There’s a lot to consider in today’s article
about the United States military’s plans to withdraw from Afghanistan,
and we’ll have more to say about it on our editorial page soon (here’s
our last editorial on the issue).
But there was something in the article that jumped out at me. We now know how long the military thinks it would take to safely remove approximately 66,000 American troops from Afghanistan: about a year.
The article also said the military wants to withdraw as slowly as possible (no surprise) and keep as many troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible (even less of a surprise), so they want to end 2013 with about 60,000 troops, and then presumably pull them all out before the end of 2014.
It seems unlikely that President Obama will go for that kind of back-loaded withdrawal schedule, if only for political reasons. But why not just start now? If all it takes is a year, then the United States could plausibly be out of Afghanistan by this time next year (though the debate would remain over whether there should be a residual force left behind for intelligence gathering, counter-terrorism and training Afghan troops, but at least the major combat forces would start leaving).
That way, the United States would not be tempted to hang around in 2014 to provide security for Afghanistan’s next presidential election – at best a thankless task and at worst an operation that risks giving the stamp of approval to what could be yet another crooked vote. And it would mean one less year of American casualties on the battlefield – and one less year spent trying to make the Afghan army into a real fighting force (that targets the Taliban and al Qaeda, and not American and other NATO forces).
It’s not clear when the military is supposed to give Mr. Obama all the withdrawal options that today’s article reports he has requested. In fact, it’s not at all clear why that has not happened before now.
But there was something in the article that jumped out at me. We now know how long the military thinks it would take to safely remove approximately 66,000 American troops from Afghanistan: about a year.
The article also said the military wants to withdraw as slowly as possible (no surprise) and keep as many troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible (even less of a surprise), so they want to end 2013 with about 60,000 troops, and then presumably pull them all out before the end of 2014.
It seems unlikely that President Obama will go for that kind of back-loaded withdrawal schedule, if only for political reasons. But why not just start now? If all it takes is a year, then the United States could plausibly be out of Afghanistan by this time next year (though the debate would remain over whether there should be a residual force left behind for intelligence gathering, counter-terrorism and training Afghan troops, but at least the major combat forces would start leaving).
That way, the United States would not be tempted to hang around in 2014 to provide security for Afghanistan’s next presidential election – at best a thankless task and at worst an operation that risks giving the stamp of approval to what could be yet another crooked vote. And it would mean one less year of American casualties on the battlefield – and one less year spent trying to make the Afghan army into a real fighting force (that targets the Taliban and al Qaeda, and not American and other NATO forces).
It’s not clear when the military is supposed to give Mr. Obama all the withdrawal options that today’s article reports he has requested. In fact, it’s not at all clear why that has not happened before now.
Lord Ashdown agrees with Stop the War: Afghanistan war lost - get the troops out now
Padding Asdown's statement is welcome as the first by a
senior British politician to join Stop the War and the anti-war movement
in calling for all British troops to come home immediately. Too late of
course for the tens of thousands of Afghans and hundreds of UK soldiers
who have been killed -- and continue to die - in a futile and
unjustified war.
While the UK government is committed to a timetable of withdrawing most of Britain's 9,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, Lord Ashdown said the only rational policy was to leave quickly. He warned that the only outcome of staying longer was more deaths for no purpose, highlighting the increasing number of Nato troops being killed by those wearing Afghan army or police uniforms.
Lord Ashdown acknowledged that Nato had succeeded in one objective - driving out al-Qaeda - but said most other goals, especially the establishment of a sustainable state, had not been achieved. He said: "We cannot pretend there is any more to do in Afghanistan. The urgent priority is to get out.
"It is not worth wasting one more life in Afghanistan. All that we can achieve has now been achieved. All that we might have achieved if we had done things differently, has been lost.
"The only rational policy now is to leave quickly, in good order and in the company of our allies. This is the only cause for which further lives should be risked."
The Lib Dem peer said it was a political rather than a military failure.
"The international community in Afghanistan needed to speak with a single voice in pursuit of a single plan with clear priorities," he said. "Instead we have been divided, cacophonous, chaotic. We should have concentrated on winning in Afghanistan where it mattered, instead of distracting ourselves with adventures in Iraq.
"We should have engaged Afghanistan's neighbours, instead of going out of our way to make them enemies. Our early military strategy should have been about protecting the people instead of wasting our time chasing the enemy.
"We should have made fighting corruption our first priority instead of becoming the tainted partners of a corrupt government whose writ, along with ours, has progressively collapsed as that of the Taleban in the south has progressively widened."
A number of Conservative and Labour MPs have called for troops to be withdrawn immediately, expressing concern about a lack of progress towards a political settlement and the growing number of attacks on Nato forces by Afghan soldiers.
