THE PLANK DECEMBER 2, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Barack Obama's aides can pat themselves on the back today; they have succeeded in spinning the president's new troop surge as a simultaneous plan for leaving Afghanistan. And I can see honest logic there: By delivering a hard punch to the Taliban, you hope to create conditions that allow even flawed Afghan security forces to get on their feet, which may then allow for a quicker U.S. exit. But that's been the plan in Iraq for about six years and we've still barely drawn down from that morass.
I wonder how many Americans who may be paying only cursory attention appreciate the thinness of Obama's pledge to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. Subsequent commentary from administration officials has made this point clearer than Obama did last night.
First, there was Michèle A. Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy, who told the New York Times this morning that "The pace, the nature and the duration of that transition are to be determined down the road by the president based on the conditions on the ground." George Bush was saying the same basic thing beginning around 2004.
Next, there was Centcom commander David Petraeus, architect of the Iraq surge, who today made an unlikely appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Petraeus acknowledged a "tension" in Obama's speech between a desire to ramp up troop levels and bring the fight to the Taliban and a desire to start coming home. But when it comes to expectations about a near-term withdrawal, the general took care to emphasize something: "Conditions-based [are] very important words that need to be focused on."
And then there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who in her testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, was asked by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham whether the July 2011 had "locked us in" to a withdrawal. "I do not believe we have locked ourselves in to leaving," Clinton responded, before repeating the core administration talking point: "By July 2011 there can be the beginning of a responsible transition that will of course be based on conditions." But "the beginning of a responsible transition" can mean almost anything. In theory it can be nothing more than a changing-of-the-guard ceremony at the airport.
Or it can mean something like what Defense Secretary Robert Gates described this morning at that Senate hearing. Asked by John McCain whether July 2011 amounts to an "an arbitrary date" to begin a transition. Gates replied that the national security team concluded "that we would be in a position, particularly in uncontested areas, where we would be able to begin that transition." Note the emphasis: particularly in uncontested areas. Yes, one would certainly hope that America can withdraw from areas the Taliban aren't even contesting within eighteen months. But there won't be many American troops in those places to begin with. People hoping that this war will come to a swift end beginning in the summer of 2011 would do well to understand that now, or risk severe disappointment down the road.
More on Obama's Afghanistan Speech:
"Obama's Inconsistencies," by Richard Just
"More On Obama's Inconsistencies," by John B. Judis
"How Obama's Surge Is Like Bush's," by Steven Metz
"A Lonely Kind Of Courage," by Elizabeth D. Samet
"Obama's Other Front: The Hill," by Lydia DePillis and Jesse Zwick
"Obama Sticks To His Guns," by Michael Crowley
"Sorry, But I Hear Echoes of Vietnam," by John B. Judis
1 comments
Obama knows that Americans have, like, ADHD about stuff like war and the economy (and mostly everything else, but that's another story). All we want to know is, what have you done for us lately, Barack? If the generals are always fighting the last war, the voters are fighting mad about last month's spin. Prez don't need to do nothin about what's happening right now or next week or next year or six months ago; all he has to do is address what was going on a fortnight ago, which is all we really care about. Ever watch a toddler, say, fall down and bump his head and his face screws up and turns red and he opens his mouth but nothing comes out yet you know that in a few more seconds he's going to scream? That's how we are as a nation. We are a nation of terrible twos. Our current reaction follows our silence which followed something or other the media was heavily spinning two weeks ago. We are fighting mad, although we've forgotten exactly what we're mad about, because it was two weeks ago, which is a long time. In 2011 nobody will give a shit what Obama said in 2009. All they will care about is, is my daughter being deployed to the front? Is the Taliban blowing up government buildings or are smiling faces of former Taliban shown inside "People" and "Newsweek" shaking the hand of George Clooney as together they break ground for the new Taliban-U.S. Nail Salon? (Mani-Pedi's only $10!) And, most important as always, am I employed and do I need a Weatherman to know which was the taxes blow? If by 2011 unemployment has dropped significantly (okay, I realize that sounds like I've been hitting the khat pretty hard, but work with me) and the new Republican majority in the House isn't scorching the earth too much, a few months maybe even morphing into a year of fudging on the withdrawal won't matter in the grand scheme of things (i.e., the poll of polls).
- williamyard
December 2, 2009 at 1:50pm