Spokane7
68°
February 1, 2012 in Nation/World
Panetta: US combat in Afghanistan to end in 2013
ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT — U.S. and other international forces in Afghanistan aim to end their combat role next year and switch to training and advising Afghan forces through 2014, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday.
Panetta’s remarks to reporters traveling with him to a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels represented the Obama administration’s most explicit portrayal of how the foreign military role in Afghanistan is expected to evolve from the current high-intensity fight against the Taliban to a support role with Afghans fully in the lead.
Panetta called 2013 a critical year for the Afghanistan mission that has dragged on for more than a decade with little sign that the Taliban will be decisively defeated. He noted that NATO and the Afghan government intend to begin a final phase of transitioning sections of the country to Afghan security control in mid-2013.
“Hopefully by the mid to latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role,” he said. He added that this “doesn’t mean we’re not going to be combat-ready,” but rather that the U.S. and other international forces will no longer be in “the formal combat role we’re in now.”
He said no decisions have been made about how many U.S. troops would be required to remain there once the combat role has ended. He suggested, however, that large reductions, below the 68,000 troop level projected for this September, were unlikely in the months immediately after the shift. The U.S. now has about 91,000 troops there as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The fact that much military work will remain after 2013 “demands that we have a strong presence there,” he said.
Although Panetta made no mention of it, U.S. Marines in Afghanistan already are making that transition out of a combat role. They are operating in Helmand province in southwestern Afghanistan, where the Taliban have been greatly weakened, and are on track to reduce their numbers significantly this year. Panetta’s remarks indicated that this switch into a support role will be applied across Afghanistan, assuming no major setbacks against the Taliban and continued progress in training Afghan forces.
Many U.S. forces already are training and advising Afghan forces.
Marine Gen. John Allen, the overall commander of international forces in Afghanistan, has been talking publicly since last fall about converting the military role from combat to what he has called “security assistance.” But Panetta went further in identifying mid- to late-2013 as the target for completing this conversion countrywide.
Panetta was heading to Brussels to attend a NATO meeting at which this and other issues related to the war in Afghanistan are expected to top the agenda. The session is intended to help pave the way for key decisions to be announced at a summit meeting of NATO heads of government in Chicago in May.
All NATO members have endorsed the plan to keep forces in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. But France this week appeared to throw that plan into doubt when President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at his side and seemingly in agreement, that NATO end its mission in 2013 — one year earlier than planned.
Panetta said he hoped to hear more from the French delegation at NATO.
Panetta is gathering with his European counterparts at a delicate time for NATO, not only because of the uncertainty surrounding the military mission in Afghanistan but also because of a growing gap in military power between the U.S. and nearly all other European members of the alliance.
That chasm is not expected to narrow even as the U.S. reduces its defense budget by nearly $490 billion over the coming decade and reduces the size of the Army and Marine Corps.
The U.S. remains the leader of a 28-nation NATO, but the Obama administration has made no secret of its intention to shift focus toward Asia and the Middle East. It announced last week that it will remove two Army brigades from Europe in the next two years, leaving one in Germany and one in Italy. The alliance also is quietly discussing the possible withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe in coming years. The nuclear issue is on the agenda for the Brussels meeting.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said last week that the two brigades being removed from Europe will be eliminated rather than reassigned to U.S. bases. Both are based in Germany — the 172nd Infantry Brigade, in Grafenwoehr, and the 170th Infantry Brigade, in Baumholder. Odierno said that in the long run this change will benefit both the United States and its European partners because U.S. Army combat and support units will periodically rotate in and out of Europe for training and joint exercises that are designed to meet the needs of the European forces.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
Dazzeetrader11 on February 01 at 2:05 p.m.
I wonder if, besides the white flag being raised, if Obama will send them a letter of submissive apology as well…
detroitdude on February 01 at 2:18 p.m.
“I wonder if, besides the white flag being raised, if Obama will send them a letter of submissive apology as well…”
Of course, if Obama had decided we should “stay the course” you would have your panties in a twist about that too and how much money it was costing.
An end to our military occupations around the world is sorely needed. No nation has ever accomplished anything by invading Afghanistan, it is where empires go to die.
Bring our troops home and stop wasting my tax dollars on people who don’t even like us and never will.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 01 at 2:23 p.m.
Long overdue.
