Charting Obama’s Journey to a Shift on Afghanistan

[rug]

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 19, 2012

It was just one brief exchange about Afghanistan with an aide late in 2009, but it suggests how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House.

Not long before, after a highly contentious debate within a war cabinet that was riddled with leaks, Mr. Obama had reluctantly decided to order a surge of more than 30,000 troops. The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it.

“Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”

A year later, when the president and a half-dozen White House aides began to plan for the withdrawal, the generals were cut out entirely. There was no debate, and there were no leaks. And when Mr. Obama joins the leaders of other NATO nations in Chicago on Sunday and Monday, the full extent of how his thinking on Afghanistan has changed will be apparent. He will announce what he has already told the leaders in private: All combat operations led by American forces will cease in summer 2013, when the United States and other NATO forces move to a “support role” whether the Afghan military can secure the country or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/obamas-journey-to-reshape-afghanistan-war.html

I still consider his decision to escalate in Afghanistan to be the worst of his Presidency but this piece is good reporting on how he came to that decision.

[coalition_unwilling]

1. 2nd worst decision. Worst was not investigating or prosecuting the Bush Junta for

crimes against humanity and war crimes. Makes Obama an accessory after the fact. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

[rug]

3. Not to quibble, but I'd rather see him stop deaths before they happen before he tries old muders.

Not that both can't happen at the same time.

[cr8tvlde]

2. Agreed, but good intentions often meet with stark realities

especially in politics. I am reminded of Hillary Clinton's new health care program in Bill's first term. She certainly had the ability, but the political ground had not been prepared.

I think that is what Obama found out, as do all new presidents coming in on the euphoria of winning and being the leader of the free world...heady stuff. But, dues must be paid and respect for and cooperation with the bureaucracy that has been there before and will be there after. That's part of government too.

[rug]

4. With all due respect, waging war is more than paying dues and respecting bureaucracy.

And if that's why he did it, I'm more appalled than if he actually believed it was necessary.

[cr8tvlde]

5. He didn't wage the Middle Eastern wars, he inherited them

and paying dues and respecting bureaucracy is necessary when they can block your path even as President and I'm sure that his being black even created more resistance in the beginning. Waving a magic wand may work in a political campaign, but dealing with Congress and The Beltway, many sides of one's own party as well as the opposition is another matter.

I will take him to task on Libya, however. Very disappointing.

[rug]

6. He was POTUS December 1, 2009. No one else.

It's a decision that has already cost thousands of lives, mostly Afghani. Put your magic wand away. This is the reality.

Saying it's necessary politics is an accusation, not a defense.

[gateley]

8. That's not why he did it, I don't think. The Generals gave their input (more! more!) and Biden

recommended against it. He postponed his decision so he could consider Biden's argument, but unfortunately decided to go with the Generals.

The fact that he even CONSIDERED another opinion/option gave me hope, and maybe if there's a next time he'll not be as willing to believe the military.

[gateley]

7. Interesting piece -- thanks!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. It's difficult to understand why the NYTimes piece was written.

Is it an election-year article to give the impression that "Mr. Obama" is a Washington outsider who really decided to stand up to the Generals? And that decision was made in 2009?

What's going on here? Is there a campaign issue here? Is it antipated that a withdrawal at this point, without achieving goals that the public can cheer, is going to be crticized by the Republicans?

What was to be accomplished at the end of 2009? Or in 2010? Or 2011. Or this year? If anyone really knows why we're there and can explain it in a way that can be cheered by the general public, why haven't they done so by now?

Look, he's got the nomination locked up. As well as the re-election. But why does the public need a NYTimes article on how resolute President Obama was in deciding to stand up to the Generals and not give them more time?

[gateley]

11. It's an excerpt from a book

This article is adapted from “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” to be published by Crown on June 5.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Ah, that explains it. Thanks.

[BlueIris]

10. Thanks, rug. nt