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 ...

[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.

[Megas Methuselah]

Here's to the Afghan Army: cheers!

Best of luck, you poor bastards.

[Brenus]

Any way, if no date would have been said, I am not sure that “you will fight until we don’t when” is really a good signal to the troops and relatives…
And another general would have come and blame the President that no time table is set and all this is due to the lack of professionalism of the Man in Charge…
As said long time ago (by Clémenceau, I think), war is a too serious business to be let to the militaries…

[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...

[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!".

[Strike For The South]

Looks like someone is in denial...

How is Egypt this time of year?

[a completely inoffensive name]

How is Egypt this time of year?

Hot, which is why I stay inside the air conditioned Pizza Hut closest to the Pyramids.

[LittleGrizzly]

This is the problem with modern day democracy you cannot sustain something unpopular for too long no matter how nessecary it is. So we went in there, killed some people arrested some people blew some crap up built some other stuff, we may have improved the infrastructure of the country slighty but assuming stan falls back to its old ways all that will have happened is that voters were placated by seeing the place that their attackers trained from bombed and invaded and a nice pipeline built were negotiations weren't going so smoothly before.

I can see now that I was very wrong to support the US invasion of Afghanastan all their sweet talk of rebuilding, of country building, of womens rights was a bunch of crock to keep some of the less war happy folks quiet sure they implemented some of it whilst they were there but the real point was just to please the many people after revenge and give them something to keep the votes coming in.

Not that the blame lays solely at USA's doorstep, Britian was happy to do USA's bidding without asking for anything, no gaurentee's that we would finish the job. No USA are the superpower and apparently our special friend so were happy to help invade no questions asked and various other countrys...

There is a huge amount of blame on the Iraq war, that useless distraction of a war on a secular state in the middle of an apparent war on religious extremists, confusing and now we are paying the ultimate price for it, failure in Afghanastan. Again America isn't the only one to blame she has too many bad friends, yes men like the lawyers Mr Burns hires, She snaps her fingers and Britian, Spain, Austrailia and a whole host of 'poorer' countrys with their begging bowls out. Not that France took thier postion for America's best interests they just happened to coincide....

Anyway lesson learned, the next time America decides to invade somewhere but makes sweet promises about all the great stuff their planning don't get suckered in look for the bottom line, which in Afghanastans case was probably just revenge...

[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).

[Louis VI the Fat]

How is Egypt this time of year?

Other than that, I can't read any of the fonts you guys use, so no comment from me.

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm at a point now where I could cae less if there is a timetable or not. This administration or any future administration will NEVER fight a war the way war should be fought so its a waste of resourses and blood. My country needs to face the facts that we've become a nation of government addicted pussies and would be better off pulling all our military resourses out of every corner of the world and wishing the world good luck on their future. You just have to face the fact that the people of Afganastan, Iraq, Iran, and most of the middle east belong to a death cult and its just the way it is. Just hope you don't have to do any traveling and pray that you don't get converted by the sword in your lifetime. Let the future generations worry about the coming purge of infidels. Me? I'm going to drink and watch enough porn for 5 lifetimes before I'm in a soccer stadium getting shot in the head by a Chinaman or my head cut off by a moon god worhshipper...

[Strike For The South]

I'm at a point now where I could cae less if there is a timetable or not. This administration or any future administration will NEVER fight a war the way war should be fought so its a waste of resourses and blood. My country needs to face the facts that we've become a nation of government addicted pussies and would be better off pulling all our military resourses out of every corner of the world and wishing the world good luck on their future. You just have to face the fact that the people of Afganastan, Iraq, Iran, and most of the middle east belong to a death cult and its just the way it is. Just hope you don't have to do any traveling and pray that you don't get converted by the sword in your lifetime. Let the future generations worry about the coming purge of infidels. Me? I'm going to drink and watch enough porn for 5 lifetimes before I'm in a soccer stadium getting shot in the head by a Chinaman or my head cut off by a moon god worhshipper...

Somebody is a bit grumpy. Want a dulce?

[Megas Methuselah]

Maybe his Chinese girl dumped him?

Time to drink!

[Slyspy]

I'm at a point now where I could cae less if there is a timetable or not. This administration or any future administration will NEVER fight a war the way war should be fought so its a waste of resourses and blood. My country needs to face the facts that we've become a nation of government addicted pussies and would be better off pulling all our military resourses out of every corner of the world and wishing the world good luck on their future. You just have to face the fact that the people of Afganastan, Iraq, Iran, and most of the middle east belong to a death cult and its just the way it is. Just hope you don't have to do any traveling and pray that you don't get converted by the sword in your lifetime. Let the future generations worry about the coming purge of infidels. Me? I'm going to drink and watch enough porn for 5 lifetimes before I'm in a soccer stadium getting shot in the head by a Chinaman or my head cut off by a moon god worhshipper...

I like the fact that somehow the military is considered non-governmental.

[Devastatin Dave]

I like the fact that somehow the military is considered non-governmental.

Its the only part of the government that was originally authorised by the Constitution. Oh well, pass me my Socila Security and Obamacare....

[Lemur]

Its the only part of the government that was originally authorised by the Constitution.

Riiiight ... except for the judiciary, legislative and executive branches. And the census, which is a socialist plot to ... um ... advance ... socialism ...

-edit-

And actually, looking at it, there's no mention of a standing army or permanent military in the Constitution (closest thing is "an orderly militia" in the 2nd Amendment). Which makes sense, since a number of the Founding Fathers thought that standing armies were incompatible with liberty. So your statement is wrong on every level. But we still love you.

[Megas Methuselah]

I love socialism, you selfish bastards.

[Strike For The South]

I love bean and cheese tacos

[rory_20_uk]

In the end, both cause a mess.

[al Roumi]

In the end, both cause a mess.

Not to labour (harhar) the point, but I do believe their may be outcome-critical effects wrapped-up (harhar again) in the implementation, and indeed practicalities of either case. For example, one would perhaps seek to avoid an overfull taco as much as one would an overbearing bureacracy in the other. Or are both of these outcomes suimply inherent to the items/systems they pertain to? Have you ever eaten an underfull taco?????

[a completely inoffensive name]

Riiiight ... except for the judiciary, legislative and executive branches. And the census, which is a socialist plot to ... um ... advance ... socialism ...

-edit-

And actually, looking at it, there's no mention of a standing army or permanent military in the Constitution (closest thing is "an orderly militia" in the 2nd Amendment). Which makes sense, since a number of the Founding Fathers thought that standing armies were incompatible with liberty. So your statement is wrong on every level. But we still love you.

This makes up for you giving me those 2 infraction points and subsequent 3 day ban.

I like how 9+ years (the longest war in American history) is considered to be nothing to conservatives. Obviously America's democracy can no longer sustain "doing the necessary thing" for very long when it is unpopular.

I was born in 1992 and on 9/11 I was 9. My earliest memory is 9/11, (well scratch that, thats my second earliest memory, earliest was 2000 New Years). I'm now 18. For half of my life and for (almost) as long as I can remember from my life, Americans have been dying somewhere, fighting someone always at war. Half my life and 99% of all my memories has been in an era of war. To me, the idea of "not enough time was given" or "looks like democracy cant sustain necessary war for long periods anymore" is almost really insulting to me. Every kid who was born since 9/11 has lived their entire lives surrounded by war, and that partly concerns me since these kids are not toddlers, they are in third and fourth grade now.

Now that I can vote, I'm voting for Obama and the Democrats partly because I just want to know whats its like not being in war and not hearing casualties in my news feed every week.