I wonder what would have happened in Afghanistan if Bush had not dropped the ball in the first place and totally ignored the country after we drove the Taliban out only to instead turn all his attention into an illegal war in Iraq to make his oil buddies rich and to try and get the man who almost assassinated his daddy.
But, yeah, somehow its all Obama’s fault even though he ramped up the troops to try and clean up the mess left behind by Bush and his buddies.
greyhound2 on February 01 at 2:41 p.m.
The United States joins a long list of countries who have wasted time, lives, money and effort in that worthless country. They are:
Alexander the Great in 200 BC, The Islamic Empire in 700 AD, the Mongol Empire in 1400 AD, Neapolean in 1800 AD, the
British in 1920 AD, the Soviet Union in 1980 AD and the United States in 2000 AD. None of these idiots ever learned that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Just don’t let any of these people in here like they did after Vietnam as the cost will last for generations.
johnclarke on February 01 at 3:03 p.m.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 01 at 2:05 p.m.
I wonder if, besides the white flag being raised, if Obama will send them a letter of submissive apology as well…
You have never served, so you don’t really know what it is like to be in some far off hell hole away from your family and loved ones. These wars, the longest in our nation’s history, must come to an end. This is not a topic for your drunken stupid rants Daisy. President Obama is cleaning up the mess left by the pathetic George Bush, and you should thank him for it. I do, and I thank our fighting men and women who were unfortunately following the orders of an inept fool.
Let’s bring our troops and take care of them.
johnclarke on February 01 at 3:04 p.m.
“bring our troops home”
Sorry, I have a hard time typing when I’m angry.
Coffee on February 01 at 3:54 p.m.
Why wait until 2014 let just pull them out now and save a few servicemen from be killed or wounded.
D Statler on February 01 at 5:17 p.m.
Mr. Obama campaigned on ending the wars and bringing real change. I think his heart may have been in the right place at the time. I also believe he has dropped the ball on real change. The only ones that were rescued with his fiscal policies were the extremely wealthy. We have seen no real change in America. The brundt of the burden is being carried on middle class Americans. Financially and physically, by our children serving and dieing. It is time to withdraw our troops and our financial aid overseas. We are borrowing against our kid’s futures for people that hate us. This would be a great place to start the “real” change we voted for.
Diana on February 01 at 5:44 p.m.
Daisy wrote “I wonder if, besides the white flag being raised, if Obama will send them a letter of submissive apology as well…”
Pick up a weapon, Daisy, get over there and win this thing for us.
I know it’s an tired, old talking point, but when did President Obama ever make a submissive apology?
RedCedar on February 01 at 5:48 p.m.
Now that the war’s over, or at least ready to be handed off to various proxies, contractors, and allies of convenience, the bottom line is “Was it worth it?” Did we get fair value for our money? In the old days, the accounting of war was easy — you spent money to conquer another country and steal their good stuff. If you got more stuff (including perhaps strategic geography) than you spent getting it, the war was a success.
Of course people have also always started wars for intangible reasons like pride, fear, and faith, but without the monetary payoff at the end, they can’t do it for long. The two biggest additions to the US, won without the need to even fire any shots, were the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase, bought very cheaply from old European powers that had bankrupted themselves in foolish foreign wars.
I appreciated greyhound2’s list of foreigners who met ruin in Afghanistan. One who didn’t was Ghengis Khan, who understood the accounting of war quite well. He summed up the purpose of warfare better, or at least more honestly, than today’s politicians:
“Man’s greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding and use the bodies of his women as a nightshirt and support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are as sweet as the berries of their breasts.”
“…defeat his enemy and seize his total possessions…” I wonder what Ghengis Khan would think of the recent US wars.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 01 at 5:52 p.m.
You guys are still letting the troll get under your skins?
force_vector on February 01 at 6:21 p.m.
We’ve sacrificed the lives of many young men and women over there for far too long. The Taliban could have been removed from power with special forces and a targeted air campaign. We didn’t need to sacrifice the lives of young men and women to accomplish this. We’ve been playing a game of fighting for ground, and then subsequently abandoning that ground. If Afghans can’t control their own country, I really don’t give a sh!t. But bring your BS over here in the form of terrorism, and welcome a long-term bombing campaign targets all moving objects. Drop the leaflets warning as much tomorrow, come home on Friday.
johnclarke on February 01 at 7:30 p.m.
Taliban commander :
“The Americans have the watches, but we have the time.”