Obama announces pullout schedule from Afghanistan

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#1
WASHINGTON — President Obama heralded the beginning of the end of the nation's 10-year war in Afghanistan on Wednesday, citing success in the battle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban but offering no guarantee that the nation's heavy investment in lives and treasure will leave behind a stable and secure nation.

"We have put al-Qaeda on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done," Obama said. At the same time, "we will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government."
In ordering 10,000 troops home by the end of this year and 23,000 more by the end of next summer, Obama rejected the advice of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of troops in Afghanistan. He urged that fewer troops be withdrawn, according to three senior administration officials who declined to be identified.
Instead, the president ceded to public discontent with a war that has cost $444 billion and seen more than 1,500 troops killed and 12,000 wounded since then-president George W. Bush launched attacks after 9/11. "America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home," Obama said in a nod to anxiety about the sluggish economy and growing deficits.

Under Obama's new orders, all 33,000 troops he sent to Afghanistan in December 2009 will be out within months of when voters go to the polls next year to determine whether he wins a second term in office. All 99,000 troops will be out by 2014. "The tide of war is receding," Obama said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-22-Afghanistan-Obama-drawdown-33000-troops_n.htm
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#2
Translation: Please reelect me guys.

There is no fucking way that every troop will be gone from there by 2014. He's desperate. Predictable PR move.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,251
6,859
568
Nothern VA
#3
Translation: Please reelect me guys.

Under Obama's new orders, all 33,000 troops he sent to Afghanistan in December 2009 will be out within months of when voters go to the polls next year to determine whether he wins a second term in office.

How exactly is 16 and a half months considered "within months" ?
November 2012 is "within months" from when the 33k troops will have returned by the end of summer 2012.
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#4
November 2012 is "within months" from when the 33k troops will have returned by the end of summer 2012.
Yea i missed the "of" when I originally read it.
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#5
Does anybody think this cocksucker will be able to miracle his way back into office?
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#6
Declare victory and leave now!

In the future if the POTUS isn't willing to drop nukes, then US ground forces should not be used in any type of invasion / occupation.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#8
Does anybody think this cocksucker will be able to miracle his way back into office?

There are two ways he could be reelected, first he cheats - voter fraud, etc... the other would be if the actual unemployment rate were to fall to Pre Speaker Pelosi levels, but LiddyRules is more likely to win 535 electoral votes without even running, than that.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#9
My buddy's the CO of a Ranger battalion that was recently reclassified to security. Guess where he is right now? Yup, Iraq.

Even if he "brings home the troops", it'll just be more bullshit where he'll add the "combat" caveat and nothing will change.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#10
My buddy's the CO of a Ranger battalion that was recently reclassified to security. Guess where he is right now? Yup, Iraq.

Even if he "brings home the troops", it'll just be more bullshit where he'll add the "combat" caveat and nothing will change.
This. They will keep sending SF groups into shitholes to "train and advise" (Consequently, what SF is meant to do, but only recently got back to this mission full time), sending in CAG for "counter-terrorism operations" (Well, they call em that already), and regular ground troops for "security operations"....

Same shit, different fucking shovel....
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#11
Of course he's able to withdraw large numbers of troops. He filled Afghanistan with (with ALL the respect in the world to the troops in those units) "filler" units of armor and mechanized infantry which are of next to no use in Afghanistan except to pull them out as part of a large withdrawal.

Yea!!!

I'll keep saying this, over and fucking over again: Afghanistan, in terms of ground combat units, is for light infantry and some airmobile infantry as support. Period. The "surge" was nothing more than shipping in armor and mechanized infantry units whose primary purpose was to (again, with ALL the respect in the world to those guys) sit around and then get pulled out as part of a giant draw-down.

Fucking PR maneuvers.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#12
There is more mercenaries under US control in Afghanistan than there is US soldiers. Did he say if all the mercenaries will be taken out or will they stay to make sure the right people get the drug money?
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#13
My buddy's the CO of a Ranger battalion that was recently reclassified to security. Guess where he is right now? Yup, Iraq.

Even if he "brings home the troops", it'll just be more bullshit where he'll add the "combat" caveat and nothing will change.
I wonder how many of the Afghan guys will go to Libya.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,635
27,395
898
Seattle
#15
Pull out? Doesn't sound manly to me.

