Misunderstanding July 2011?

-

carl levin.jpgSenate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) is speaking at Brookings today on the Obama administration’s course in Afghanistan.
His speech, while largely supportive of the frame that Obama has brought to the challenge — a narrowed mission, discussion of an offramp, and more — also includes lingering doubts.
He stated:

There is much that is commendable in the president’s plan. I applaud his focus on ensuring that Afghanistan’s future is in the hands of Afghanistan’s people. I believe his decision that our commitment is not open ended, and that we begin to withdraw troops in July of 2011, is important in getting the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security. And I believe the inclusion of efforts to reintegrate into Afghan civil society local Taliban fighters with loose affiliation to the Taliban’s extremist ideology is an important step, one we pursued with great success in Iraq and that commanders such as General McChrystal believe can be successful in Afghanistan.
But I am concerned that the large new commitment of U.S. combat forces included in the plan may undermine the over-arching goal of preparing the Afghans to secure their own success. Because of those concerns, I have been and will continue to urge the administration to focus intently on the training aspect of our mission.

The confusing part of this debate hits on the July 2011 exit plan, outlined by Obama but watered down by Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton and Michael Mullen in later Congressional testimony. Levin states:

Finally, the much-discussed July 2011 date for the beginning of U.S. troop reductions is vital. It performs a “forcing function,” as Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal said yesterday. So long as the Karzai government sees an open-ended U.S. commitment to carry the fight, there is too little motivation to energize its own institutions – either to provide accountable governance and quality services, or to provide for Afghanistan’s security.
President Karzai himself has acknowledged the value of the July 2011 date, saying, “it is good that we are facing a deadline” and that his nation must begin to stand on its own. But if deeds don’t follow those words, we will find ourselves in a frustrated mission. The Afghan government must begin a meaningful anti-corruption campaign, work much harder to provide basic services, develop plans to reintegrate local, reconcilable Taliban fighters into Afghan civil society, recruit the security forces needed to ensure the country’s long-term security, and employ those forces aggressively.
If the Afghan government honors these commitments, we and our allies should renew our commitment to helping it along the way – without taking on the whole job ourselves. We owe it to the men and women of our military, who have served so well and bravely, act to improve the immediate security situation we face in Afghanistan. But that nation’s future can only be secured by its own people.

I also think that the President needed to sketch an exit window, one that is more firm than soft.
However, the quicksand that Obama’s leading national security cabinet members and military advisers have poured around the July 2011 date actually gives Karzai an incentive to “not succeed too much” but to continue to seem “earnestly committed” to America’s general goals. Karzai doesn’t want US forces to leave — not while he is around.
In fact, Karzai has asked for fifteen years of security aid.
So, rather than being a “forcing function,” the July 2011 date may actually be a date to make sure the Afghan security forces are seen to be working real hard but having great difficulty. The forcing function would be to keep American forces in theater, not to allow them the offramp the President outlined.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

4 comments on “Misunderstanding July 2011?

  1. John Waring says:

    Have our national leadership lost the capacity for grasping reality?
    There will be no national Afghan army or national police because Afghanistan is not a nation. The “Afghan People” do not exist. This consummation devoutly to be wished will not occur in eighteen months, nor in eighteen years. Employing an army, excuse me, rabble, dominated by northern tribes, in Pashtun regions, is a recipe for continued civil war, assuming they don’t melt away before our very eyes, especially in light of the current 25% desertion rate. Never mind the issue of funding these so called national institutions long after we are gone, costing, as they will, several multiples of the existing Afghan GDP, a GDP almost wholly comprised of growing poppies.
    Minerva is not going to emerge from the sea and good governance will not emerge from Karzai and his gang. Karzai and his fellow plunderers are the Afghan system. Extortion from the losers of the 2001 US war is the booty that holds them together. Just what do we think will replace that system, our rarefied thoughts of disinterested service?
    Folks, if it looks like a quagmire, smells like a quagmire, and quacks like a quagmire, not to mention, it has no exit strategy worthy of the name, then, by jimminy, we just might have a real, honest to goodness, QUAGMIRE.

    Reply

  2. David says:

    “the July 2011 date may actually be a date to make sure the Afghan security forces are seen to be working real hard but having great difficulty”
    Had to chuckle at this all-too-likely actuality, although Afghanistan is not by any stretch of the imagination a laughing matter.

    Reply

  3. DonS says:

    It’s definitely not a good sign when the July 2011 ‘firm’ date is immediately undermined. Intentionally, at least the with built in deniability? One has to think it couldn’t be otherwise or Mr. Obama would have come out by now to quell the seething masses of MSM clammering for clarification of the missoken words of his underlings.
    Nor, as the post points out, is it a good sign that Karzi immediately starts negotiating for dates five years and fifteen years out. But looking at the way Chalabi twisted the US around his finger, and Netanyahu continues to do so every day, who can be surprised that Karzi thinks he has the upper hand at the bazaar?

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The idea that we can provide the environment for central national self governance in Afghanistan is ludicrous on its face. What, you will appoint an “Opium Minister”, who will nationalize and tax the poppie cultivaters? Or perhaps you will institute a “National Warlord Union”, and coax the various tribal leaders into giving up their power over their immediate locales.
    This thing is a fuckin’ joke. Its takes a complete idiot to swallow this bullshit we are being fed by the war machine. If there is any one thing that is a silver lining, it is that we, the citizens, have been provided with a clear picture of how little difference there is between the right and the left, and if there was any doubt that our “leaders” do not serve the national interests, those doubts should be thoroughly dispelled by events and policies of the last nine years. The Washington elite have global ambitions, and you or I are no more important to them than a target of one of their drones.
    I told you Obama was a puppet of the status quo, as did a couple of others here. We are being proven correct. And the status quo knows no party, patriotism, or national loyalty.
    We no longer have a representative government, and considering that the people obviously do not have the will, or the knowledge, for rebellion, we will NEVER have a representative government again. This experiment in representative governance is OVER.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *