Spokane7
50°
June 21, 2011 in Nation/World
Afghanistan troop cut this year likely near 10,000
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is expected to withdraw roughly 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan this year, with one brigade of about 5,000 forces leaving this summer and a second brigade of similar size coming home by the end of the year, a senior U.S. defense official said today.
Obama is also weighing a timetable for bringing home the 20,000 other troops he ordered to Afghanistan as part of his December 2009 decision to send reinforcements to reverse the Taliban’s battlefield momentum. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the plans before Obama’s formal announcement.
The White House said Obama would address the nation from the White House at 8 p.m. Wednesday.
Ahead of that announcement, Obama called Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the White House Tuesday for an Afghanistan strategy session. Aides have said Obama wants to ensure that the drawdown set to begin next month puts the U.S. on a path toward giving Afghans control of their own security by 2014.
Obama was given a range of options for the withdrawal last week by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. The military favors a gradual reduction in troops but other advisers are advocating a significant decrease in the coming months.
The president has said he favors a “significant” withdrawal, his advisers have not quantified that statement.
At a democratic fundraiser in Washington Monday night, Obama said that by the end of the year, “we will be transitioning in Afghanistan to turn over more and more security to the Afghan people.”
Following the announcement on the drawdown, Obama will visit troops Thursday at Fort Drum, the upstate New York military base that is home to the 10th Mountain Division, one of the most frequently deployed divisions to Afghanistan and Iraq.
While much of the attention is focused on how many troops will leave Afghanistan next month, the more telling aspects of Obama’s decision center on what happens after July, particularly how long the president plans to keep the surge forces in the country.
Military commanders want to keep as many of those forces in Afghanistan for as long as possible, arguing that too fast a withdrawal could undermine the fragile security gains in the fight against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, the al-Qaida training ground for the Sept. 11 attacks. There are also concerns about pulling out a substantial number of U.S. forces as the heightened summer fighting season gets under way.
Retiring Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he believes the initial drawdown should be “modest.”
But other advisers backed a more significant withdrawal that starts in July and proceeds steadily through the following months. That camp believes the slow yet steady security gains in Afghanistan, combined with the death of Osama bin Laden and U.S. success in dismantling much of the al-Qaida network in the country, give the president an opportunity to make larger reductions this year.
Gates, who is retiring from the Pentagon next week, has said Obama’s decision needs to incorporate domestic concerns about the war in Afghanistan into his decision on drawing down American troops there.
“It goes without saying that there are a lot of reservations in the Congress about the war in Afghanistan and our level of commitment. There are concerns among the American people who are tired of a decade of war,” Gates said during a news conference at the State Department Tuesday.
Twenty-seven senators, Democrats as well as Republicans, sent Obama a letter last week pressing for a shift in Afghanistan strategy and major troop cuts.
“Given our successes, it is the right moment to initiate a sizable and sustained reduction in forces, with the goal of steadily redeploying all regular combat troops,” the senators wrote. “The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits.”
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, differed with that assessment. He told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Tuesday that he agreed with Gates in hoping the withdrawal would be “modest.”
“I believe that one more fighting season and we can get this thing pretty well wrapped up,” McCain said.
There is broad public support for starting to withdraw U.S. troops. According to an Associated Press-GfK poll last month, 80 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s decision to begin withdrawal of combat troops in July and end U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan by 2014. Just 15 percent disapprove.
Obama has tripled the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan since taking office, bringing the total there to about 100,000. The 30,000-troop surge he announced at the end of 2009 came with the condition that he would start bringing forces home in July 2011.
The president took months to settle on the surge strategy. This time around, aides say the process is far less formal and Obama is far more knowledgeable about the situation in Afghanistan than he was in 2009, his first year in office.
With the troop withdrawal set to begin next month, U.S. officials in Afghanistan said Tuesday they will shift their development priorities from quick-impact stability programs run by international agencies to infrastructure and economic growth projects that can be run by Afghans over the long term.
