Barack Obama and Pentagon split on Afghanistan pullout

[TomCADem]

Source: Guardian UK

Barack Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election.

The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013.

The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives.

"This is not something we feel entirely comfortable with," a Whitehall official told the Guardian.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/barack-obama-and-pentagon-split-on-afghanistan

---

Oh oh. Expect Republicans presidential candidates to hammer President Obama for rejecting military advice to maintain the current deployment numbers in Iraq, and proceed with his planned draw down of American forces.

[jaysunb]

1. 30,000 seems to be a very low bar to set.

I've seen this game before.. We need to end this massive effort without 130.000 troops on the ground. It's way beyond time to try the Biden approach, using the special ops program that are already in place and being used w/ great success. :evilfrown:

<discloser> MY COMMENTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE A CONDEMNATION OF THE PRESIDENT. I SIMPLY DISAGREE W/ THE POLICY :)

[politicasista]

2. Who needs Repukes when we do their work for them by..

smearing good Democrats calling them "war criminals" or "war profiteers" and other vile things.

[lonestarnot]

3. Tax cuts for richie rich and war, GOP's answer for everyfuckingthing.

Afterall, we have to keep the prosthetic people in business. 30,000 is not enough, but richie rich needs your dough. So yeah, prosthetic people will remain job holders.

[blueclown]

4. General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen both need to be dismissed.

Yet the former received a promotion and the latter undermined President Obama before he even entered office.

[izquierdista]

6. He needs to go further than that

Remember, FDR had to dig all the way down to some Lt. Col. named Ersenbeen before he found someone he thought could lead the allied forces.

[harun]

15. He needs to call in the Military Brass and have a meeting similar to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2tD3uDqEUg

[drokhole]

5. Anyone interested in this should consider reading the book "JFK and the Unspeakable"...

...by James Douglass:

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550

It details a very similar battle JFK faced when dealing with his Joint Chiefs/the Pentagon/CIA in regards to actions with and in Vietnam, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Frankly, it's a miracle we avoided a nuclear war, and it looks like Kennedy deserves a large amount of the credit (especially considering the severe pressure from the warmongering generals). There was also a strong possibility that we would have pulled out of Vietnam sooner (seriously, the book is a must read).

Anyway, in the book, Douglass at times employs the writings/perspective of a Trappist monk named Thomas Merton as a lens to view the events of the time period in. Here's one of the notable excerpts from Merton's "Cold War Letters":

"In actual fact it would seem that during the Cold War, if not during World War II, this country has become frankly a warfare state built on affluence, a power structure in which the interests of big business, the obsessions of the military, and the phobias of political extremists both dominate and dictate our national policy. It also seems that the people of the country are by and large reduced to passivity, confusion, resentment, frustration, thoughtlessness and ignorance, so that they blindly follow any line that is unraveled for them by the mass media
...
(My protest is) not merely against physical destruction, still less against physical danger, but against suicidal moral evil and a total lack of ethics and rationality with which international policies tend to be concluded. True, President Kennedy is a shrewd and sometimes adventurous leader. He means well and has the highest motives, and he is, without doubt, in a position sometimes so impossible as to be absurd."

Merton also wrote:

"We are living in a dream world. We do not know ourselves or our adversaries. We are myths to ourselves and they are myths to us. And we are secretly persuaded that we can shoot it out like the sheriffs on TV. This is not reality and the President can do a tremendous amount to get people to see the facts, more than any single person."

[pnorman]

9. Thanks for that lead!

It's not available yet for Kindle, but it's listed at Audible.com, and I have several credit remaining there. I think I'll get it.

[UTUSN]

7. Ron PAUL is correct: "I am the Commander in Chief, not the generals."

Or better yet, President Harry TRUMAN.

[slay]

8. We can not afford these bullshit wars any longer! Good for Obama for standing up to the pentagon!

the pentagon is out of control - we NEED that money for important stuff - you know like for healthcare and education.

[Corruption Winz]

10. This is obviously the right thing to do...

I'm sorry to say this, but we've done what we could and have tried to do what we couldn't. That's the EXIT sign that doesn't come in pretty neon green. It's time to come home and I only wish this number was higher and coming quicker.

[sendero]

11. If it were up to the pentagon..

.... we'd be adding troops to this obviously doomed effort. They constantly sing the "another year" song to the point that it becomes ridiculous.

They've been there 10 years. They have accomplished vanishingly little, and the only "gains" they have made will evaporate the minute we leave.

This is not a winnable situation for us and I'm happy that Obama is pulling some troops out although it should be a lot more. Trying to change the very culture of a country will military action is a fool's errand to begin with.

[Fool Count]

12. What the hell is "military imperatives" which, according to

"American and British commanders in Kabul", are supposed to take precedence over the "political"
ones? Should those "military imperatives", whatever they are. even enter into consideration while
deciding on a national policy? Isn't safeguarding national interests the one and only legitimate
military imperative? Are there others and if so what are they? Just curious what those commanders
are talking about exactly.

[Nihil]

13. Ha!

> The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders
> in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House
> is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives.

That's rich!

When hasn't the White House been driven by political imperatives?

:rofl:

[paparush]

14. Poor grunts. The pols don't even try to disguise the fact that they are political pawns.

[mopinko]

16. who fucking cares what the pentagon says. since when

do they get a vote on foreign policy issues? and since when do they criticize a president in the newspapers?
ffs.

[bemildred]

17. So Obama wins, right?

Someone tell these twits that the President is SUPPOSED to be driven by political imperatives, that's his JOB.