Obama wants Afghan war over in 3 years, officials say

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama intends to conclude the Afghanistan war and withdraw most U.S. troops within three years, according to senior administration officials.

Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and ordering military officials to get the reinforcements there within six months, White House officials told CNN Tuesday.

Obama will travel to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, later Tuesday to officially announce his plans. It would to be his second escalation of U.S. forces in the war-torn Islamic country since he came to power in January.

The president also is seeking further troop commitments from NATO allies as part of a counterinsurgency strategy aimed at wiping out al Qaeda elements and stabilizing the country while training Afghan forces.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/index.html

lol

:)

Who in the Obama administration is talking about "winning" there? What I see is a bunch of people talking about getting out and leaving the place a little better than it was before (of course only history will tell if that is what actually happens)

I guess he figures he will go down in History Like U. S. Gran, Sherman and Patton

Welcome to the world of the real Scum-Bag McCrazy

Pathetic that he could be this delusional. What is that saying about not learning the lessons of history?

period. he wont. he has to appease the adolescent warmongers.
He wants to set up bases there like we have in Iraq to make sure the oil contractors are protected, and their pipelines.

we still have soldiers in Iraq and until they are all gone we are still there.

ALL TROOPS SHOULD BE BROUGHT HOME NOW , PERIOD.
FROM BOTH COUNTRIES.

there is no reason to stay there one more second. We should never have been there in the first place.

Ignore the warmongers on the board. :hi:

just never thought Id see it on DU. I came here yrs ago to protest Bush wars and have a place where anti war activism was preeminent.
Not anymore, it seems.

what's the point of being on a political message board? Masturbation?

I didnt join DU to listen to warmongers .
I could have listened to that on Free Republic.
buh bye

Its not worth it--- IT popped up here about a month ago with NEO-CON rhetoric and a rather nasty debating style.

is a "troll".

when Russia was having a go at Afghanistan? That al-Qaida?

Well, for the one's who've "gone rogue" as it were, it is a criminal matter, not a military one.

This is the biggest difference between the so-called 'war' on terror and life before. Prior to the * cabal being in power, terrorism was treated as a criminal matter. It was George W. Bush who decided that all 'terror' was deserving of a military response.

Afghanistan offered to turn over anyone responsible for the WTC thing, but the US would provide NO EVIDENCE.

That is called the Rule of Law, and it's what we've tossed out the window in the name of the WoT.

So, yeah, we should NOT have pursued the terrorists we created with the military.

For starters, there's no evidence that al-Qaeda (even in its earliest inception) was on the CIA payrole. That's a myth - a very popular one, but a myth nonetheless.

Secondly, as if this needs pointing out?, we didn't "create" al-Qaeda. Abdullah Azzam, Usama bin Laden, and a handful of other did.

Third, treating al-Qaeda as a criminal manner had extremely poor results.

Fourth, given the close ties between bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the fact that al-Qaeda's leadership was already on the move (along with Taliban forces, BTW) at the time the "offer" was made, and the fact that bin Laden has been more than happy to claim credit for theh attacks, the "offer" to give up bin Laden was probably a stall tactic. Frankly, I think we should have been in Afghanistan sooner. It would have spared us some huge headaches.

Fifth, you seem to place 100% of the responsibility for al-Qaeda at the feet of the United States. I assume you do so because you have some major facts wrong, but even if your facts were correct, these are independent actors charting their own course. Whether they received support from one nation or another does not change the fact that, in the end, the buck stops with them.

And no, I don't have my facts wrong. Thanks.

heh... this could go round and round so I'll end it here. Enjoy your sick little turkey shoot.

and provide a source to back up your claims that the United States "created" al-Qaeda and had the organization on its payrole. Or is that asking too much?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While I question why the source you chose to cite was that of someone generally regarded as questionable, it did prove to be a useful starting off point. It appears you're right, in one sense. This individual, Ali Mohamed, appears to have worked with American intelligence throughout the 1980s and 1990s. However, does this constitute evidence that the U.S. funded al-Qaeda or does this merely constitute evidence that U.S. intelligence was milking someone within the organization? Also, nothing I've read indicates this man played any role in the founding of al-Qaeda, much less that U.S. aid did.

With that said, info. on this guy is a mish-mash, so forgive me and I've overlooked anything.

I appreciate your open-mindedness. :)

And Admittedly, I can't claim to have all the facts. Much of this type of thing happens in the shadows.

Thanks again for being willing to consider new data.

Look it up.

recruited 79% of al qaeda back in the 1990s. You have to read more posts here. We're certainly not going to let silly facts spoil our dreams.

Should our troops simply drop everything and race for the planes or should there be some kind of orderly withdrawal? What do we do with all the Afghans who have helped us, leave them to their fate (that would be the Republican YOYO: You're On Your Own philosophy)? Or is our only obligation to get out, "now".

First, Obama has had almost one year to conduct an orderly withdrawal. It should have been done by now - or very close to done.