Officials speaking at a background briefing at the Kabul embassy said hydroelectric dams, roads, gas fields, mines, and increased agricultural production will be the focus of their efforts as the end of 2014 approaches, the president’s promised deadline for the withdrawal of all combat troops.
There are also indications that the administration, having learned from the U.S. experience in Iraq, will set deadline dates for the drawdown as it progresses, in order to keep pressure on the Afghans and give Congress mileposts.
With Iraq as a blueprint, commanders will need time to figure out what they call “battlefield geometry” — what types of troops are needed where. Those could include trainers, intelligence officers, special operations forces, various support units — from medical and construction to air transport — as well as combat troops.
Much of that will depend on where the Afghan security forces are able to take the lead, as well as the state of the insurgency. Part of the debate will also require commanders to determine the appropriate ratio of trainers versus combat troops.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
hawken on June 21 at 9:22 a.m.
Here we go again, pulling out before the job is done. American has a history of this very thing. Our military doesn’t.
Why would any enemy seriously consider discussing surrender or peace when all they have to do is wait out the retreat of their opponent?
Especially when the retreat schedule has been published world-wide, well in advance? Why not just wait them out and win by default? America has a history of retreating before the job is done. Our military doesn’t.
Sounds like Vietnam all over again. Our military always wins wars when they’re allowed to do so by presidents and other politicians.
We had a great opportunity to educate and help Afghanistan develop as a Democracy, after we provided them the necessary weapons to defeat the USSR.
But, we pulled out before the job was done. At the end of the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War,” (Afghanistan) he is quoted:
“These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we fu***d up the end game.”
If we’re not going in to win the war, we should stay out in the first place and take our losses at home like we did on 9/11.
detroitdude on June 21 at 9:33 a.m.
So many things wrong with your statement, Hawken. Here we are, 10 years later in a country that doesn’t want us there, doesn’t want our help, and really all we have to show for it is dead and injured Americans. Meanwhile, the Soviet’s tried this type of thing here as well, and were equally ineffective, despite overwhelming military might and the US backing the insurgents at the time.
The smart thing, is to cut our losses and get out now. That includes Iraq and Libya as well. These people don’t fight us conventionally, and for all of our technology and military might, we are still in a war mindset that has us operating as if we were going to storm the beaches of Normandy.
This type of warfare is nothing new, same thing happened in Vietnam, same thing happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, hell, the same thing happened when we won our independence from England in the Revolutionary War. Even then, because we were outnumbered and outgunned, we resorted to using guerrilla tactics, this prompted General Cornwallis to cry that we were not engaging in a “gentleman’s war”.
Lastly, I probably need not bring up the fact that BHO got the job done on OBL with a quick surgical strike in under an hour.
johnclarke on June 21 at 9:39 a.m.
I think Hacken is right. I mean, 12 years and 100k in troops is clearly not enough to engage a handful of insurgents. It does not matter how many of our service members suffer long deployments and crippling injuries.
Hacken, the sooner you get signed up and get over there - the sooner you can “win” George Bush’s screwed up invasion. Robert Gates (who I oddly enough believe over you) has stated in clear English that invading Iraq was a huge mistake that allowed to Afghanistan to drag on this long. Afghanistan will never be a democracy. America needs to get out of the nation building business, mainly because it has no chance of being successful.
johnclarke on June 21 at 9:42 a.m.
No detroit, I think we need to bring it up often. Obama’s strategy and achievments have been stunning compared to the last guy. The previous administration was unwilling to address the Pakistan issue, and it’s getting addressed along with quite a few dead bad guys.
hawken on June 21 at 10:08 a.m.
Comrade Clarke: Here you go,,, spin this. You say you believe Gates.
Gates: Keep pressure on Taliban
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jun/20/gates-keep-pressure-on-taliban/
woamike on June 21 at 10:09 a.m.
We no longer have the political will to win wars. The people do not have the stomach for our military to do what it takes to win. We also do not have the $$ to “nation build” or “spread democracy” (not that we should have been doing that in the first place). That’s three strikes, we’re out.
