White House: July 2011 Is Locked In for Afghanistan Withdrawal
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Gates seemed to suggest there was some flexibility, that "it was a clear statement of his strong intent" and that "the president always has the freedom to re-evaluate his decisions." After the hearing Graham said he took that to mean the date is "not locked in" and will depend on conditions on the ground.
It was a point of contention at the White House briefing today – I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."
After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.
Lindsey Graham will not be happy. Neither will John McCain – and a whole lot of other Republicans who believe any kind of time line means "advantage: enemy."
Keep in mind that the PACE of the withdrawal will still depend on conditions on the ground – which means it could be a very small number of troops if things are not going well.
More Coverage:
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
Rep. Obey: Afghan War Must Be Paid For
Obama's Surge Comes with Expiration Date
Early Reaction to the Speech
Who Offers the Better Deal in Afghanistan?
Liberals Chastise Afghanistan Troop Increase
Polling Analysis: Afghanistan 2009 Vs. Iraq 2007
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan
(CBS)
Popular in Politics
- FBI: Surveillance info helped reveal subway, stock exchange bombings 203 Comments
- Jesse Jackson Jr. asks to serve jail sentence before wife
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions
- IRS scandal: Is partisanship overshadowing facts? 172 Comments
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story"
- Obama: "Very easy to slip-slide" into deeper Syrian involvement 91 Comments
The Preesident could give Gibbs the chisel and a free pass to the front. Gibbs could then sweet-talk the Taliban like he sweet-talks the press.
Velma,
Everything you write is in the form of apologist statements for the Dems and especially for President Obama. He could kill your first born, and you would praise him for it.
**************
Everything?
That first word negates the rest of your comment. But for the sake of truth, which is my focus....
I have no desire to rise to the defense of Democrats, I am not a member of a political party. I have (if you HAD read everything...) found as much fault with them as a group as I have with Republicans.
On specific issues, I absolutely will speak up for the facts of a matter. Currently, it seems the joke line "facts have a liberal bias".. has a great deal of resonance.
As for defending President Obama? I do not agree with everything he stands for or has done. When necessary, I most definitely have spoken up for him -- I voted for him, therefore I felt he best REPRESENTED ME. Do you understand this American system of government?
What I MOST defend is the truth and the facts of any given matter.
As for "he could kill your first born and you would praise him for it"
First, YOU have absolutely no place telling me what I would do or especially who I would praise. I'll tell you myself:
I would forgive him, as I would ANYONE. I said before, I serve God.
But I am also allowed to take the murderer to a court of law and no matter who they are, I would also do that.
Thinking people who support our current President are some sort of mindless sycophants is only a means to make you and those who you agree with maintain a sense of false superiority.
It's not the truth -- and that I will continue to express and defend.
News Flash: "The Taliban, when asked to respond to President Obama's announcement that U.S. would withdraw in 18 months, could not be reached for comment due to uncontrollable laughter and celebration..."
Seriously, Obama stood in front of those military cadets, the nation and the world and assigned an end date to the war - yet didn't mention anything about winning or victory...
So let's get this straight: The President and Commander In Chief is telling our troops to go over there and soak up bullets and IEDs with their bodies for 18 months - then leave...
**********************
by velma179 December 2, 2009 8:03 PM EST
by deanomatic December 2, 2009 7:56 PM EST
You don't read or hear very well, do you?
July 2011 is when troops will START to leave Afghanistan.
In no way were the troops told what you say...
********************
Velma179, I read quite well thank you very much for noticing. I suggest you read my comment, as I said go there and 'leave' 18 months later - not that they would be gone 18 months later. I was an officer in the USAF...
The best military leader is one whom the troops believe would not ask them to do something that the leader would not do their self. Bush had that quality and even Clinton. But no one listening to Obama believes for a second that he would ever lead the charge he's asking his troops to undertake.
Whatever you may think of Obama, he does not project strength, honor and purpose to his troops.
**************************
You really should re-read what you wrote ^ -- that first paragraph -- "withdraw in eighteen months" has specific meaning in military terms (as well as using basic rules of the English language).