Second, there will be no orderly withdrawal. It will be a bloody, nasty, chaotic mess whether we do it in 10 years, or "now".

So to answer your question, yes... we simply pack up and go home. Now. It will be a mess, but prolonging this war-about-nothing will be even messier and result in more death and destruction.

After all, there are some logical steps that have not, as of yet, been taken in Afghanistan.

And even if it were, history provides us with sufficient data. We know with a reasonable degree of certainty that prolonging this debacle is not the answer.

Bring our troops home NOW!

for the pipeline route as well.
One way to tell is to look at a map and see where all the bases are being built...
Right along the pipeline route.
We also have to realize that the cia NEEDS the poppy fields to be guarded...and their drug supply line kept safe.

try drawing a line through the major bases...and you will see they cut all the way across the land along both sides of the route.
Remember this is a mountanious region and so the route is not so straigt as it can be in the flatter areas.
Here are some beter maps and links..
http://www.oilempire.us/pipeline-stan.html
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/679670
http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/middle_east_oil_gas_products_pipelines_map.html

And I don't mean just the consequences you like.

now or three years fron now, the consequences will be the same. Tribal war will continue.

Vietnam never demonstrated an ability nor desire to slaughter American civilians in their own cities.

:hi:

If you think the situation between the two groups has changed drastically, I'd be more than happy to hear you out on your reasoning.

Because if it is, there are several more countries that need invading!

so how much sense would it make to turn the country over to people who are clearly aligned with them?

Before Obama escalates the Afghan war, he must tell us who we are fighting
By Peter Chamberlin
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Nov 27, 2009, 00:25

Who is “al Qaida,” that we must continue killing and destroying entire nations to eliminate them?

“Al Qaida,” the base, in Arabic, is not the great threatening beast that has been used to frighten the little children.

The original Arab-Afghan fighters loyal to bin Laden have all but been eliminated from the region, with the last remaining holdouts scattered throughout the region. If there is no “al Qaida” in Afghanistan, then who or what are we after, other than the Taliban? The network itself? Are we completing the destruction of Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to eliminate our own network? If we fight against our own network, then why is an escalation needed? Wouldn’t it be far easier and cheaper to simply defund it, turn off the switch in Langley, Virginia, to the terrorist production line?

Or is the switch to the terrorist production line really in the Pentagon? Since the military is the only beneficiary of another escalation in Afghanistan, it is logical to assume that they are behind the whole endeavor. The war is not about Afghanistan or Pakistan, but about maintaining another huge military presence there. Pakistan is the jumping-off point to all the planned missions for Central Asia and securing the pipeline routes anticipated for the region.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5318.shtml

Bring back the draft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-A0rMvCraw

It happened because we've disrupted their supply routes, hammered them with drone attacks, and dealt them a fairly serious blow in Iraq, the front where they poured many of their resources over these last few years. If we walk away and close our eyes to the fact that their leadership is still in the lawless area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, that could all easily be reversed.

I think my wish is more realistic.

He better have a damn good plan to end the war by then, because in three years time nobody who can seriously call themselves "liberal" is going to vote for him anymore.

It's a comment on Bob Herbert's "A Tragic Mistake" in today's NYT (there are some GREAT letters - I posted one of them earlier).

Bob Sallamack
New Jersey
December 1st, 2009
7:20 am
In Afghanistan the President will now order a phased buildup to over 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan. In early 2012 the President will bring 20,000 of these American troops home with assurances that by 2014 it will be possible to bring home almost all of the American troops from Afghanistan.

Even the supporters of the President must now understand, that the macabre photo opportunity at Dover Air Force base in the middle of the night at the end of October, was the indication of a President who intended to use the war card.

The announcement of the Attorney General of the show trial in New York City of the 9/11 mastermind was simply a campaign tactic to prepare for the final announcement of more troops to Afghanistan.

The last ten months have simply been part of the campaign for reelection of the President. This is the only agenda of the President and the administration.

On Tuesday the President will announce the sending of 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan. On Thursday there will be the one day job summit at the White House.

If the direct exporting of American jobs is the nth degree of globalization for profit, then a President and administration exploiting all events as a part of the continuous campaign for reelection is the nth degree of our political system.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?sort=recommended

Also, Attorney General Holder assures us that KSM won't be released even if acquitted. Kinda sounds like a show trial.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/18/politics/main5694765.shtml

If misinformation was a crime, that fucker would be three felonies in by now.....

“I hate war,” said Dwight Eisenhower, “as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

He also said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”

I suppose we’ll never learn. President Obama will go on TV Tuesday night to announce that he plans to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan to fight in a war that has lasted most of the decade and has long since failed.

After going through an extended period of highly ritualized consultations and deliberations, the president has arrived at a decision that never was much in doubt, and that will prove to be a tragic mistake. It was also, for the president, the easier option.