Until we have the political will, the stomach for it and the cash, it’s time to retrench. If it’s not a clear, immediate threat to our vital national interests, we need to get out. We absolutely need to stop warring for pure “humanitarian” reasons. Even if we had the money to do so, there is no constitional basis for doing so. It is tragic that people butcher innocents all over the world. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to “save” everyone.
I am no peacenik. I did over 20 years and was in no less than three “wars”/conflicts. I have no problem with us raining death and destruction on our enemies to protect our vital national interests. I was a participant in plenty of that and I slept like a baby every night (and still do). What I can’t tolerate is fighting the wrong people or fighting for the wrong reasons. There is also the reality of $$. Since we have no $$, we need to pull back, way back.
I have the utmost respect for those that willingly sacrifice to serve in the Armed Forces, including two of my sons. I have an equal level of disdain (rather than respect) for the civilian leaders in our country who continually weaken our military through their imposition of social fluff and military and civillian leaders who try to run the military like it’s Walmart or some other business. The ongoing pussfication of the military is very disturbing.
The purpose of the military it to violently destroy things and mercilessly kill our enemies in the defense of our vital interests when diplomacy fails. We seem to have forgotten that.
BuRgEoNyT on June 21 at 10:22 a.m.
So, are the troops we are drawing down the ones who are helping guard and transport the poppies? We can’t pull those guys out can we, production is up four fold since we took over.
@Hawken; why do we need to be in Afghanistan spending billions to get the terrorists? They are dining at the pentagon with the top brass: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/
johnclarke on June 21 at 10:22 a.m.
I know of Gate’s view on this topic Hacken. As usual, you are supporting my point for me, because clearly you did not read that article.
Gates states that the solution is political. I agree with Gates.
President Obama increased troop levels by 30k, because that is what the asked military for. He is removing 10k of that number over time. I think he should be moving faster, but I understand it’s a balancing act.
Again, do you have a point or an argument? Are you signing up? Which branch suits you? I say Army.
eagleproducer on June 21 at 10:29 a.m.
These troops have already been replaced with civilians “contractors” and C.I.A. personnel. Move along, nothing to see here.
To say the U.S. doesn’t “have the will” to engage in modern warfare certainly ignores the last fifty years of history. I guess to some modern warfare only includes leveling a nation to a sand parking lot and starting all over.
Bring the troops back home. From Germany. From South Korea. From Japan. From Afghanistan. From Iraq. From Bahrain. From any of the other 100+ countries where we have deployed our military.
johnclarke on June 21 at 10:39 a.m.
Eagle, while I agree there is more to it than just “bring them home”. Those troops are on the payroll no matter where they are stationed. In order to have real savings, the only choice is force reduction. Otherwise, you are just shuffling payroll from one location to the other.
Gates has been pretty solid about cost reduction. He is well aware all the branches are top heavy with officers. Again, I will be sorry to lose Gates and Mullen as the Chief. Great guys.
hawken on June 21 at 10:42 a.m.
Comrade Clarke: Here’s the full quote of Gates, which you conveniently ignored.
As stated above, too many Americans no longer have the stomach to win a war. So we cut and run before the job is done.
It’s political only because Obama and the liberals are up for re-election in 17 months. That is a reality.
johnclarke on June 21 at 10:52 a.m.
Again, thanks for supporting my point Hacken. So, Army?
eagleproducer on June 21 at 10:57 a.m.
jc: An E5 working with civil engineers fixing/replacing our crumbling infrastructure will reward the U.S. taxpayers for years to come at less than 1/0th of what it takes to support a soldier overseas. I remember reading per soldier cost estimates prior to the surge in Afghanistan and the figure was set at about one million dollars. The average military member fighting these conflicts make less than thirty thousand and are fed and housed in facilities long paid for. They need to be put to work, sure, but the costs of them doing productive work here at home would provide huge cost savings as well. Japan and Germany have the third and fourth largest economies in the world and laughing their guts out that we still pay for their defense.
hawked: Please defend having an opium dealer using the U.S. as his personal ATM. That should be fun. What is your definition of “the job is done?” You are great at regurgitating maxims and axioms in a stunningly jingoistic style, but please define what U.S. objectives are for Afghanistan and why we should be doing the lion’s share of the work rather than regional players like Iran, India and Pakistan? As for “stomach” who cares if we don’t. To some it is viewed as human progress when more stomachs curdle at the notion of organized mass murder.
eagleproducer on June 21 at 10:58 a.m.