Then, there is; "...assigned an end date to the war.." in your second paragraph.
If you served as you say, then I first thank you for your service. And then I will unequivocally say I am so grateful that officers like those from within my family and community are those who command our military TODAY.
They understand the language of "winning" and "victory" in a conflict that is "in country" but not against that country. They understand how the rules of engagement have, by necessity, changed in these current conflicts. A good commander knows when to speak and what to say in order to accomplish the specific mission that is engaged. You do know that, don't you?
By the way, I live in a very military area (7000 of my neighbors are packing their duffel bags as we write) and have cause to speak often with members of the armed forces -- there are many, many different views among them regarding the people in their leadership (both Military and Civilian, including the President/CIC) and you have absolutely no place to assume YOUR views are theirs!
To make a blanket statement such as "no one" thinks this or that, or "everybody says" is the sign of a biased opinion that has not researched the matter beyond the speakers own ideology.
Bush would do as he asked them to do? Clinton also ... and not Obama? That is ludicrous and very easily disproved by actual historical fact.
That is YOUR opinion and I assure you, it is NOT an opinion shared by all or even most of those in our military -- in fact you are so off base... it really shows how long you have been off the (Military) base!
So, your assertion that it doesn't matter what I think regarding President Obama's strength, honor and purpose as seen by his troops -- I'll accept that and take the troops themselves, at their own words.
You do well to follow suit.
Conditions on the ground will never change. The Taliban, as always,
have time and terrain on their side. They are descended from a people
who have been repelling foreign invaders for centuries. Just ask
Ghengis Khan, the British (3 wars in Afghanistan) and of course the
Russians. The U.S. and the governments of the 40 coalition forces are
ignoring or are in denial about the lessons of history. The Taliban will fight to the last man if need be, in order to disrupt and frustrate the invaders and they will, as always win, driving out the 'intruders' who wish to dominate their homeland. We shall ultimately depart this country in ignominy, just like Viet Nam.
In the meantime, our Treasury is drained and the blood of our young
soldiers is needlessly shed. And for what? Revenge for 2011? To bring
democracy to a corrupt and ungrateful Muslim nation.? To protect the national security of the U.S.? I think not. Rather this is once again
the military/industrial complex feeding off, in pariah-like fashion,
the cash register of the American taxpayer. Until we rein in the
profligate military spending (823 military bases and outposts) around
the world, we shall never be able to address the pressing domestic
issues that face us here at home.
Be reminded that we spend $6 billion a month in Afghanistan,
$12 billion a month in Iraq and now an additional $30 billion over the
next year for what will be a failed troop surge.
That's a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on domestic issues, such as schools, hospitals, roads, job creation, foreclosures
and so much more. America is essentially broke. Where are we to find
funding for the large scale bills pending in Congress and the Senate?
Will we soon be hit with a war tax to pay for Afghanistan?
We are noticing. We are watching Washington drag this country down.
The elections of 2010 are just a few months away. Every representative
of both houses should be very careful of their voting in these upcoming pieces of legislation.
Good luck America.
there is no "fixed" date. never was.
here's the quote:
"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
there is no "fixed" date. never was.
here's the quote:
"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
Yemen (attacked the U.S.S. Cole)?
Somalia (need I say more)?
Pakistan (where the Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan are vacationing)? There are villages in Pakistan where an entire generation of children was named "Osama Bin Laden".
Saudi Arabia (where Bin Laden got his start and where the 9/11 perpetrators came from)?
We play "Whack-a-Mole" with Al-Qaeda and they seem to to split in half and multiply elsewhere.
Now I'm not suggesting that Desert Storm bears any resemblance to OEF, it doesn't. What I'm trying to emsay is that should the Taliban and Al Qaeda retreat into their caves for 18 months while the US and our allies train and equip the Afghan security forces they will find the going significantly more difficult than they do now. If on the other hand they continue with the violence then in Dec 2010 Obama may just meet their challenge and raise the bid. Neither tactic would result in a positive outcome for the Taliban although I suspect their (the Taliban et al) might fare better if they step up the attcaks rather than going into retreat mode.