Obama Talks Afghanistan Timeline "Obsession"
President Barack Obama said Sunday that there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He said his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful.
Obama's show of frustration about when he will end the unpopular war in Afghanistan came in his closing press conference at the G-20 summit in Toronto, where industrialized countries committed to slash their budget deficits in half by 2013. The president said the United States shares that commitment.
Special Report: Afghanistan
At the end of a week in which he dismissed his top commander in Afghanistan, Obama defended his war strategy and said the United States would assist the Afghans "for a long time to come."
"I don't have a crystal ball," the president said when asked about a five-year Afghanistan exit strategy endorsed Saturday by the Group of Eight major industrial democracies.
"I think that right now the debate surrounding Afghanistan is presented as either we get up and leave immediately because there's no chance at a positive outcome, or we stay basically indefinitely and do quote unquote whatever it takes for as long as it takes."
Obama's policy falls somewhere in the middle, thereby pleasing few. He reiterated that a July 2011 date to begin withdrawing troops does not mean the U.S. will "suddenly turn off the lights and let the door close behind us." Under Obama's policy, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will first climb to 98,000.
Obama offered a rationale for the nation's very presence in Afghanistan.
"You'll often hear, why are we in Afghanistan when the terrorists are in Pakistan?" Obama said.
He contended America would be less secure if al Qaeda still could be housed in Afghanistan, and contended there remains "a vital national interest that Afghanistan not be used as a base to launch terrorist attacks."
In Washington, CIA Director Leon Panetta expressed skepticism about whether insurgent groups in Afghanistan were interested in reconciliation with the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.
"We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation, where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce al Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society," Panetta said on ABC's "This Week."
Obama sounded more positive.
"I think that we have to view these efforts with skepticism, but also openness," the president said.
More about Afghanistan:
Panetta: Al Qaeda Has Been Driven Into Hiding
Hotsheet: In Afghanistan, a New General but an Old Strategy
Afghan Questions Arise as Petraeus Takes Over
McChrystal's Complaints: Indiscreet, But Not Unique
Gen. Stanley McChrystal on 60 Minutes
AP Obama's show of frustration about when he will end the unpopular war in Afghanistan came in his closing press conference at the G-20 summit in Toronto, where industrialized countries committed to slash their budget deficits in half by 2013. The president said the United States shares that commitment.
Special Report: Afghanistan
At the end of a week in which he dismissed his top commander in Afghanistan, Obama defended his war strategy and said the United States would assist the Afghans "for a long time to come."
"I don't have a crystal ball," the president said when asked about a five-year Afghanistan exit strategy endorsed Saturday by the Group of Eight major industrial democracies.
"I think that right now the debate surrounding Afghanistan is presented as either we get up and leave immediately because there's no chance at a positive outcome, or we stay basically indefinitely and do quote unquote whatever it takes for as long as it takes."
Obama's policy falls somewhere in the middle, thereby pleasing few. He reiterated that a July 2011 date to begin withdrawing troops does not mean the U.S. will "suddenly turn off the lights and let the door close behind us." Under Obama's policy, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will first climb to 98,000.
Obama offered a rationale for the nation's very presence in Afghanistan.
"You'll often hear, why are we in Afghanistan when the terrorists are in Pakistan?" Obama said.
He contended America would be less secure if al Qaeda still could be housed in Afghanistan, and contended there remains "a vital national interest that Afghanistan not be used as a base to launch terrorist attacks."
In Washington, CIA Director Leon Panetta expressed skepticism about whether insurgent groups in Afghanistan were interested in reconciliation with the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.
"We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation, where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce al Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society," Panetta said on ABC's "This Week."
Obama sounded more positive.
"I think that we have to view these efforts with skepticism, but also openness," the president said.
More about Afghanistan:
Panetta: Al Qaeda Has Been Driven Into Hiding
Hotsheet: In Afghanistan, a New General but an Old Strategy
Afghan Questions Arise as Petraeus Takes Over
McChrystal's Complaints: Indiscreet, But Not Unique
Gen. Stanley McChrystal on 60 Minutes
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 77 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 157 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- Treasury secretary's loopy signature is now less loopy
1) The President would not be frustrated about a timetable, if he had not set one. Setting benchmarks would make a lot more sense than a timetable for a war. IF we pull out because we believe that it will take longer than we wish it would to succeed, then everyone who has died in this war may have died in vain. There was legitimate questions about Iraq, but never about Afghanistan. We need to do what should be done to make this work.
2) Leon Panetta is a smart man, but he knew nothing about national security when the President appointed him to head the CIA. This was taking a solid round peg and placing it in a square hole. The President should have selected someone with an intelligence or national security background.
My frustration is with this President.
President Bush said Sunday that there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He said his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful.
President Obama was part of Chicago Politics that opposes war. While President Obama was Senator he was one of the most Anti-War Senators. When President Obama was on the campaign trail he appeared to be totally against war and gave the impression that he would pull the troops out very quickly.
There is a difference between campaigning and actually having the job of President of the United States. The war is more complicated than just bringing all the troops home right away. The Office of the President of the United States requires Leadership and the ability to make decisions on these types of issues. The answer on how to proceed is difficult.
Sounds to me like many people owe President Bush an apology.
Obama should be the firt in line.
Currently the Taliban is unbeatable if Pakistan continuously refuses to secure it's Western region. Many people say this can't be done anyways since the area is out of Pakistani government control, but Pakistan has a standing military of over a million individuals and they could very easily secure the region. They unfortunately see India as a much bigger threat and focus on any actions they think their enemy may take.
To annihilate the Taliban we need to either push way more on Pakistan to secure it's Western frontier or we need to escalate things over while using unconventional forces to ensure that the Taliban doesn't spring up again.
Currently, our strategy is to build the trust of the locals which is not a guarantee and would take decades to be effective. It's basically to wait around and see if they like us and then hope they tell us where the bad guys are.
The "big media" has never given the President any criticism.
From the perspective of many the Liberal "whiteys" give the President a free ride out of guilt, due to the color of his skin, not even considering the content of his character.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After all of these years, after all of the money spent, and after all of the blood that has been shed & lives ended, the people in Washington still don't "get it". The Taliban is NOT interested in "recondiliation". They do NOT want to "become part of that society". What they DO want is to control the country and impose their own perverted interpretation of the Qur?an onto the people of Afghanistan. Any attempt at "peace" in that country that does not take these facts into consideration will fail. Utterly and completely. In their mindset & from their viewpoint "compromise" is not an option. As far as they are concerned the only way there will be "peace" in Afghanistan is when the rest of the world recognizes their "right" to impose their value system on the people of Afghanistan and goes home. You cannot "negotiate" with, or bargain with, or cut a deal with someone who refuses to acknowledege any position but their own.