On Remembrance Sunday, Cpt Walter Barrie, of The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, was shot dead by a member of the Afghan army. Cpt Barrie, 41, from Glasgow, was shot at close range while playing in a football match between British soldiers and members of the Afghan National Army at his base in the Nad-e Ali district of Helmand province.
Ministers say progress is being made in Afghanistan and the UK is committed to maintaining a combat presence until the end of 2014, and technical assistance after that date, while ensuring risks to troops are minimised. Giving evidence to a Senate committee in Washington, the US military's Gen Joseph Dunford - the next Nato commander in Afghanistan - insisted the alliance was making progress although he did not use the word winning.
Britain's troop presence has been reduced by 500 this year. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has suggested the drawdown of forces could be accelerated next year but this would all depend on conditions on the ground.
The Senate debate on Iraq grew sharper Thursday when Majority Leader
Harry Reid said the war had been lost and that President Bush's troop
buildup is not stemming the rampant violence. That statement prompted
Republicans to declare that Democrats do not support the troops in Iraq.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid.
The White House called Reid's remarks "disturbing" and a slap at troops who are risking their lives.
Senior Republican Senator and White House hopeful John McCain also lashed out Thursday at Reid's comments.
At a news conference before a fund-raiser at a Las Vegas casino, McCain blasted the Nevada senator, saying his comments would hurt troop morale.
"It seems to me Sen. Reid has lost all sense of priority," he said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says if Reid has the courage of his convictions, he'll try to cut off all war funding.
Democrats who lack the votes for that appear set to send President Bush a war-funding measure with a non-binding timeline for pulling out the troops. Bush still intends to veto it.
The president is scheduled to go to Michigan Friday to again speak out for a war-funding bill with no strings attached.
Anti-war liberals in the House are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.
Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.
The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.
Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, a Democratic Party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.
Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.
The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.
Rep. Hank Johnson, a first-term Democrat who represents a district in Georgia that is strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they cannot pull the caucus long enough to act against Bush.
"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove the American people we can govern," he said.
Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.
The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.
With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.
On Thursday, Pelosi summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberal members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.
Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.
Stop the War Naming the Dead event in Trafalgar Square 7.10.12: soldier's families and MPs say bring troops home by Christmas.
Stop the War Troops Home Now demonstration in 2010, one of hundreds of similar events that we have organised over the past eleven years..
Stop the War Troops Home Now demonstration in 2010, one of hundreds of similar events that we have organised over the past eleven years..
BRITAIN SHOULD PULL OUT its
troops from Afghanistan as quickly as decently possible, former Liberal
Democrat leader Lord Ashdown has said. He gave a bleak assessment of the
11-year war and said it had become crystal clear that Nato had lost in
Afghanistan.
Lord Ashdown said the international community had been "divided,
cacophonous, chaotic" in Afghanistan. Some 438 British service personnel
have lost their lives in the war so far.While the UK government is committed to a timetable of withdrawing most of Britain's 9,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, Lord Ashdown said the only rational policy was to leave quickly. He warned that the only outcome of staying longer was more deaths for no purpose, highlighting the increasing number of Nato troops being killed by those wearing Afghan army or police uniforms.
Lord Ashdown acknowledged that Nato had succeeded in one objective - driving out al-Qaeda - but said most other goals, especially the establishment of a sustainable state, had not been achieved. He said: "We cannot pretend there is any more to do in Afghanistan. The urgent priority is to get out.
"It is not worth wasting one more life in Afghanistan. All that we can achieve has now been achieved. All that we might have achieved if we had done things differently, has been lost.
"The only rational policy now is to leave quickly, in good order and in the company of our allies. This is the only cause for which further lives should be risked."
The Lib Dem peer said it was a political rather than a military failure.
"The international community in Afghanistan needed to speak with a single voice in pursuit of a single plan with clear priorities," he said. "Instead we have been divided, cacophonous, chaotic. We should have concentrated on winning in Afghanistan where it mattered, instead of distracting ourselves with adventures in Iraq.
"We should have engaged Afghanistan's neighbours, instead of going out of our way to make them enemies. Our early military strategy should have been about protecting the people instead of wasting our time chasing the enemy.
"We should have made fighting corruption our first priority instead of becoming the tainted partners of a corrupt government whose writ, along with ours, has progressively collapsed as that of the Taleban in the south has progressively widened."
A number of Conservative and Labour MPs have called for troops to be withdrawn immediately, expressing concern about a lack of progress towards a political settlement and the growing number of attacks on Nato forces by Afghan soldiers.
On Remembrance Sunday, Cpt Walter Barrie, of The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, was shot dead by a member of the Afghan army. Cpt Barrie, 41, from Glasgow, was shot at close range while playing in a football match between British soldiers and members of the Afghan National Army at his base in the Nad-e Ali district of Helmand province.
