President Obama will face a stiff political challenge tonight....
His prime-time address will seek to remind a skeptical electorate and a concerned Congress that the country’s longest war remains worth fighting — and funding — for several more years. Obama’s generals have requested more time to consolidate the gains they say have been made....
Then he's already failed.
Public opinion has turned increasingly against the war....
Obama’s challenge will be to provide his generals with the resources to wage the war’s final phase while persuading Congress that, at a time of fiscal strain, maintaining most of a $10 billion-a-month war effort is worthwhile....
But the broad outline of the plan is likely to include the removal of 5,000 troops this summer with an additional 5,000 by the end of the year, according to administration officials familiar with the White House deliberations.
That would leave 23,000 troops in Afghanistan from the surge forces that Obama endorsed after the strategy review in 2009....
--more--"
I guess they leaked low so they could look good:
"Obama outlines Afghan pullback; 10,000 troops to leave this year" June 23, 2011|By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON — President Obama announced last night that he would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year and an additional 23,000 by next summer, declaring that the United States has “put Al Qaeda on a path to defeat.’’
In a prime-time, 15-minute White House address to the nation, Obama simultaneously heralded the achievements of the “surge’’ he ordered 18 months ago and underscored his push for a responsible US exit by 2014.
“Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,’’ he said, referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.’’
Really? Could have fooled me.
The withdrawal of 10,000 troops by the end of this year had been expected, but the president set a quicker timetable for the rest of the surge forces to come home than some of his top commanders had hoped for.
Obama said this was possible because successful counterterrorism operations by the United States and Pakistan had “taken out more than half’’ of Al Qaeda’s leadership, including Osama bin Laden. He also said that it is time to seek reconciliation with some elements of the Taliban, saying that a nascent peace process offered hope that most would stop fighting the Afghan government and renounce Al Qaeda.
I just thought those were important.
He outlined a limited vision for success in Afghanistan — and for the US role in the world.
“We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place,’’ he said. “We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people.’’
But Obama’s plan would still leave 68,000 troops in Afghanistan during the fall of 2012, when the presidential campaign will be in a fever pitch.
And his speech came as an increasing number of Americans, including some in his administration and in Congress, are arguing that Afghanistan is no longer a vital US security interest, especially at a time of financial crisis at home.
The president acknowledged the deficit and economic pressures.
“America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,’’ he said.
Is he parroting Ron Paul?
But last night, antiwar liberals and fiscal conservatives complained that Obama’s drawdown isn’t fast enough.
You see? We CAN COME TOGETHER!
“The mood here is changing,’’ said Representative James McGovern, a Worcester Democrat, who is among the most vigorous opponents of the war. “We are having fights on the House floor about whether to take away Mrs. O’Leary’s home heating oil check, but at the same time, we are [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai’s corrupt government’s ATM machine.’’
Ten years of war in Afghanistan has cost the United States more than $444 billion and the lives of 1,633 American troops, according to icasualties.org. More than 900 other NATO soldiers have died, along with many thousands of Afghans.
Obama, who campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Iraq and “win the war in Afghanistan,’’ could face pointed questions from supporters of the US effort about whether peace talks with the Taliban amount to capitulation to their demands and whether Afghanistan will be ready to stand on its own in 2014, when the last US combat forces are slated to leave.
His presidency has been filled with broken promises.
In Afghanistan, talk of a US withdrawal has sparked violent jockeying for power between various factions, and widespread fears of a return to the chaos of the 1980s that spawned the Taliban....
When the CIA was raising hell with Islamic fundamentalists?
The civilian death toll in May was the highest on record....
Administration officials, speaking on background earlier yesterday, said that in the future, terrorism would be defeated by surgical forces with small footprints — like the team that killed bin Laden in Pakistan — rather than large-scale military invasions. That view, long pushed by Vice President Joe Biden, appears to have won favor in the White House.
They also said Afghanistan had not been an international threat for more than seven years, with fewer than 75 Al Qaeda operatives believed to be there.
The modest drawdown that will continue throughout the election season will allow Obama to offer Americans hope for an end to the conflict in Afghanistan without having to grapple with the difficult question of what kind of country US forces will leave behind.
I want MORE than HOPE! I want FRUITION!
“Although the US and its allies are by no means winning the Afghanistan war, the president can’t afford the risk of being charged with losing it,’’ said Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University.
That sounds so Vietnam.
--more--"
Also see: Globe Editorial Troop withdrawals don’t solve weaknesses in Afghan strategy
For some reason, this did not make my printed paper:
"Activists criticize plan and speech" June 23, 2011|By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Local political activists and a Boston-based foreign policy analyst found fault with President Obama’s speech last night on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, taking issue with the substance and the delivery of his remarks.
“That leaves 70,000 of our young men and women in that hell-hole,’’ said Pat Scanlon, coordinator of the chapter of Veterans for Peace located in Greater Boston, in a phone interview....
Scanlon, who served in Vietnam in an Army intelligence unit, said Obama’s speech was also disappointing in light of the experience of the former Soviet Union, whose troops left Afghanistan in 1989 after an unsuccessful, nearly 10-year occupation.
“I don’t know what the Russians are thinking right now, but you know they’ve seen this before and they must be scratching their heads,’’ Scanlon said. “Either that or they’re laughing at us.’’
*********************
Meanwhile, the Cambridge-based antiwar group Massachusetts Peace Action announced plans yesterday to stage multiple demonstrations today in Boston, Framingham, Worcester, and Northampton against the continued presence of US troops in Afghanistan.
--more--"
And NO FOLLOW-UP COVERAGE of the ANTIWAR PROTESTS!
Maybe if we were all gay we would get better coverage from the agenda-pushing war-promoter.
