Trust Matt Bors to come up with a unique view of the recent decision by the Secretary of Defense to allow women in combat.
It is the last panel we need to pay the most attention to: Why are we still there? And when are we really going to leave?
I may be stretching the “holiday” a bit, but since Congress is still on vacation, I will use the term to talk about my tally of his most recent almost 10 days.
First, the pluses. The recess appointments, the cuts to the defense budget and his continuing feisty attitude. The negative is the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act.
The negative first. Alexander Cockburn’s analysis in the Nation is the best I’ve seen. He explains
The change came with the whisper of Barack Obama’s pen, as he signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual ratification of military Keynesianism—$662 billion this time—which has been our national policy since World War II bailed out the New Deal.
Sacrificial offerings to the Pentagon aren’t news. But this time, snugly ensconced in the NDAA came ratification by legal statute of the exposure of US citizens to arbitrary arrest without subsequent benefit of counsel, and to possible torture and imprisonment sine die. Goodbye, habeas corpus.
We’re talking here about citizens within the borders of the United States, not sitting in a hotel or out driving in some foreign land. In the latter case, as the late Anwar al-Awlaki’s incineration in Yemen bore witness a few months ago, the well-being or summary demise of a US citizen is contingent upon a secret determination of the president as to whether the aforementioned citizen is waging a war of terror on the United States. If the answer is in the affirmative, the citizen can be killed on the president’s say-so without further ado.
This is the latest disappointment on civil liberties. I had such high hopes for a reversal of the Bush II trend after we elected a Constitutional expert. In the sum, Obama has been almost worse. ratifying decisions made by W and going further.
The President at Shaker Height HS
On the positive side, the New York Times says
On Wednesday, after waiting until the dust in Iowa had settled, clearing out space in newspapers and on television, Mr. Obama delivered another jab, announcing four recess appointments, including that of Richard Cordray as head of a new consumer protection agency, despite Republican opposition. On Thursday, the president went to the Pentagon and outlined a new military strategy that embraces hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to what is a Republican sacred cow, and made it clear that American ground forces would no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The cuts in the defense budget are a welcome change. I have thought since the days when I demonstrated at the Pentagon against the War in Vietnam. Let’s face it, the last 3 groundwars we have engaged in have been disasters. Maybe the Bush I war to repel Iraq from the invasion os Kuwait can be counted as a success. But Bush 1 knew when to stop.
In an unusual appearance at the Pentagon briefing room on Thursday, Mr. Obama outlined a new national defense strategy driven by three realities: the winding down of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fiscal crisis demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts and a rising threat from China and Iran.
A fourth reality, not mentioned in the briefing room, was Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign and the chorus of Republican presidential candidates who have sought to portray him as decimating the Pentagon budget and being weak in his response to Iran.
Mr. Obama, who spoke surrounded by a tableau of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in dress uniforms and with chests full of medals, underscored the national security successes of his administration — the ending of the Iraq war, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya — before declaring that the United States would downsize to a smaller ground force, get rid of “outdated cold war-era systems” and step up investments in intelligence-gathering and cyberwarfare.
…
The new strategy document finally defines away the Defense Department’s historic requirement to have the ability to fight and win two wars at once — a measure that one official said “has been on life-support for years.”
The strategy released under Mr. Obama in 2010 said the military was responsible for “maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors.”
In contrast, the strategy released Thursday said the military must be able to fight one war, but is responsible only for “denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — an opportunistic aggressor in a second region.”
Senior Pentagon officials said that viewing military requirements through something as static as the two-war model had become outdated, and that the true measurement was whether the Pentagon could field a force capable of carrying out a wide range of military actions to protect the nation’s interests.
Pentagon officials made it clear that the department’s priorities in coming years would be financing for defense and offense in cyberspace, for Special Operations forces and for the broad area of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
I have never agreed with 100% of what any politician does, but this scorecard isn’t bad. It will be interesting to see what the impact of all this is on the President’s re-election.
Last night, President Obama announced that 10,000 American soldiers will leave Afghanistan by the end of the year with about 20,00 more gone by the end of next summer. This leaves about 70,000. These will in the President’s own words, “…continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security. “ OK then. But why wait until 2014? Do we expect things to be any different by then? Or are our troops in Afghanistan there to stabilize the border with Pakistan? Can’t really tell.
(AP Photo of Soldiers in Afghanistan watching the speech)
According to my rudimentary math, we are going to take a year to move out 30,000 soldiers and it appears that the President’s “steady pace” is 30,000 a year. (70,000 over 30 months.) I think the Russians left faster but they were on the same continent and I think we can say they were in retreat while we are claiming, if not victory, than mission accomplished.
Here is link to a graphic from the New York Times about troop levels.
Meanwhile it looks as if we will be working on a political solution. An excellent idea, but why are we waiting until next May to “shape the next phase of this transition”? Is NATO too busy? Maybe bombing Libya.?
