TPMDC

Obama Presents Afghanistan Exit Strategy

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Read More

Afghanistan, Surge

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In his speech before the cadets at West Point this evening, President Obama outlined plans to begin withdrawing U.S. troops starting in July, 2011. Obama gave Afghan forces 18 months of an increased U.S. military presence in their country -- after that, he said American troops will begin to leave the theater they first entered in 2001.

From the speech:

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

Obama acknowledged that the decision to set an exit strategy was a controversial one, but said that setting a date for troop withdrawal was the best way to motivate the Afghan government to step up:

Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government.

The 2011 withdrawal date is not hard-and-fast, Obama said. If the situation deteriorates further in Afghanistan after 18 months with the new troops, there's a chance American forces could stay beyond the deadline. From the speech:

Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.


Comments (20) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

December 1, 2009 9:22 PM   

This was what he Op-ed in July 2008 on Afghan strategy. And we voted for him knowing this was coming

BO, still have your back,

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:32 PM    in reply to FebM

Well one could have hoped he would have had a change of mind similar to his flip flop on telecom immunity.

obama is doing what the military industrial complex wants. His first personal priority is getting re-elected. Need funds for that.

Guess obama and his minions never heard the term 'graveyard of empires'. today we're that much closer to the fate of the Soviet Union.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:41 PM    in reply to T Groan

I'm all for good generalized anti-corporatist, evil-empire, military-media-industrial-complex shit now and then, but come on.

Although I think our adventure in Afghanistan has a very, very low chance of real success on any front or with regard to any goal other than maybe helping to deprive al Qaeda of safe havens in those spots where, you know, our troops are actually physically standing at the time they are standing there, I also am more trusting of Obama to at least try and do the right thing here.

But whiffs and shades of Vietnam and such and such. More lives will be lost, more treasure quandered, but for what gain? Who can say? It is a mystery.

But to think that Obama is sort of casually doing this to please some unseen military and corporate masters...well, all I know is my gut tells me Obama isn't Bush.

And I pray that's enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:47 PM    in reply to LarsThorwald

Ten fucking years to defeat "cave men"? We defeated Germany AND Japan, ACTUAL ENEMIES WITH ACTUAL CAPABILITIES, in four.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:10 PM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

That's because those wars with Germany and Japan were conventional wars fought with conventional militaries. The American military has only recently devised detailed methods for using a conventional military to fight insurgent forces.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:09 PM    in reply to LarsThorwald

You said you "trust" him....Oh boy, are you in for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:28 PM    in reply to FebM

hear hear!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:26 PM   

War, war, war!

More war, all the time!

Yes, that's the ticket!

This isn't Viet Nam, because I said so. We will be leaving in three years. We're going to have benchmarks! Afghanistan will be our partner and friend!

Did George W. Bush write this speech? He would have if he could write.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:10 PM    in reply to mjshep

It isn't Vietnam, buddy, it's a whole other country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:48 PM    in reply to Dorn76

Good point. Afghanistan is not, in fact, Vietnam, as anybody with the ability to read a map (Miss Teen SC notwithstanding) can tell you. They're on two different continents, for one thing, at least if you're willing to stretch a point. The people(s) of Vietnam actually look different from the people(s) of Afghanistan, adhere to different religions for the most part, and speak different languages. Their cuisines taste quite different from each other. Moreover, Vietnam was never regarded the "graveyard of empires" as Afghanistan commonly is. I believe Vietnam has been successfully invaded and occupied by a foreign power at some point in the last 2,000 years. I don't believe Afghanistan has.

Oh, what was your point again?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:30 PM   

No, you're wrong. He campaigned on transparency, on paying for war, not hiding it.

Did you hear any words about raising taxes to pay for this? Did you hear about any real goal (other than the Bush rhetoric about "we can't afford to lose")? Where is Mullah Omar or Osama bin Ladin in all of this? Are we really at war if no one has to sacrifice, if there is no draft, if there are no added taxes to pay for it, if you can sit like Billy Kristol and be a chickenhawk during the next 18 months?

This is politics not war. This is a sell-out to the military, not an honest effort to defeat the Taliban (if that were even possible, seeing at they are a movement, not a government).

You have BO's back? Great. Enjoy the view, because the President just presented his backside to you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:07 PM    in reply to numediaman

By saying this is "politics", not War, you sound just like Dick Cheney on Politico yesterday. Honestly, what constituency do you think this "political" decision is satisfying? Certainly not the Left, or the Right...must be that evil "middle".

So if you were POTUS, what's your move?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:31 PM   

mjshep, that post of mine above was in response to FebM, not you -- sorry 'bout that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 9:58 PM   

A very reasonable, good explanation for what he's doing. Not looking forward to the childish posts here tonight, with folks full of rage and bluster and delusional certainty. Just too depressing to watch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 3, 2009 12:31 AM    in reply to SteveJ

Propaganda Rule # 17: When you have no rational arguments, pathologize the opposition (and in this case, infantilize it as well). Nicely done (golf clap).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:11 PM   

Shorter version: I didn't start this clusterfuck but by God I am going to end it.

Suck it, Obama haters. You lose again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 2, 2009 11:25 AM    in reply to runfastandwin

Are you willing to put more than words behind your beliefs? When are you or your children enlisting for great leaders war?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:30 PM   

It will end up costing a lot more than they say .... just look what happened in Iraq.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 1, 2009 10:43 PM   

There's a timetable, now we just have to make sure our government sticks as closely to it as possible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 2, 2009 12:35 AM   

Propaganda Rule # 17: When you have no rational arguments, pathologize the opposition (and in this case, infantilize it as well). Nicely done (golf clap).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on