I like hawken’s first sentence of his first post. If only those words had come from him Mother’s lips…
johnclarke on June 21 at 11:02 a.m.
We agree Eagle, I’m just saying actual force reduction has to happen to provide meaningful cost savings. There is a little problem with deploying the military on US soil.
You are totally correct. We should be worried more about Asia and get the heck out of the Persian Gulf or any region where our military presence is a huge part of the problem.
greenlibertarian on June 21 at 12:14 p.m.
“I believe that one more fighting season and we can get this thing pretty well wrapped up,” McCain said.
Right. Sure.
That’s exactly what Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, and Mikhail Gorbachev said, year after punishing year.
Continuing with the tradition started by Reagan, we’re negotiating with the terrorists as we speak. We’ve already been bribing them to the tune of hundreds of millions of your tax dollars not to attack our contractor convoys who supply the boots on the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2764950.html
Afghanistan is a failed narco state. Their entire GDP is not more than $30B (reports vary) half of which is the opium trade. We’ve done little to improve the security and quality of life for some of the poorest citizens in the world. Our military forces our dependent on bribing our sworn enemy not to attack us and our endless private contractor convoys. We play Whack A Mole with the Taliban and they always return to local power after we leave an area.
As history shows, Empires go to die in Afghanistan. Will we be the latest Empire to collapse as a result of trying to conquer it?
BuRgEoNyT on June 21 at 12:31 p.m.
@Hawken: What’s the job? Grow and ship poppies? Fight some bearded cavemen thousands of miles away so they don’t ride their camels across the ocean and get us? Or is it senior foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s admission of our role in the middle east: “It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.” (p148 of ‘The Grand Chessboard - 1990) So our job is to make sure that the UN and transnational corporations have access to Eurasia by creating constant instability? And the American people don’t have the stomach to keep doing this, and wonder why the people who live there are pissed off at us and keep fighting back?
Patanjali on June 21 at 12:32 p.m.
Back in college in 1972 I wrote an editorial for my college newspaper on the war in Vietnam and the proposed gradual withdrawal of our troops entitled: “If you were being raped would you favor gradual withdrawal?” So yes Hawken we should “pull out” before the job is done. There is no job to be “done” in Afghanistan. Our continual presence is creating more problems. Check out the documentary “Rethink Afghanistan” if you care to learn the truth of what is happening in this country.
You argue that we we did not finish the business in Vietnam yet we did manage to kill 10% of the population, about 4 million people. If Ho Chi Minh had been allowed to assume the Presidency that he would have won if we had allowed the elections in 1954 this country could have avoided decades of blood.
We invaded Iraq and got rid of a brutal dictator but then proceeded to kill hundred of thousands of civilians with our war policy. When is it going to end?
It will end when we give up our authority to wage war, along with all other nations, to a world government capable of enforcing the peace, removing dictators from local governments, stopping genocides before they happen and eradicating poverty, illiteracy, global warming, war mongers and corporate pimps.
I fear that this will not happen without a new revolution of the people rising up, as Jefferson envisioned, to create new and more workable national governments, a federation of nations, under the protection of a limited world government.
How much richer would we all be if money did not have to be spent on war? The only militaries or police that nation states should be allowed to control would be that which would be enough for internal policing. No nation state should have control of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. The world government of all nation states should mandate within the world constitution that every nation must establsih a democratic republican form of government. Wishful thinking? No more so than the evolutionary step from war lords to national governments. Nationalism is a disease and someday will be regarded as such in much the same way that any irrational alligiance to a racial group or ethnic group or religious group is so regarded by enlightened political thinkers.
johnclarke on June 21 at 1:08 p.m.