If Afghanistan is the “good” fight, we still have about 47,000 troops in Iraq, the “bad war”. They are all coming home beginning this summer. According to this story in the Huffington Post
The United States has been in Iraq since 2003, and there are currently about 47,000 U.S. troops still in the country. Withdrawal, set to seriously go into effect by late summer, involves not only removing U.S. forces, but also pulling 63,000 contractors, closing 100 bases and getting rid of one million pieces of equipment.
This is supposed to happen by the end of this year. I point this out in part to show that withdrawing more that 30,000 troops a year is logistically possible and in part to provide some good news.
Almost everyone seems to want us to stop fighting in the entire region (the Middle East and Northern Africa). Even the United States Conference of Mayors wants money spent on our own infrastructure and deficit reduction. And my only quarrel with the President is timing.
I think no one will be happy with this speech. Those that want us to stay and fight will be unhappy that we are actually starting to leave. Those that want us to leave will be unhappy with the pace of withdrawal. And those of us who want to use the money elsewhere will find that we are still going to be spending money in Afghanistan for a long time to come.
I doubt the speech will please either hawks or doves. From his frankly uninspiring, let’s-all-eat-our-peas delivery, I have to doubt whether the president even pleased himself.
Someone has leaked six years worth of classified documents about the war in Afghanistan through a website called WikiLeaks.org.
White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, and National Security Advisor, James Jones, have both condemned the leaks. The White House is also using them to explain why the President ordered the increase in troops. But what do they really show? The Afghanistan War Logs show that there are probably a lot more civilian casualties than we thought; the insurgents have weapons that can shoot down our military aircraft; and there is a lot of corruption by warlords and government in Afghanistan. There is also information that at least part of the government of Pakistan has been aiding the Taliban. Is any of this really new? Has anything changed since December? I think the answer to both questions is “no.”
The most interesting information to emerge is from the Guardian.
The shadow of Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, hangs heavily over the US-led coalition’s campaign in Afghanistan. Again and again, the secret watchers of American military intelligence, whose furtive and often confused attempts at information gathering are collated in the 2004-2009 war logs, glimpse the hidden hand of the al-Qaida chief or catch a tantalising whiff of his whereabouts, only for the trail to turn cold and peter out.
…
Reportedly a high-level meeting was held in Quetta, Pakistan, where six suicide bombers were given orders for an operation in northern Afghanistan. Two persons have been given targets in Kunduz, two in Mazar-e-Sharif and the last two are said to come to Faryab,” the report claimed.It went on: “These meetings take place once every month, and there are usually about 20 people present. The place for the meeting alternates between Quetta and villages (NFDG) [no further details given] on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
“The top four people in these meetings are Mullah Omar [the Taliban leader], Osama bin Laden, Mullah Dadullah and Mullah [Baradar]. “The six foreigners who have been given the assignment have each been given $50,000 [£32,000] to conduct the attacks, and they have been promised that their families will be taken care of.”
So are we really fighting in Afghanistan and trying to navigate a very complicated cultural and political situation because George W. Bush lost interest in pursuring bin Laden? We now seem to be the outsiders trying to impose a solution instead of fighting terrorism. I keep waiting for someone to talk about winning hearts and minds like in Vietnam. Reports are that many Afghani’s don’t like either President Karzai or the American troops.
John Nichols writes in the Nation
The echo you are hearing is that of the Nixon administration responding to the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Indeed, as Dan Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers says: “I’m very impressed by the release. It is the first release in 39 years or 40 years, since I first gave the Pentagon papers to the Senate, of the scale of the Pentagon papers.”
We can only hope that Obama and his aides have read enough history to recognize that Nixon’s over-reaction to the Pentagon Papers began a process that would lead — at least in part — to a House Judiciary Committee vote to impeach him and the only presidential resignation in the country’s history.
I’ve always thought that the President’s strategy was to increase the troops, tough it out until 2011, and then start leaving. I hope that these revelations push him harder in that direction.
And I am very proud of the reaction of Senator John Kerry. John Nichols again
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, did a whole lot better than the administration.
”However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan,” said Kerry, whose discomfort with the Afghanistan operation has grown increasingly evident. “Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.”
Kerry should hold hearings with regard to the Afghanistan War Logs.
As a bonus, here is a short history of the War in Afghanistan from the New York Times.
All of our expectations were so high when Barack Obama took office 18 months ago. He was going to fix the economy, end the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, give us health care reform, fix the schools, walk on water….
After 8 years of George W. and after the wasted Clinton years, we progressives were ready. So where are we now? This Doonesbury cartoon says its all.
We are like his kids and think he can do anything. Unfortunately, there is the Senate to deal with and the fall elections which still look difficult for the Democrats. I’m hoping they can just hang on to enough seats to keep control and Obama’s agenda has a fighting chance.
There are millions upon millions of words being spoken and written by both sides as they try to influence President Obama’s course of action, but this cartoon by Mike Luckovich says it all for me.