Ministers say progress is being made in Afghanistan and the UK is committed to maintaining a combat presence until the end of 2014, and technical assistance after that date, while ensuring risks to troops are minimised. Giving evidence to a Senate committee in Washington, the US military's Gen Joseph Dunford - the next Nato commander in Afghanistan - insisted the alliance was making progress although he did not use the word winning.
Britain's troop presence has been reduced by 500 this year. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has suggested the drawdown of forces could be accelerated next year but this would all depend on conditions on the ground.
Time Slipping, U.S. Ponders Afghan Role After 2014
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON — American and allied military planners are drawing up the broad outlines of a force that would remain in Afghanistan
following the handover to Afghan security after 2014, including a small
counterterrorism force with an eye toward Al Qaeda, senior officials
say.
Multimedia
Under the emerging plan, the American counterterrorism force might
number less than 1,000, one military official said. In a parallel
effort, NATO
forces would advise Afghan forces at major regional military and police
headquarters but most likely have a minimal battlefield role, with the
exception of some special operations advisers.
Final decisions on the size of the American and NATO presence after 2014
and its precise configuration have not been made by the United States
or its allies. But one option calls for about 10,000 American and
several thousand non-American NATO troops.
The planning for a post-2014 mission has emerged as an early test for
President Obama in his new term as he tries to flesh out the strategy
for transferring the responsibility for security to the Afghans. But it
is not the only challenge: After the White House decides what sort of
military presence to propose to the Afghan government for after 2014, it
must turn to the question of how quickly to reduce its troop force
before then.
As one of his last acts as senior American commander in Afghanistan,
Gen. John R. Allen is expected to submit a formal recommendation for how
quickly to begin withdrawing the United States’ 66,000 troops. Two
American officials who are involved in Afghan issues said that General
Allen wants to keep a significant military capability through the
fighting season ending in fall 2013, which could translate to a force of
more than 60,000 troops until the end of that period.
Afghan forces are to assume the lead role for the war next year, and a
military officer said that such a troop level would enable the United
States to better support them, maintain the initiative and control
critical terrain.
But such an approach may entail a heavier military involvement than the
White House, which appears weary of the war, might like.
The White House is expected to ask General Allen to submit a range of
options for drawing down forces next year, including some involving
substantial reductions in troop levels.
“The White House has not yet asked General Allen for his assessment, nor
have we begun considering any specific recommendations for troop
numbers in 2013 and 2014,” said George Little, the Pentagon spokesman.
“What is true is that in June 2011 the president made clear that our
forces would continue to come home at a steady pace as we transition to
an Afghan lead for security. That it still the case.”
The issue is already a politically contentious one. Some leading
Democratic lawmakers have signaled that they would like to see steady
troop reductions next year while Republicans have argued that speedy
withdrawals would jeopardize hard-won gains.
There are also questions about General Allen’s future: his e-mails to a woman linked to the F.B.I. inquiry that disclosed David H. Petraeus’s affair are being investigated by the Pentagon inspector general.
But General Allen has resumed his duties in Kabul, and Mr. Obama has
said that he thinks highly of his military performance. The Marine
general who has been nominated to replace him, Joseph F. Dunford Jr., is
not scheduled to take up the post until early February and recently
told Congress that he had not been part of the planning process.
The planning for a post-2014 force is the Obama administration’s first
order of business on Afghanistan for several reasons. The United States
has opened talks with the Afghans on a security agreement that would
authorize an American troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014. So
American officials need to define what role American and NATO forces
might play then.
In addition, NATO’s political arm has authorized the alliance’s military
planners to develop a concept for how to carry out the post-2014
mission, which is to be approved by the alliance’s defense ministers
early next year.
The planning for after 2014 turns on troubling questions on how to guard
against the expansion of terrorist groups and advise an Afghan military
that has little airpower, poor logistics and difficulties evacuating
and treating its own wounded. But it will also depend heavily on the
willingness of allied nations to contribute troops and funds.
One question is the scope of the mission for the American
counterterrorism force. The targets of the counterterrorism force would
include Al Qaeda and possibly Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based
militant group linked to Al Qaeda that was responsible for the 2008
Mumbai attacks, and which is found in small numbers in northeast
Afghanistan. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan might also make the
list.
But it was unclear whether the Pakistani-based Haqqani network, which
American commandos have focused on for the past two years, would also be
a potential target of the American force. Officials say that does not
appear to be contemplated by the White House.
An important question for the NATO mission after 2014 is what level of
the Afghan military hierarchy they would advise. It is generally
expected that they would advise seven regional Afghan Army corps and
several regional Afghan police headquarters. The arrangement would
largely insulate the NATO advisers from the battlefield, though
officials said advisers might accompany Afghan brigades on major
operations.