How nice to see well thought out and intelligent posts. Unfortunately with our “partner” Pakistan actually funding our mutual enemy I don’t see a win possible for the United States
Hacken says:
“We had a great opportunity to educate and help Afghanistan develop as a Democracy”
This is the most dangerous type of statement. Not only is Afghanistan never going to be a functioning Democracy, Iraq is teetering on a civil war. Again, we need to get out of nation building and worry about building this nation back to greatness.
jddavis on June 21 at 1:21 p.m.
Eagle—JC is correct about deploying military on our soil. The purpose of the military is not for fixing the nations infrastructure; as woamike said it is for killing people and breaking things when diplomacy fails.
Coffee on June 21 at 2:50 p.m.
woamike: Well said.
hawken on June 21 at 3:45 p.m.
BuRgEoNyT
National Security Interest should always trump public opinion polls.
As for the poppies, we have the DEA working in concert with the US Military to eradicate those poppy fields.
America’s long standing problem is that we don’t have the stomach to finish and win a war.
Had we done it right when we helped Afghanistan to defeat the USSR, we would not have had 9/11 nor would we be back there again today.
We haven’t had to go back to Germany or Japan since WWII to fight them again, and they are now our strong allies and trading partners.
That generation had the stomach to finish and win a war.
Since we will apparently not do it right this time as well, we will be back in Afghanistan again in the years to come.
We’ve had a decade of war because we’ve not had to courage to go in and win with our capabilities.
All of the problems come back to our lack of stomach to win and do it right.
Meanwhile, we’re going to abandon the locals again by pulling out. Leaving them to the brutal hands of the Taliban and other terrorists. That has become the new American way.
Make all kinds of promises and then abandon those who trusted us.
There simply is no military reason to draw down. It’s all Obama politics driven by opinion polls.
Name one major, high level, military commander that is saying now is the time to draw down.
Obama has made a political decision to not win the war.
hawken on June 21 at 3:48 p.m.
I meant to say….
Name one major, high level, military commander on the ground, that is saying now is the time to draw down.
Coffee on June 21 at 3:48 p.m.
A friend sent me an IM saying that Obama is going to drawn down 30k troops instead of 10k. Is this true or just wishful thinking?
detroitdude on June 21 at 4:17 p.m.
Jesus, Hawken, I’ll just take the bait and deconstruct you…
“National Security Interest should always trump public opinion polls.”
Yeah, when you live in China, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Uganda. Our government is by the people and for the people, and if the people are sick of war the government should discontinue said war. No bombs have been dropped on us, no acts of terrorism have been perpetrated here, save for our own homegrown crop. Yep, we got hit hard on 9/11/2001, thanks to GWB ignoring his briefings because he was too busy rolling a slinky down the stairs.
“As for the poppies, we have the DEA working in concert with the US Military to eradicate those poppy fields.”
They are Afghanistan’s poppy fields, which we would not be concerned with, if we were not entrenched there! You bitch and whine about spending and how we should abolish the US Dept. of Education, but you say we ought to keep the DEA?? WTF?!
“America’s long standing problem is that we don’t have the stomach to finish and win a war.”
Yeah, because generally killing thousands of people with military precision is NOT something most people want to be confronted with or have the images burned into their mind. Now, from day 1 I have said we ought to be showing our fallen soldiers and we ought to be showing the mass murder, and we ought to be showing this violence. Perhaps if we had, we would not be here 10 years later debating an un-winnable and expensive war.
“Had we done it right when we helped Afghanistan to defeat the USSR, we would not have had 9/11 nor would we be back there again today.”
Again, more nonsense. We were helping the very people who perpetrated 9/11. You think had we kept spending tax payer money to help these radical Muslims that it would have made any difference? They don’t like our society, the society differential between us and even the USSR pales in comparison to radical Islam and what they think is right.
“We haven’t had to go back to Germany or Japan since WWII to fight them again, and they are now our strong allies and trading partners.”