The only way Obama could get back in office is if the GOP puts in a retarded candidate. Looking at the current list of potentials...

I've kind of liked what I've seen from Hunter so far, but I doubt he has a chance.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#16
stratfor's thoughts:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday night made the most important political statement on the war in Afghanistan since the death of Osama bin Laden. In a planned statement, Obama spelled out his post-surge strategy, as the July 2011 deadline approaches that would mark the start of the drawdown of American and allied forces in Afghanistan. While Obama did not declare victory in his address, he laid the groundwork to do so.

Before he came to office, a key plank in Obama’s election platform was the idea that Iraq was the “wrong” war and Afghanistan, by contrast, the “right” war. That stance was founded on the idea that since al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, the war in Afghanistan is morally just and a military imperative. But even as the 2008 presidential campaign unfolded, the United States had already begun to shift its operational focus in Afghanistan toward a counterinsurgency-oriented campaign centered against the Taliban.



Even while justifying the 2009 surge by saying 30,000 additional troops were needed to fight al Qaeda, Obama was giving the military the resources to wage a protracted counterinsurgency against the Taliban. In 2001, al Qaeda and the Taliban were distinct, yet necessarily intertwined. After all, it was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that had provided al Qaeda sanctuary, facilitating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But the Taliban declined combat in 2001, refusing to fight on American terms. Instead its fighters withdrew into the population — largely but not completely within Afghanistan — employing a standard guerrilla tactic. Meanwhile — and especially after Tora Bora — al Qaeda was increasingly driven into Pakistan and, more importantly, farther abroad.

Thus began the deepening divide between the two groups. For al Qaeda, a transnational jihadist phenomenon with global ambitions, the logic behind setting up franchises from Yemen and the Maghreb to East Asia was readily apparent. Its ideology was not reliant on location. As the United States focused its war effort on one locality, it made perfect sense for al Qaeda to devolve into a dispersed, decentralized organization. The group needed to avoid any place the United States decided to park more than 100,000 combat troops. Meanwhile, the Taliban, an Afghan phenomenon, doubled down on its home turf.

And so, while the United States never settled the war in Afghanistan, it found itself fighting an increasingly domestic entity near the heart of Central Asia — an entity that came to consider driving the United States out of the country its primary objective. For their part, the United States and its allies never wanted to occupy Afghanistan in the first place.

The war in Afghanistan has been a victory for the United States, but a qualified one. The war has helped prevent a subsequent attack of the magnitude of Sept. 11, 2001 — and there is no sign that the old al Qaeda core has the ability to launch another attack on that scale. But the war in Afghanistan has not proven an efficient or appropriately focused means of achieving this qualified victory. It has not kept al Qaeda franchise operations from waging an aggressive and innovative campaign to continue the struggle, nor can we say that what remains of al Qaeda in the Afghan-Pakistani region could not reconstitute itself, given sufficient space and time.

Meanwhile, even the most serious observers wonder why the United States is so heavily committed in Afghanistan. The example of the Korengal Valley, once considered an important focus of the war effort, is demonstrative. A vulnerable and isolated outpost at an old lumberyard was established and defended at no small cost in American blood and treasure. It was closed in 2010 as the United States reoriented toward a counterinsurgency-based strategy focused on population centers — and more importantly as it became clear that the strongest influence driving locals to the Taliban was the presence of American troops at that outpost.

The noteworthy aspect of Obama’s speech is that it lays the groundwork for American domestic political rhetoric to circle back into alignment with military reality. If military reality and military objectives are defined in terms of the Taliban insurgency, then Afghanistan is every bit as lost now as it was two years ago – if not more so. But if they are defined in terms of al Qaeda, then the United States has good cause to claim victory and reorient its posture in Afghanistan. The U.S. war against transnational extremism is far from over. But the trepidation that the rest of the world feels as Washington slowly regains the ability to focus its attention elsewhere is a testament to the magnitude of the window of opportunity that other global powers have enjoyed, thanks to the American focus on geographically restricted wars against an elusive, transnational phenomenon.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
76,366
49,281
788
#18
Does anybody think this cocksucker will be able to miracle his way back into office?
I think that depends largely on who the Republican candidate is. None of the announced candidates are inspiring very much confidence in me at the moment.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,918
5,324
838
Wilmington, NC
#19
I think that depends largely on who the Republican candidate is. None of the announced candidates are inspiring very much confidence in me at the moment.
Me neither.

