Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns

[PanzerJaeger]

Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns

Marine Corps commander General James Conway's comments come amid deepening US public concern at rising death toll

Marine Corps chief General James Conway is the latest US military official to question President Obama's July 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama's decision to set a date for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan has given the Taliban a morale boost by allowing them to believe that the end of the insurgency is already in sight, a senior US general has warned.

General James Conway, the Marine Corps commander, said the July 2011 deadline could backfire, and that he expected marines to remain in Afghanistan beyond next year.

"In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance," he said. "In fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.' "

Conway, who is about to retire, made his blunt assessment amid increasing criticism of Obama's war strategy and deepening public concern over the rising US death toll in the country. Earlier this month, the new commander of international forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, said he would not be bound by Obama's timetable.

Supporters of Obama's plan to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan next year — conditions permitting — say it conveys a much-needed sense of urgency to Kabul. Afghans, they argue, must quickly swell the ranks of their security forces for a gradual handover.

Critics say the strategy has backfired, signalling to the Taliban that the US is preparing to wind down the war while setting unrealistic expectations among Americans about the pace of progress.

Conway, quoting one of his commanders, told reporters: "We can either lose fast or win slow."

The general's remarks are likely to fan criticism of Obama's plans in the run-up to US congressional elections in November.

The timetable for withdrawal is also certain to come under close scrutiny in a White House strategy review in December, which Obama called for last year when he announced the July 2011 deadline and 30,000 additional troops.

"We know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011," Conway told reporters at the Pentagon. "Though I certainly believe that some American units somewhere in Afghanistan will turn over responsibilities to Afghanistan security forces in 2011, I do not think they will be marines."

Violence across Afghanistan has reached record levels despite the presence of almost 150,000 US and Nato troops, who have stepped up operations after the Taliban insurgency spread from the south and east into once relatively peaceful areas of the north and west.

Conway said he believed the Taliban were in for a surprise once they realised next July that US forces would be remaining — and in large numbers. That, he said, would damage the "enemy psyche".


One of the biggest challenges facing the US military was winning US public support for the war. "I sense our country is increasingly growing tired of the war," said Conway, pointing to opinion polls showing unfavourable views of the war in Britain and the US.

"I don't think that we have done a strong enough job in convincing the American people that there are good and just reasons why we have to destroy the al-Qaida and the associated Taliban in Afghanistan."

Conway's comments are the latest acknowledgment by top US military officials of the challenges in Afghanistan, which appear to minimise the likelihood of any substantial change in the conflict by next July.

One of those challenges is training Afghan troops to take over from US forces as they withdraw. US Lieutenant General William Caldwell said this week that training of Afghan forces still faced big hurdles. Afghanistan's police and military would not be ready to take the lead in more than isolated pockets of the country until late October 2011.

The Afghan Taliban issued a statement yesterday rejecting some recent claims of US progress in the war. It said attacks were increasing around the capital and in their heartland in the south.

"Stop sacrificing your sons and daughters for a war which is unwinnable," said a spokesman in a statement emailed to media by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the title used by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

Yet another military leader has stated the obvious - that while Coalition troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the President's political calculations are undermining their efforts.

This was pretty obvious when the President made his now-infamous West Point speech, but at the time it was argued that announcing a timeline for withdrawal was a super smart idea to wrangle the Afghan government into competency. While it is now patently obvious that Obama is helping the Taliban, is there any evidence that Kabul is at least acting more responsibly?

[Lemur]

I am violently opposed to reading multi-paragraph quotes in italics. This is clearly a violation of good usage and typography; italics are meant for emphasis, not for ease and comprehension over long passages. I realize that using certain quote functions on this board create a cul-de-sac of italics, in which you can code [n] all you want and never get anywhere, but this does not excuse such a lengthy abuse of itals. Indeed, it just shows that the wrong framing element was used initially, due to a tragic lack of consideration for the reader. [ex] was available, as was [indent] and [spoil], but no, the OP resorted to [quote], despite the aid and comfort this gives to the enemies of good layout and typography.

The horror ... the horror ...

[PanzerJaeger]

I am violently opposed to reading multi-paragraph quotes in italics. This is clearly a violation of good usage and typography; italics are meant for emphasis, not for ease and comprehension over long passages. I realize that using certain quote functions on this board create a cul-de-sac of italics, in which you can code [n] all you want and never get anywhere, but this does not excuse such a lengthy abuse of itals. Indeed, it just shows that the wrong framing element was used initially, due to a tragic lack of consideration for the reader. [ex] was available, as was [indent] and [spoil], but no, the OP resorted to [quote, despite the aid and comfort this gives to the enemies of good layout and typography.

The horror ... the horror ...

They say the eyes are the first to go with age.

Here's the article again for those who aren't up to reading italics anymore.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obama's Afghanistan deadline gives Taliban sustenance, US general warns

Marine Corps commander General James Conway's comments come amid deepening US public concern at rising death toll

Marine Corps chief General James Conway is the latest US military official to question President Obama's July 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama's decision to set a date for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan has given the Taliban a morale boost by allowing them to believe that the end of the insurgency is already in sight, a senior US general has warned.

General James Conway, the Marine Corps commander, said the July 2011 deadline could backfire, and that he expected marines to remain in Afghanistan beyond next year.

