Predicting Obama's Afghanistan Announcement
Later today, President Obama is going to address the nation on the subject of the Afghanistan war. Specifically, he's going to make good on a promise made a year-and-a-half ago: to begin the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan next month. The big question everyone's been speculating about in the run-up to this announcement has been how big a reduction the president will announce.
A month-and-a-half ago, I laid out the options open to the president to answer the "How many troops to withdraw?" question. Back then, I put it:
Now that Bin Laden is dead, Obama has a wider range of options to choose from, in terms of how fast he's going to get our troops home. Bin Laden's death meant (among other things) that Obama has the political leeway to withdraw troops much faster now. The American public is tired of this war (when they even notice we're still fighting it), and the politicians have slowly come to realize this fact. Both Democratic and Republican support for the war is fading in Congress, which (again) makes Obama's task that much easier.
Obama will likely lay out only the first phase of his withdrawal plans in a few months, though. He'll announce the number of troops that will be coming home over the course of six months (or possibly as long as a year), and then he'll reassess the situation. This is in keeping with the way he's run America's wars so far, so he'll likely continue the same pattern. No matter what he announces, his critics will say he's either going too slow or too fast, but his choices fall roughly into three categories of troop withdrawal numbers: small, medium, and large.
I then went on to define "small" as 5,000-10,000 troops pulled out before the end of this year, "medium" as 10,000-25,000, and "large" as over 25,000 troops withdrawn. I further concluded that "medium" was the likely route Obama would take, writing:
The numbers are big enough that it cannot be called a "token" withdrawal, but not so large as to give the image of just abandoning the country to its fate. This would still leave roughly 75,000-90,000 troops in Afghanistan next year, which is still over twice the number Bush ever devoted to the war. Obama will likely (no matter how fast he withdraws initially) review the Afghanistan situation at the end of this year, and could then elect to slow the withdrawal after a fairly large initial pullout, if circumstances on the ground merit it. Obama could also speed up the withdrawal in 2012.
As I stated, Obama's going to open himself up to criticism no matter what plan he announces. Some will say he's pulling out too fast, and some will say he should bring all the troops home immediately. By choosing a moderate -- but still substantial -- number somewhere in the 10,000-25,000 range, Obama can make the case that he's begun a significant withdrawal of troops but also that he's not just bugging out entirely all at once.
Today, I not only stand by what I predicted, I will further narrow this prediction down. Obama, from many accounts (which could be wrong, I hasten to point out), will be using a tactic in his primetime speech to the nation tonight which I would call "muddying the waters." What I mean by this is that the president is going to have a more complicated withdrawal schedule than one might have expected. There will likely be an "initial phase" of withdrawal, lasting roughly from July to the end of the year; there will be a "medium-term phase" which will extend throughout 2012; and then there will be a "final phase" ending in 2014, when the war is slated to wind down entirely.
By laying all of this out, Obama makes it hard for critics to make sweeping statements about his withdrawal plans. Which will be the desired effect by the White House. My guess is that the phrase "in consultation with the generals on the ground" will be heavily relied upon during the president's speech, to give him lots of wiggle room for the medium and long term. The "conditions on the ground" phrase will also be deployed in the president's speech in a similar fashion.
Having said all of that, the leaks appearing in the media so far point to President Obama laying out a plan to draw down his second "surge" into Afghanistan (his first surge was not called a "surge" by the media, and hence will likely be forgotten completely in the commentary after tonight's speech by the mainstream media). Obama announced his second surge of roughly 35,000 troops in December of 2009, at the same time he promised he'd begin withdrawing them in July of 2011. The media leaks so far point to Obama announcing the full schedule to withdraw these troops tonight. But there will be a significant fudge factor in whatever he announces.
For instance, Obama could announce that 15,000 American troops will be coming home by the end of this year, and that the remaining 15,000-20,000 will come home "by December of 2012." This would leave Obama open to the Pentagon keeping roughly 85,000 troops in Afghanistan for almost all of next year. This is also, pointedly, how Obama has been dealing with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq -- set a number and a deadline, and then leave lots of leeway for the Pentagon to meet those hard goals while keeping as many troops as they like "in country" until such deadlines approach.
Of course, the biggest media focus is going to be on the number of troops in the initial withdrawal. This number is not going to be as big as some would like it, and it's also going to be bigger than others would prefer -- no matter what number Obama actually announces. The Pentagon would reportedly like to see only 3,000-5,000 troops withdrawn, at least at first. The public would likely prefer the entire 35,000 troops to come home this year, if polling on the issue is correct. There are factions within the Obama administration who are backing both of these options. Obama, however, is likely to split the difference in one fashion or another.
My educated guess, after listening to all the speculation and leaking, is that Obama will choose between 10,000 and 15,000 troops for the initial withdrawal phase. Anything less than "five figures" is not going to be seen as a credible "substantial" withdrawal. While this number could conceivably be as high as 20,000, I think the president will choose to be more cautious in the first phase of bringing the troops home.
In the middle phase, Obama will likely announce that the rest of the second surge will come home by the end of next year. There are some pushing for shorter schedules to accomplish this (both "in nine months" and "in a year's time" have been discussed), but the seasonal nature of the Afghan war will likely preclude either option. Withdrawing the second wave in either nine months or a full year would be almost the same as pulling them out in the initial phase this year, in terms of the difference it would make on the battlefield. If Obama wants the medium-term troops to fight through next year's "fighting season" in Afghanistan, then the logical schedule to allow them to come home would be 18 months, or a deadline of the end of 2012.
Obama may speak in vague terms about the final phase of withdrawal, but is not likely to go beyond the marker the United States has already laid down -- that all the troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. Between now and then, Obama will likely say tonight, we will have to review the situation on the ground before further decisions are made.
So that's my prediction for the numbers Obama will announce tonight: 10,000-15,000 troops home in the first wave (to be accomplished either by the end of the year or within nine months); the remainder of the second surge to be withdrawn by the end of next year; and keeping to the end date of 2014 for the remaining troops (roughly 65,000 of them). What will be most interesting to me tonight is whether the president brings up Libya or Iraq, and whether he will be adjusting his exit strategy for either of our other two wars.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The problem here is two-fold.
1. Obama is doing this over the objections of the generals on the ground...
and
B. Obama is doing this strictly as a political stunt to appease someone... ANYONE....
But, as you indicate, rather than appease anyone it will likely just piss off everyone...
Michale.....
Michale,
Should the president follow the advice of the generals even when the generals are wrong?
Should the president follow the advice of the generals even when the generals are wrong?
Who says they are wrong?
The President...
What experience does Obama draw on to come to the conclusion that the generals are wrong??
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
President Obama telling the generals how to successfully prosecute a war is like me telling Joshua how to successfully be a teacher..
It's ludicrous in the extreme.
Obama's speech was a campaign speech straight out of the 2008 election.
His sole agenda is getting re-elected, let the welfare of the country be damned..
I never thought it possible, but I actually lost MORE respect for Obama...
Michale.....
It was a simple enough question, Michale. And, yet, you choose not to answer it.
Fine.
Michale,
Let me rephrase the question in a way that I know will resonate with you ...
Should the president disregard the wishes of a majority of the people, even when the people are right?
Should the president disregard the wishes of a majority of the people, even when the people are right?
Let me answer your question with one of my own.
What makes the "people" right and the generals on the ground wrong?
More specifically, who is in a better position to know what's best for the Afghanistan TOP??
The people and President Obama??
Or the leaders on the ground in Afghanistan??
You simply CANNOT prosecute a war based on public opinion polls...
Vietnam taught us that..
Unfortunately, Obama has forgotten that lesson, if he ever even understood it in the first place..
And the results are likely to be equally tragic..
Simply one more reason why Obama doesn't have the experience to be a good leader.
Michale.....
Ironically enough, Taylor Marsh says it a lot better than I can...
Obama’s Afghanistan Pitch Doesn’t Pass the Smell Test
http://tinyurl.com/64b587o
I think you will like her article VERY much, Liz.. :D
Michale.....
You missed my point entirely, Michale.
You missed my point entirely, Michale.
Now THERE'S a shocker!! :D
Seriously, I do see your point.
You are saying that the will of the people is paramount..
I disagree...
The generals on the ground in the TOP should be paramount.
THAT is how wars are won...
Public Opinion polls have NEVER won a war in the history of the world...
Michale.....
You have absolutely no idea what I'm saying, whatsoever.
I don't think you ever have.
Should the president disregard the wishes of a majority of the people, even when the people are right?
You said the people are right.
In this instance, the people are not right.
How CAN they be?? They have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the TOP.
The people aren't right. They are ignorant..
Michale.....
Michale -
First off, what's a TOP? Theater Of... um... ?
Sorry for the ignorance, but that's why I ask.
Secondly, in the Constitution I have here, it says the military of America is led by a civilian leader -- the President. The "Generals on the ground" don't make this decision, and never ever have. When the generals don't follow orders, they get fired (see: MacArthur). Even Ron Paul said so during the recent Republican debate, although all the other GOP candidates hewed the line you're suggesting.
Thirdly, when has ANY general on the ground suggested he needs less troops, and to please send home a bunch of the ones he's got? At any time in American history? In any war?
As you would say: "Anyone? Bueller?"
[totally off-subject, I hear they're talking about a Bueller sequel...]
Fourth, the people do indeed think it's time to bring the boys and girls home. [Sorry for that sexist "girls" there, but you either use the original phrase which doesn't involve females, or you keep to the children's terms, so there.] And, in a democracy where the people elect the civilian leadership of the miltiary, they do indeed have a voice in this debate.
I find it amusing that you rant and rail against Obama when he does something the public's not behind, but then when the public is behind something Obama's doing which you don't like, then "the people are wrong."
:-)
-CW
PS. All of this goes to show, my prediction was right -- no matter what number Obama said, both sides would immediately attack him with cries of "Too fast!" and "Too slow!"
Personally, I think he split the difference pretty well. I wanted to see more out in the initial phase, but I was surprised that the second phase is only a year long, and that the whole surge will be coming out in that time period. So, as far as I'm concerned, what Obama laid out is pretty much OK by me.
Liz -
Reports are that Biden won the debate within the administration on this one. Just FYI...
-CW
Michale -
Here's a quick quiz for you:
Which president, Bush or Obama, has taken Afghanistan more seriously?
Which president wanted to fight this war on the cheap for years?
Which president spent 7 years and accomplished very little in Afghanistan, while distracted elsewhere?
Which president lost a golden opportunity to get Bin Laden due to this distraction, and which president finally killed him?
And finally... next September, after Obama's second surge is gone, which president will still have TWICE the force in Afghanistan than the other one ever had?
Puts things in perspective a bit, doesn't it?
:-)
-CW
Chris,
Oh no, surely you of all people know better by now than to waste brain cells and life trying to reason with Michale. It is sad watching Elizabeth, and David (who I thought I might have persuaded a month or so ago) not to waste their time on the intellectually petrified (as in trees, as opposed to fearful, putting it as kindly as I can).
A while back, being older and I hope wiser than the average CW fan, I decided to make my life easier by ignoring all of Michale's "logic" and gibberish and just scroll by all his "facts". I'm still ticked off that any of your posts with lots of comments will probably just be Michale, banging his one note and hypocritical nonsense...Yes, he's often amusing and I appreciate his tech tips to me and his wit (I will NEVER forget "Help me Obama-wan, you're my only hope), but there is a time to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.
Cue 20 Michale spluttering responses in 3...2...1.
Kevin.
Chris,
Also, glad to hear you got to meet up with Matt again. You are both folks I'd love to meet in my remaining lifetime (and Liz, David, and the other long time regulars on this site). Michale too, although if he drives me nuts in the comments section I suspect the world would implode should we meet in person :-)
Kevin.
Chris,
I don't think we'll know what Biden really thinks about Afghanistan until he writes another book, sometime after his second term as vice president concludes.
I'm glad he is where he is but, as veep, he is no longer able to speak freely in public. I miss hearing him speak his mind on these big issues and the unvarnished truth that always characterized his analyses.
Sigh ...
First off, what's a TOP? Theater Of... um... ?
Theater Of Operations...
Secondly, in the Constitution I have here, it says the military of America is led by a civilian leader -- the President. The "Generals on the ground" don't make this decision, and never ever have. When the generals don't follow orders, they get fired (see: MacArthur). Even Ron Paul said so during the recent Republican debate, although all the other GOP candidates hewed the line you're suggesting.
Of course, the final decision rests with the CiC... But any CinC worth their salt will listen to the generals and give credence to their requests.
Look at all the history of this country. Every time a CinC ignored the generals on the ground, it ended very badly...
Thirdly, when has ANY general on the ground suggested he needs less troops, and to please send home a bunch of the ones he's got? At any time in American history? In any war?
Desert Storm... And look how well THAT ended.. Well, except for taking down Saddam...
[totally off-subject, I hear they're talking about a Bueller sequel...]
A sequel or a remake???
I also saw they are doing a FOOTLOOSE remake.. :D
PS. All of this goes to show, my prediction was right -- no matter what number Obama said, both sides would immediately attack him with cries of "Too fast!" and "Too slow!"
You were dead on ballz accurate!! :D Like I said, Obama was hoping to appease someone but he turns out appeasing NO ONE...
Oh well, just one more thing the Right can beat him up over for 2012...
Here's a quick quiz for you:
Which president, Bush or Obama, has taken Afghanistan more seriously?
Which president wanted to fight this war on the cheap for years?
Which president spent 7 years and accomplished very little in Afghanistan, while distracted elsewhere?
Which president lost a golden opportunity to get Bin Laden due to this distraction, and which president finally killed him?
And finally... next September, after Obama's second surge is gone, which president will still have TWICE the force in Afghanistan than the other one ever had?
Puts things in perspective a bit, doesn't it?
Did you notice that casualties under Obama has increased more than 5-fold??
That's the perspective that concerns me..
Obama is not a leader of men. That much is certain..
Kevin,
Also, glad to hear you got to meet up with Matt again. You are both folks I'd love to meet in my remaining lifetime (and Liz, David, and the other long time regulars on this site). Michale too, although if he drives me nuts in the comments section I suspect the world would implode should we meet in person :-)
:D Most likely...
Michale.....
Michale,
You said the people are right.
To be clear, I said no such thing.
Liz,
To be clear, I said no such thing.
Yes, you did...
Should the president disregard the wishes of a majority of the people, even when the people are right?
Of course, you could say that you were giving me a "fer instance"...
However, moving down THAT train of thought, the people are clearly not "right" here, so your question actually becomes, "Should the president disregard the wishes of the majority of the people, even when the people are wrong?"
And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course not."
So........
What were we talking about again??? :D
The ONLY people who truly know what is going on are the leaders on the ground in Afghanistan.. If they say that removing troops too early will likely erase all the military gains that have been achieved, a GOOD leader, a GOOD president would listen to that.
But Obama has his eye on one thing and one thing only.
Re-election.
As such, the ONLY thing he is listening to are the public opinion polls and NOT the generals on the ground.
He does so at his own peril...
Michale.....
However, moving down THAT train of thought, the people are clearly not "right" here, so your question actually becomes, "Should the president disregard the wishes of the majority of the people, even when the people are wrong?"
And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course not."
Ya see!? I even confused myself!! :D
That last part should read:
And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course."
In other words, yes.. The President should disregard the will of the people when the people are clearly wrong..
In other words, Public Opinion Polls are a crappy way to prosecute a war...
Michale......
Michale,
Clearly, I asked two rhetorical questions in my failed effort to make a point about your notoriously unpersuasive method of argumentation.
A point which you just as clearly missed.
Let me try again ... because I'm a sucker for punishment.
If public opinion polls are a "crappy way" to prosecute a war, then would you also stipulate that public opinion polls are an equally invalid way to condone the state-sanctioned use of torture?
Do you see where I'm going with this, NOW!?
As such, the ONLY thing [Obama] is listening to are the public opinion polls and NOT the generals on the ground.
Actually, Michale, Obama is listening to Biden ... finally!
Would you like to take a stab at what Biden thinks about opinion polls? This is a trick question and so, you may consider yourself forewarned.
Michale [17] -
Shouldn't that be TOO? I'll never understand military acronyms... sigh...
[off-subject: no, no, to quote Maggie Simpson's second word ever: "Sequel!"]
I notice you didn't answer any of my quiz. As for casualties, well, when you fight a war (as opposed to ignoring it and giving it short shrift a la Bush), then you lose some soldiers. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that? Even if you must quote "Airplane" to answer the question... heh.
[19] -
"Should the president disregard the wishes of the majority of the people, even when the people are wrong?"
And, of course, the answer to that question is, "Of course not."
I think you got tied up in your own double-negative knots. I think you are trying to say that the president SHOULD disregard the wishes of the people when the people are wrong, aren't you? I would agree -- on a very general level -- with that statement. But then, I'd apply it to something like healthcare, which you wouldn't agree with at all, would you? Heh. That knife is sharp on both sides, brother.
As for:
But Obama has his eye on one thing and one thing only.
Re-election.
As such, the ONLY thing he is listening to are the public opinion polls and NOT the generals on the ground.
Well, that's just nonsense. Because if Obama were a purely political animal, only listening to the polling and not the Pentagon, then he would be pulling out ALL our troops from Afghanistan within one year, and not a mere third of them. Because that is precisely what the polling indicates -- and that is precisely the difference between your caricature of Obama as a politician currying favor and reality. If Obama were poll-driven, he would have announced a MUCH faster pullout then he did.
[20] -
[Note: I answer these as I read them, just for everyone's information...]
OK, I withdraw that double-negative comment, as you caught the error.
Elizabeth -
Take heart in the fact that all the "inside the Beltway" folks know, at this moment, that Biden scored a huge foreign policy victory inside the White House this week. While you are right that it won't become public knowledge until afterwards, when everyone writes their books, Biden was the strongest "get them out as fast as possible!" voice within the administration, and he's getting a lot of kudos for winning the internal struggle about now.
:-)
-CW
CW,
Shouldn't that be TOO? I'll never understand military acronyms... sigh...
Yea, it should. But ya know the military. It's probably just a local unit designation as I haven't seen it used widely...
I notice you didn't answer any of my quiz. As for casualties, well, when you fight a war (as opposed to ignoring it and giving it short shrift a la Bush), then you lose some soldiers. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that? Even if you must quote "Airplane" to answer the question... heh.
Touche' :D
I see your point and it's a good point. But for it to be valid, one would have to pre-suppose that Obama is a bigger war-monger than Bush ever was...
I doubt the Left would want to go down THAT particular road. :D
However, credit where credit is due. You DO make a valid point..
Well, that's just nonsense. Because if Obama were a purely political animal, only listening to the polling and not the Pentagon, then he would be pulling out ALL our troops from Afghanistan within one year, and not a mere third of them. Because that is precisely what the polling indicates -- and that is precisely the difference between your caricature of Obama as a politician currying favor and reality. If Obama were poll-driven, he would have announced a MUCH faster pullout then he did.
Again, a good and valid point.
BUT...
But for the fact that the claim is not my claim. It's Obama's SecDef's claim..
Defence Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that the president had taken account of waning domestic political support when making the decision,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13893464
Further, both Admiral Mullens and General Patraeus have also testified that Obama's plan draws down too fast and is a much riskier undertaking.
If Obama is not listening to the POPs (Public Opinion Polls.... OK, OK, I just made THAT one up.. :D) and Obama is not listening to the generals on the ground, then who IS Obama listening to??
Call it naive, but the politics of re-election should NEVER enter into a Commander In Chief's decision making process.
Obama should do what's best for the Country and best for the troops. In that order..
What's best for Obama should NOT even enter into the equation.
Liz,
If public opinion polls are a "crappy way" to prosecute a war, then would you also stipulate that public opinion polls are an equally invalid way to condone the state-sanctioned use of torture?
As I mention above, for any decision that has ramifications for the security of the nation, Public Opinion Polls should NEVER enter into the decision making process...
A President needs to do what's right for the country, not what's popular, not what will serve his political agenda.
Michale.....
One also must take Obama's speech on Afghanistan with Libya at the forefront..
Obama is becoming the poster-child for a VERY unpopular war and it's actually the Left that is leading the charge..
SecState Clinton's remark questioning the loyalties of those who oppose the Libya adventure is the kind of rhetoric from the Right that the Left slams...
Once again showing that, to tell the difference between the Right and the Left, one needs a playbill...
Michale.....