But with that said, I still think a good portion of the GOP candidates are totally capable of beating Obama, even if they have a lackluster campaign. And that's pathetic really.

Obama scored big with independents and moderates in 2008. As it stands now, he won't be scoring big with independents and moderates in 2012 and alot of them may not vote at all. There were even conservatives that voted Obama (though I'm sure they won't admit it)...they won't be voting Obama in 2012. Some on the very far left (you know, the America Destroyers) are pissed off at Obama for not destroying America fast enough :icon_cool...it may be a chore in itself to get a portion of them to come out to the polls in 2012. Blacks will again, vote Obama, in droves. Liberals will vote Obama again...but some will be so pissed off with his lack of fulfilling promises/lack of transparency...they just won't come out to vote.

I guess it's what they say...it'll be the Republican candidate's election to lose.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#20
Me neither.

But with that said, I still think a good portion of the GOP candidates are totally capable of beating Obama, even if they have a lackluster campaign. And that's pathetic really.


It all comes down to the economy and nothing else.

This time when the Republicans control the White House & the Congress they better no fuck it up.
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#21
I think that depends largely on who the Republican candidate is. None of the announced candidates are inspiring very much confidence in me at the moment.
Let's be honest. Romney is the only viable candidate that the GOP has and I really don't think your average idiot walking around (at least in the northeast) really knows who mitt romney is...EVERYBODY knew who Obama was. Even though just about everyone has lost faith in Obama I don't see the blue states voting for a guy named Mitt. Name recognition and mundane details are everything. It's a simplistic way of looking at it but that's how your average retard votes.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#22
Let's be honest. Romney is the only viable candidate that the GOP has and I really don't think your average idiot walking around (at least in the northeast) really knows who mitt romney is...EVERYBODY knew who Obama was. Even though just about everyone has lost faith in Obama I don't see the blue states voting for a guy named Mitt. Name recognition and mundane details are everything. It's a simplistic way of looking at it but that's how your average retard votes.


He was the governor of Massachusetts and while not the North East his father was big time in Michigan and even was considered a potential VP candidate.

But you're right about how the average idiot votes in this country. Most times it comes down to the tall candidate wins.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#23
The first time in history a black man pulled out.

or

He's lying and won't pull out. Just like a black guy.
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#24
He was the governor of Massachusetts and while not the North East his father was big time in Michigan and even was considered a potential VP candidate.
I don't think him being governor of Massachusetts gets him votes outside of that state though. I don't even know if he'd win Massachusetts knowing how liberal they are. I guess it depends on whether or not Obama has any tricks up his sleeve.

As far as Michigan goes...Michigan and a lot of the midwest is on life support. Do you really see them voting for a guy thats running on being a fiscal conservative that would make sweeping cuts to their welfare system? Especially in Detroit. One of the few things Obama has delivered on is expanding welfare and unemployment...I can't see him losing in the welfare mecca that is Detroit.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#25
I don't think him being governor of Massachusetts gets him votes outside of that state though. I don't even know if he'd win Massachusetts knowing how liberal they are. I guess it depends on whether or not Obama has any tricks up his sleeve.

As far as Michigan goes...Michigan and a lot of the midwest is on life support. Do you really see them voting for a guy thats running on being a fiscal conservative that would make sweeping cuts to their welfare system? Especially in Detroit. One of the few things Obama has delivered on is expanding welfare and unemployment...I can't see him losing in the welfare mecca that is Detroit.
I don't think Dave was saying that Romney could win Michigan, just that he has nationwide name recognition. Of the candidates in the race now, he's probably the most well known. I just don't think he can win a primary. Had he managed to do it in 2008, he'd be president now. I think it's too late for him at this point. He's not far enough from the current course that we're on. The person who can win will be the one that is the biggest contrast and not seen as an insider.