"In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance," he said. "In fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.' "

Conway, who is about to retire, made his blunt assessment amid increasing criticism of Obama's war strategy and deepening public concern over the rising US death toll in the country. Earlier this month, the new commander of international forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, said he would not be bound by Obama's timetable.

Supporters of Obama's plan to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan next year — conditions permitting — say it conveys a much-needed sense of urgency to Kabul. Afghans, they argue, must quickly swell the ranks of their security forces for a gradual handover.

Critics say the strategy has backfired, signalling to the Taliban that the US is preparing to wind down the war while setting unrealistic expectations among Americans about the pace of progress.

Conway, quoting one of his commanders, told reporters: "We can either lose fast or win slow."

The general's remarks are likely to fan criticism of Obama's plans in the run-up to US congressional elections in November.

The timetable for withdrawal is also certain to come under close scrutiny in a White House strategy review in December, which Obama called for last year when he announced the July 2011 deadline and 30,000 additional troops.

"We know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011," Conway told reporters at the Pentagon. "Though I certainly believe that some American units somewhere in Afghanistan will turn over responsibilities to Afghanistan security forces in 2011, I do not think they will be marines."

Violence across Afghanistan has reached record levels despite the presence of almost 150,000 US and Nato troops, who have stepped up operations after the Taliban insurgency spread from the south and east into once relatively peaceful areas of the north and west.

Conway said he believed the Taliban were in for a surprise once they realised next July that US forces would be remaining — and in large numbers. That, he said, would damage the "enemy psyche".


One of the biggest challenges facing the US military was winning US public support for the war. "I sense our country is increasingly growing tired of the war," said Conway, pointing to opinion polls showing unfavourable views of the war in Britain and the US.

"I don't think that we have done a strong enough job in convincing the American people that there are good and just reasons why we have to destroy the al-Qaida and the associated Taliban in Afghanistan."

Conway's comments are the latest acknowledgment by top US military officials of the challenges in Afghanistan, which appear to minimise the likelihood of any substantial change in the conflict by next July.

One of those challenges is training Afghan troops to take over from US forces as they withdraw. US Lieutenant General William Caldwell said this week that training of Afghan forces still faced big hurdles. Afghanistan's police and military would not be ready to take the lead in more than isolated pockets of the country until late October 2011.

The Afghan Taliban issued a statement yesterday rejecting some recent claims of US progress in the war. It said attacks were increasing around the capital and in their heartland in the south.

"Stop sacrificing your sons and daughters for a war which is unwinnable," said a spokesman in a statement emailed to media by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the title used by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

I think what PVC is saying, and is absent from the above Obama-bashing, is that this deadline was mostly put in place to placate the US public -whose appetite for continued war in Afghhanistan continues to thin.

The deadline was put in place to placate the American Left, not the public at large. The dwindling support for the war is a direct result of the president's mismanagement of the conflict and his unwillingness to sell it to the people... or even focus on it at all.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't read the article, the words are too big and my wrist is tired from scrolling.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The deadline was put in place to placate the American Left, not the public at large. The dwindling support for the war is a direct result of the president's mismanagement of the conflict and his unwillingness to sell it to the people... or even focus on it at all.

Which makes you wonder how come Obama managed to win an election on the theme if the war was going so well...

... I would interpret the dwindling support for the war as being a sign that the public thinks the whole “get out of it” part of the plan isn't going fast enough.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Looks like someone is in denial...

[Strike For The South]

Looks like someone is in denial...

How is Egypt this time of year?

[Beskar]

The deadline was put in place to placate the American Left, not the public at large. The dwindling support for the war is a direct result of the president's mismanagement of the conflict and his unwillingness to sell it to the people... or even focus on it at all.

Not really, since all of NATO and America's allies want out of the war as well and they were not under direct command of the President. Even then, many people did not even want to go into the war, nevermind get out of it.

It isn't placating America's left at all, because is it those on the right wanting to get out of there too. There is simply no point to the war. People are fed-up of constantly turning on the television and having loved ones dead over nothing. The populace doesn't care about some sandpit across the globe.

In interviews on the subject in the UK, vast majority say "Get our troops out of there" while the minority goes "Finish up and then get them out of there, within 5 years max". No one says "Let's continue!".

[CountArach]

The deadline was put in place to placate the American Left, not the public at large. The dwindling support for the war is a direct result of the president's mismanagement of the conflict and his unwillingness to sell it to the people... or even focus on it at all.

Based on a poll from last year (I can't be bothered getting more recent stuff, but very, very little has changed).

Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama's policies. A narrow majority of conservatives approve of the president's handling of the war (52 percent), as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent).

[Megas Methuselah]

Why'd you guys invade Iraq in the first place? You should have concentrated your efforts in the 'Ghan.

Idiots.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If only we had given it another 9 years we could have won guys...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If only we had given it another 9 years we could have won guys...

Or you could give it another nine years and win, couldn't you?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or you could give it another nine years and win, couldn't you?

Wait, what?

[al Roumi]

Wait, what?

I think what PVC is saying, and is absent from the above Obama-bashing, is that this deadline was mostly put in place to placate the US public -whose appetite for continued war in Afghhanistan continues to thin.

The points made above regarding both forcing the Afghan gov to pull its finger out and also giving the Taliban something to aim for are also valid, but lets not forget that the will of the US public -and any political exploitation by US politicans promising to end the occupation (as it could be argued Obama did) are as crucial from a medium/long term strategic point of view.