They sure are. Come to think of it, how many people own cars built in Japan? When was the last time you bought an electronic appliance built here in the US? Yeah, we dropped bombs on Japan and had them sign a surrender, but look who won the economic war, decades later.
“We’ve had a decade of war because we’ve not had to courage to go in and win with our capabilities.”
AKA “Let’s nuke them” AKA “Lets commit mass genocide to further our agenda”. Sickening Hawken, even for you.
“All of the problems come back to our lack of stomach to win and do it right.”
Branch, rank, and years of service, Sir. I’ve not served, but I would not wish Hell upon those who do.
“Meanwhile, we’re going to abandon the locals again by pulling out. Leaving them to the brutal hands of the Taliban and other terrorists. That has become the new American way.”
You really think these people love and welcome the American Gestapo deployments in their villages? You really are that naive? You don’t win hearts and minds with violence, bombs, and taking a culture back to the stone age. They will hate you no matter what, they would probably still hate us being there even if we had not killed a single one of them, but just because we park all of our crap in their country. Watch “Restrepo” (which doesn’t even have an anti-Afghanistan bias, and you tell me if we should stay).
“Obama has made a political decision to not win the war.”
He is doing what is smart, what GWB should have done in 2003.
johnclarke on June 21 at 4:20 p.m.
hawken on June 21 at 3:48 p.m.
I meant to say….
Name one major, high level, military commander on the ground, that is saying now is the time to draw down.
Guess what? That is not for the military to decide and military commanders don’t set policy.
You are so uneducated in this arena, even more than usual. Do you know signed the Executive Order directing the CIA to aid the rebels ? That would be Jimmy Carter. What makes all your pontificating even more annoying is you have not served in the military, but you can. Join up, show us how it’s done.
detroitdude on June 21 at 7:14 p.m.
“Meanwhile, we’re going to abandon the locals again by pulling out. Leaving them to the brutal hands of the Taliban and other terrorists. That has become the new American way.”
Follow up: If this is something you truly believe then please explain your thought process, I’m all ears. The fact of the matter is this, Hawken, our country does not do ANYTHING abroad unless it benefits us in some way economically. If we were all about a “humanitarian” purpose, we would first fix our problems here, with our own citizens, and then if there was money left over, reach out to nations with nothing to offer us but the starving and infirm. We don’t, so quit trying to put our country out there as some righteous superhero, we are not.
greenlibertarian on June 21 at 10:31 p.m.
Yep, we got hit hard on 9/11/2001, thanks to GWB ignoring his briefings because he was too busy rolling a slinky down the stairs.
-DetroitDude
Now THAT was funny.
BuRgEoNyT on June 22 at 1:48 p.m.
@Hawken:
“National Security Interest should always trump public opinion polls.”
If this was about national security, why is the number 3 guy in Al CIA-duh, Anwar Al Awlaki, dining at the Pentagon with our brass? This is the guy that allegedly ran the Ft. Hood shooting, the Underwear Bomber, and many other operations. What was he doing dining at the Pentagon, why isn’t he incarcerated?
That is what the public opinion is telling the military; just like General Smedley Butler said, “War is a racket.”. We see that the military is working together with the ‘enemy’ to bilk billions of dollars out of the taxpayers. First Al-Queda is our friend fighting the Russians, then they’re are our enemy because of 9/11. Then they are our friends again in Libya. Have you read 1984? Watch Dr. Steve Pieczenik’s interviews on YouTube on his propaganda manuals that radicalized and created the Taliban from goat farmers when he worked under Kissinger. It’s a flippin’ scam and the people are tired of it.
I didn’t see any DEA agents either on that Fox News piece with Maurey shooting footage of our troops making sure those poppies were safe and sound.
If you want national security, purchase a firearm and go take some classes with Ed Santos. Holding your fellow Americans at gunpoint to extract money from them in the form of taxes to transfer it to your favorite big government groups is not only immoral, it doesn’t make us any more secure. More people in America die from bee-stings per year than from Al-Queda; but you don’t see the Army standing on the street corners with flyswatters and cans of wasp killer.