on the global threat from al Qaeda, particularly in Yemen. Anticipating and confronting al Qaeda threats around the world must be our top national security priority.”
Democrats don't think of war as REAL war when Democrats are in charge. It's only when the Repugs are involved that they become anti-war.
For Democrats, Bush is a warmonger but Obama is not. Obama is viewed through rose colored glasses and he's given a pass and a zillion excuses.
When it comes to war, Obama is just "cleaning up GW Bush's mess" and Obama simply "inherited" these wars and does not have a "magic wand" to make them end.
Democrats fail to see that Obama is every bit the war monger that GW Bush and most of the Repugs are.
Yes... fighting terror in an intelligent ,covert, effective way . That is what we must do, not put large armies in countries, and kill civillians. Terrorists are small clusters of fanatics, from all around the world, not a country ! We are waisting lives, and resources, so Haliburton can make money !
McClatchy Newspapers occasionally engaged in some courageous, well-researched, and very professional journalism in the early days of the post-9/11 global war on terror and during the hysterical propaganda runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when most mainstream US media outfits engaged in shameless cheerleading for war. I thus find it doubly depressing to read anonymously sourced crapola like this article (a by-line in the name of Nancy Youssef, with cohorts Warren Stroebel and Jonathan Landay contributing) masquerading as breaking news, or news analysis.
Only two people speak for attribution, on the record, in this breathless DC beltway insider narrative which is littered nonetheless with tantalizing ghostly quotation marks to punctuate its war mongering partisan spin. The new House Armed Services chair, Buck McKeon, tells us he opposes setting any deadline date to withdraw from Afghanistan (surprize! surprize!). The libertarian Cato Institute think tank spokesman Christopher Preble sagely says he's not surprized at all that Obama is waffling on withdrawal (no news there, either). Other than those two identifiable human beings, there simply is nobody home.
Every bit of the rest of the substance is completely unsourced. Unnamed senior officials, unidentified Pentagon officers, faceless White House advisors, sometimes two or three of these highly placed apparitions anonymously agreeing or maybe partly disagreeing with one another, feed us today's version of the news from Washington that's deemed fit to print, chanting in unison behind their masks like an ancient Greek chorus.
Nothing in this McClatchy article is news. Nothing is even news analysis. Every bit is pure, thinly disguised propaganda, peddled to rile up the readers for the weekend news cycle and frame the behind-the-scenes debate over life and death, war and peace, in order to further the war hawks' barely hidden agenda.
Don't let secretly sourced, self-serving bullshit like this yank your chain by fraudulently passing itself off as current events from the nation's capital. Too bad McClatchy is drifting towards the journalism/business model of AP, CNN, WaPo, the NY Times, and Fox.
I'm not saying it's false. I believe Obama is waffling again. There just simply is no news in this news.
Bill from Saginaw
Us Forces were also supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
Bill Gates recently said US forces would remain if the new Government of Iraq asks.
Would any person like to wager that the "Free and Independent" Iraqi Government is instructed to ask?
Fish odors can linger in a home for days. The stench of US Occupation lasts generations.
Bill Gates? or uncle Bobby?
My apologies...Bobby. :)
More "Change" we can't believe in.
No big shocker here.
In a very convoluted way, this withdrawal delay will be a good thing. By every account, the Taliban is spreading like wild fire and for every one that these bastards kill another dozen rises. The people are engaged and fighting back. Another 4 years will give the Empire an ass kicking swifter and better than the one that put an end to the Soviet dynasty.
So, carry on Obama. Seal the future of the US. We need this shit to go down so that the world can rest at long last.
I hope you are kidding ! If they are spreading like wildfire, it is only because we are attacking, and killing so many civillians, and making everyone angry,it is impossible to tell who is the angry citizen, and who is Tliban or Al Quida who ever we are fighting...who knows ?? This 4 more years krapt, is only going to kill, and mame thousands of people, and of course we will attack Iran, our real reason for having our Army in their back door, and WW3 is served on a Republican (American) platter !
Transsion to the Afghans... what ? We have to give them control of their own country ? Why ,I thought we were fighting terror, not entire countries.Rebel groups are after us ,perhaps with some guys connected to goverment, because they have money...but the country has never attacked us, we have no right, and it is against the Geaneva Convention to attack, and control a soveriegn country that never attacked you. I guess our guys didn't get that memo.