It is unlikely that NATO officers would advise Afghan battalions on the
battlefield. That would require many more advisers than the alliance is
likely to muster and would entail more risk than most nations seem
prepared to assume, though some American experts believe it would make
the Afghan military more effective. Still, NATO special operations
advisers would be likely to accompany Afghan Army commandos and police
SWAT-type units on the battlefield, under the emerging plan.
A major challenge is that Afghanistan will not have an effective air
force before 2017, if then. American officials said that NATO airpower
would remain in Afghanistan after 2014 but will likely only be used on
behalf of NATO and American troops and perhaps Afghan units that are
accompanied by NATO advisers. NATO forces rely heavily on airpower for
airstrikes, supply and medical evacuation since Afghanistan’s roads are
poor and often seeded with bombs.
To compensate for Afghanistan’s limited airpower, American officials are
working on a number of fixes, including providing Afghan forces with
armored vehicles that would be equipped with mortars and assault guns.
The United States is also looking into expanding the purchase of
turboprop planes for the Afghans and is trying to help Afghan pilots
learn to fly at night.
Equally troubling is the problem of medical evacuations. After 2014, the
Afghans will almost certainly need to rely on a system that depends
more on ground transportation than helicopters. The Americans want to help them develop more field hospitals.
Senior Afghan military officials are well aware of their deficiencies and are counting on American support.
“Until 2017, we will have American pilots and engineers flying with us,”
said Gen. Abdul Wahab Wardak, the Afghan Air Force Commander. “They
will start the handover of the air force at the beginning of 2017 and at
the end of the year it will be complete.”
General Wardak also noted that the Afghan military needed NATO help to
provide “close air support and medevac.” And he ticked off a long list
of equipment he hoped to receive from the United States, including
transport airplanes and parts.
Still, in the broader sense, a senior American military officer
acknowledged that the United States faced formidable difficulties in
getting the Afghans ready to operate on their own.
The challenge, the officer said, is “building the back end” of the army
and the police: “We’ve been focused on their fighting ability. Now it’s
the time we need to focus on getting them the ability to get what they
need so they can fight.”
Senator Reid On Iraq: "This War Is Lost"
A
British police officer stands guard outside the Embassy of the Syrian
Arab Republic in central London, , Tuesday May 29, 2012, as Syria's
Charge d'affaires, Ghassan Dalla, is being expelled from Britain along
with two other diplomats. British officials say the U.K. is expelling
three Syrian diplomats in protest after 108 civilians were killed in
their homes Friday in Houla, a collection of farming villages in Syria's
Homs province, as part of a coordinated international diplomatic effort
following the killings. (AP Photo / Clive Gee, PA) EDS NOTE: WIDE ANGLE
VIEW CAUSING PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION - UNITED KINGDOM OUT - NO SALES -
NO ARCHIVES / Clive Gee
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid.
The White House called Reid's remarks "disturbing" and a slap at troops who are risking their lives.
Senior Republican Senator and White House hopeful John McCain also lashed out Thursday at Reid's comments.
At a news conference before a fund-raiser at a Las Vegas casino, McCain blasted the Nevada senator, saying his comments would hurt troop morale.
"It seems to me Sen. Reid has lost all sense of priority," he said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says if Reid has the courage of his convictions, he'll try to cut off all war funding.
Democrats who lack the votes for that appear set to send President Bush a war-funding measure with a non-binding timeline for pulling out the troops. Bush still intends to veto it.
The president is scheduled to go to Michigan Friday to again speak out for a war-funding bill with no strings attached.
Anti-war liberals in the House are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.
Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a nonbinding withdrawal date.
The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.
Rather than let the bill sink, "we want to get it to the president and let him veto it," said Rep. Diane Watson, a Democratic Party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.
Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a timetable on the Iraq war, contending that decisions on troop deployments must be left to the commander in chief and military commanders on the ground. His position raises the bigger question of what Democrats will do after the veto.
The quiet support of a House-Senate compromise among the rank-and-file represents a new tack by Democrats who say they want to pull together in their fight against Bush on the war.
Rep. Hank Johnson, a first-term Democrat who represents a district in Georgia that is strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they cannot pull the caucus long enough to act against Bush.
"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove the American people we can govern," he said.
Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an aggressive whip operation to persuade members the bill was their best shot at trying to force Bush to abandon his Iraq policy. Eventually, the group said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it.
The bill passed narrowly, mostly along party lines, in a 218-212 vote. House appropriators are now trying to negotiate a final bill that could be sent to the president by next week.
With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.
On Thursday, Pelosi summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberal members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.
Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.
No comments:
Post a Comment