It would have been much more difficult for Mr. Obama to look this troubled nation in the eye and explain why it is in our best interest to begin winding down the permanent state of warfare left to us by the Bush and Cheney regime. It would have taken real courage for the commander in chief to stop feeding our young troops into the relentless meat grinder of Afghanistan, to face up to the terrible toll the war is taking — on the troops themselves and in very insidious ways on the nation as a whole.

More soldiers committed suicide this year than in any year for which we have complete records. But the military is now able to meet its recruitment goals because the young men and women who are signing up can’t find jobs in civilian life. The United States is broken — school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding — yet we’re nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.

I keep hearing that Americans are concerned about gargantuan budget deficits. Well, the idea that you can control mounting deficits while engaged in two wars that you refuse to raise taxes to pay for is a patent absurdity. Small children might believe something along those lines. Rational adults should not.

Politicians are seldom honest when they talk publicly about warfare. Lyndon Johnson knew in the spring of 1965, as he made plans for the first big expansion of U.S. forces in Vietnam, that there was no upside to the war.

A recent Bill Moyers program on PBS played audio tapes of Johnson on which he could be heard telling Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, “Not a damn human thinks that 50,000 or 100,000 or 150,000 are going to end that war.”

McNamara replies, “That’s right.”

Nothing like those sentiments were conveyed to the public as Johnson and McNamara jacked up the draft and started feeding young American boys and men into the Vietnam meat grinder.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam. There was every reason for American forces to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. But that war was botched and lost by the Bush crowd, and Barack Obama does not have a magic wand now to make it all better.

The word is that Mr. Obama will tell the public Tuesday that he is sending another 30,000 or so troops to Afghanistan. And while it is reported that he has some strategy in mind for eventually turning the fight over to the ragtag and less-than-energetic Afghan military, it’s clear that U.S. forces will be engaged for years to come, perhaps many years.

The tougher choice for the president would have been to tell the public that the U.S. is a nation faced with terrible troubles here at home and that it is time to begin winding down a war that veered wildly off track years ago. But that would have taken great political courage. It would have left Mr. Obama vulnerable to the charge of being weak, of cutting and running, of betraying the troops who have already served. The Republicans would have a field day with that scenario.

Lyndon Johnson is heard on the tapes telling Senator Richard Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, about a comment made by a Texas rancher in the days leading up to the buildup in Vietnam. The rancher had told Johnson that the public would forgive the president “for everything except being weak.”

Russell said: “Well, there’s a lot in that. There’s a whole lot in that.”

We still haven’t learned to recognize real strength, which is why it so often seems that the easier choice for a president is to keep the troops marching off to war.

Watch for the details later today

...despite what some on this board would like to pretend.

And THAT is supposed to be "Change we can belive in"??? NOT

Disappointed and dejected.

Not that he'd let his reelection affect his decisions. :sarcasm:

In 6 months it will be the middle of 2010....three years from that point (because those 3 years will not start until troops are in place)..will be mid-2013...add 6 months for stability and "redeployment" plans....so now we're at the end of 2013...add 16-18 months for removing troops and equipment...save for the residual training forces...I mean advisers, of course.. and NATO troops/advisers that will remain..and that gets us to mid to late 2015...

I saw a projection in the news not too long ago of endgame being 2017...so...

or? something else entirely


We'll see.

Above comment is neither an endorsement nor criticism....just speculation

6 months to add 30,000, we have 100,00 there counting contractors, military personnel and equipment. Would take atleast 6 months to withdraw 30,000 so we are looking at about two and a half years and billions of dollars. If he can end it and start the draw down before election time 2012 he will win. If not he wont.

What other War-mongerer in recent history gave such speeches to military audiences? He might get boo'd if he gave it to a crowd of this former voters.

it isn't going to work in Afghanistan. We would have to bribe the Taliban directly.

Either way, prepare to die.

Clausewitz, a dead Prussian, and Norman Angell, a living if misunderstood professor, had combined to fasten the short war concept upon the European mind. Quick, decisive victory was the German orthodoxy; the economic impossibility of a long war was everybody's orthodoxy.

"You will be home before the leaves have fallen from the trees", the Kaiser told departing troops in the first week of August.

From "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman

of heightened death and destruction and then an unknown number of years of less and less death and destruction. Where is the pom pom crowd now??

And then put everyone on the nearest plane, train, or automobile and mobilize OUT! Yeah, I know it will take longer than 3 minutes, but this war is beyond winning in 3 years or 3 decades.

we're hated everywhere we are because we are the invaders with torture camps. Sounds like a plan to me, LOL.

Did you expect Obama to say that we would be there forever? Of course not, but if we are really totally out of there in 2011 I would be very surprised to say the least.

:rofl: :rofl:

of course, he will run.
he will not be the victor.
too bad, and so sad.

Keep a disastrous, pointless war going into the next term. When Obama loses the election, the new Republican administration takes the blame.

Brilliant! 9-dimensional chess!

not sure how well that will go over :shrug: