Panetta: U.S., NATO will seek to end Afghan combat mission next year

[kpete]

Panetta: U.S., NATO will seek to end Afghan combat mission next year

by Craig Whitlock, Updated: Wednesday, February 1, 11:59 AM

BRUSSELS – The United States and NATO will seek to end their combat mission in Afghanistan next year and shift to a role of providing support and training to Afghan security forces, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Wednesday.

U.S. military commanders had said in recent weeks they would begin a transition this year toward taking more of an advisory role as Afghanistan’s national army and police take greater responsibility for fighting the insurgency. But Panetta’s remarks were the first time the Obama administration has said it could foresee an end to regular U.S. and NATO combat operations by the second half of next year.


“Hopefully by mid to the latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role,” he told reporters traveling with him to Brussels, where he is scheduled to attend NATO meetings this week.

Panetta said U.S. and NATO forces would still be actively engaged in helping Afghan forces operate. Although the Afghan army has grown in size and capability, it is still dependent on the United States military for airpower, troop movement, supplies and medical aid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/war-zones/panetta-us-nato-will-seek-to-end-afghan-combat-mission-next-year/2012/02/01/gIQAriZJiQ_story.html?hpid=z1

[bemildred]

1. I had a feeling that was coming. nt

[WheelWalker]

2. You won't hear me complaining. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Let's do it now!

[babylonsister]

4. What we've been waiting for (most of us); rec'd! nt

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Unless Mitt Romney wins...

I suspect he'd double down there and maybe even send more troops into Iraq.



Of course, we know that ain't happening.

[alp227]

7. Uhh did you hit Q when you really wanted N?

I predict a president Romney would initiate military action against Iran.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. How 'bout the trifecta?

[David__77]

6. Should've never, ever invaded and occupied in the first place.

That much is clear.

[Fool Count]

8. LOL. Don't the French, British and Australians, who all have just committed to staying through 2014

look silly now? I guess, they still could stay and fight on without the US.

[babylonsister]

11. OR, they'd be very happy to get the heck out earlier. nt

[DCBob]

10. Good timing.

The Obama campaign can make the point that if a Republican is elected they will likely keep the troops there much longer if not forever.

[Tx4obama]

12. UPDATE: Romney blasts Panetta after Afghanistan announcement (Grrrrrr)

Romney blasts Panetta after Afghanistan announcement

Las Vegas, Nevada (CNN) – Mitt Romney swept into Nevada on Wednesday evening and sharply criticized Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for declaring that the United States and NATO plan to end combat operations in Afghanistan sometime in 2013.

Romney said the public announcement jeopardizes the Afghanistan mission and “our commitments to freedom.”

“He announced that so the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it,” Romney said of Panetta during a rally in Las Vegas. “Why in the world do you go to the people that you are fighting with and tell them the day you are pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense.”

The former Massachusetts governor cast the decision as a sign of the Obama administration’s “naivete.”

SNIP

Full article here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/romney-blasts-panetta-after-afghanistan-announcement/

[phleshdef]

14. Geez, this should be the biggest discussion on DU today. WTH.

[musiclawyer]

15. Don't know who's advising POTUS now

But whoever it is seems to understand the problem. Recent actions have been very progressive. The base is still skeptical. The base does not want a triangulator or olive branch guy. They want a leader. If POTUS keeps this move to the left up, he shoud win the election by several points.

[Lasher]

16. 'Ending the combat mission' is a vague goal, open to definition.

It does not mean we're getting our soldiers out of Afghanistan. It does not mean we will stop paying mercenaries to be there. It does not mean we will stop hemorrhaging money there.

Remember Iraq? The mission was accomplished in May, 2003. But it wasn't.

Obama said he'd get all combat soldiers out in 16 months. But he didn't. By Aug. 31, 2010 he reduced the number there to 50,000. He called these remaining troops 'noncombat soldiers'. The rest of these soldiers didn't get out until December last year. The mercenaries are still there.

Then we quietly 'surged' 15,000 soldiers into Kuwait to make up for the soldiers we didn't want to withdraw from Iraq in December.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/12/MNR11MOPB2.DTL#ixzz1jaQNJVk2

The war in Afghanistan is already the longest in US history, having lasted over a decade now, and having cost $500 billion by conservative estimate. 1,893 US soldiers have lost their lives there. Panetta says we'll start winding this thing down "hopefully by mid to the latter part of 2013..." That means by the latter part of next year, maybe. Why not start right now?

I don't buy Panetta's bullshit. The only way we'll end this war is if Congress cuts off the funding.