Mullen: 2011 Afghan Withdrawal May Be "Very Few"

By: Tucker Reals
Topics: Afghanistan

(CBS)

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told CBS News on Thursday that, while President Obama's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2011 is clear, there has been no indication of how long that pullout may take after it's begun.

"It's very clear that the president has given us guidance that in July of 2011, we'll start to transition security responsibility to the Afghan national security forces," Mullen told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith. "There's no determination of how long that will take… There's no specific guidance with respect to how many. It could be very few, it could be a large number."

Mullen also stressed that Mr. Obama has vowed to conduct the withdrawal "responsibly and it will be based on conditions on the ground."

The Chairman acknowledged the huge challenge facing U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan as they race to train and equip the Afghan national forces to take over security duties.

He told Smith that, at present, the Afghan National Army boasts about 96,000 troops, as many as 60,000 of whom are currently fighting alongside their Western allies. But he admits "very few" of them are ready to take the lead on combat operations.

Mullen said he understood the "stress and strain and pressure" that American forces are under in Afghanistan, particularly as 30,000 new troops are now slated for deployment to the country within the coming six months.

"They truly have been magnificent," he said in praise of the troops.

But, according to Mullen, America's military is up to the challenge.

"The Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey, spoke with me a couple of days ago and said he is ready and the Army is ready to execute this strategy and manage it. We're moving slowly to a point where our troops will be home twice as long as they're deployed."

Mullen said that transition to longer stays at home than in the battle field would take longer for the Marines than the Army. Marines are to spearhead Mr. Obama's new surge in Afghanistan, with some troops expected to reach the country before Christmas.

More Coverage:

WH: 2011 Withdrawal Locked In
Full Text of Obama's Remarks
Bob Schieffer: "Defining Moment" of Obama Presidency
Marc Ambinder's Analysis: Obama Taking Big Risk
Mark Knoller: No Mention of "Victory"
McCain: No Deadlines for Afghan Withdrawal
Who Offers the Better Deal in Afghanistan?
Liberals Chastise Afghanistan Troop Increase
Polling Analysis: Afghanistan 2009 Vs. Iraq 2007
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Tucker Reals
Tucker Reals is a senior news editor and overnight site editor for CBSNews.com, based at CBS News' London bureau.

74 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 74 Comments

by babooph December 3, 2009 8:47 PM EST

The fake democracy in the States must establish one in Afghanistan-3 years from now,the rich will still have the wad& the middle class will still be rotting away...

Reply to this comment


by YoureSoWrong10 December 3, 2009 10:19 PM EST: And little agit-prop courtesans will still be plying their trade along the pseudo-intellectual boulevards... meow... sigh... sob...


by magicwolf1 December 3, 2009 7:10 PM EST: Obama needs to fire Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen and anyone else who does not get on board with getting out butts out of Afganistan and Iraq.; Reply to this comment


by wdh3007 December 3, 2009 5:20 PM EST: Obama is working for the same people Bush did this is not about Al Qaida it is about guarding the eurasian pipeline for Unocal and the opium production.
Why should our troops risk their lives and use our taxpayers money to fight a war we will not benifit from. Unocal will not share the spoils with the U.S. population so why should we support this?; Reply to this comment


by wdh3007 December 3, 2009 5:20 PM EST: Obama is working for the same people Bush did this is not about Al Qaida it is about guarding the eurasian pipeline for Unocal and the opium production.
Why should our troops risk their lives and use our taxpayers money to fight a war we will not benifit from. Unocal will not share the spoils with the U.S. population so why should we support this?; Reply to this comment


by bankersvox December 3, 2009 3:13 PM EST: Just PLAIN NUTS ??

We need to support the President and our troops, now more than ever.

We need to focus on VICTORY. ( not on the transfer in 18 months ? )

There is no way that we will win in 18 months, therefore we need to go to war with everything we have, bombs, go where we have to go.

What happen to the ideas of a ram rod WWII back bone ? Taken over by PC ?

They are walking back on 2011 even today, because if we lose any troops and then just leave ? will it be for re election politics, or for the price of liberty ?

We need to name the enemy, and get them.; Reply to this comment

by jcdugger1234 December 3, 2009 2:38 PM EST

It's God versus Allah in a head-to-head showdown! God won Round 1 in Afghanistan in 2001. Allah won Round 2 in Iraq shortly thereafter. And now we head back to Afghanistan for Round 3! It should be one heck of a battle!!

Reply to this comment


by slownewsday-5 December 3, 2009 4:20 PM EST: Interestingly, Yahweh and Allah are one and the same.


by jimmyc1955 December 3, 2009 5:34 PM EST: You realize that God an Allah are the same God - right??

See all 4 Replies


by michigander62 December 3, 2009 2:26 PM EST: In areading the posted articles I wonder did any of these posters even read what they are supposed to be commenting about?????????????; Reply to this comment

by michigander62 December 3, 2009 2:23 PM EST

"Withdrawel based on events on the ground". If anybody believe that they are going to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as well. The events on the ground will be determined by the WH you don't for a second think an objective panel will make that decision. The Generals in charge are so subservent they will do what the WH wants.

Reply to this comment


by jimmyc1955 December 3, 2009 5:34 PM EST: By law and according to our constitution the President is commander and chief of the armed forces. They MUST obey his orders - or we are no longer a nation of laws supporting a constitution - we are no different than any other nation whose military takes over when THEIR interests aren't served.

I may not agree with Obama but I most certainly want the military to obey him - for all our sakes.


by AOCGUY December 3, 2009 2:07 PM EST: by infantryman1968 December 3, 2009 8:14 AM EST
..."I will withdraw 2 Brigades (7,000 soldiers) a month from Iraq without replacements"

AP 8 Feb 09 "The White House is considering at least two troop withdrawal options as it weighs a new Iraq strategy ? one that would preserve President Barack Obama?s campaign pledge to get all combat brigades out within 16 months and a second that would stretch it to 23 months. Under either timeline, the U.S. would hope to leave behind a number of brigades that would be redesigned and reconfigured as multipurpose units to provide training and advising for Iraqi security forces."

Now from the Congressional Research Service report Jul 09 here are some historic and estimated troop levels for Iraq.

FY 07 - 148K (Bush)
FY 08 - 158K (Bush)
FY 09 - 136K (Bush/Obama)
FY 10 - 88K (Obama)
FY 11 - 42K (Obama)
FY 12 - 4K (Obama/???)

Now I'm no genius but that sure looks like a troop withdrawel to me.; Reply to this comment


by ubrew12 December 3, 2009 2:05 PM EST: People, you need to watch this. 'Climategate' has NOTHING on this recently surfaced video of the GW puppetmasters at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds; Reply to this comment