Obama’s Afghan plan will include exit strategy

[kpete]

Source: Politico

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska – President Barack Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan will include a plan for “how we’re going to get folks out” after a secure environment can be passed to the Afghan government, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday.

“We have been there for eight years. And we’re not going to be there forever,” Gibbs said. “It’s important to fully examine not just how we’re going to get folks in, but how we’re going to get folks out.”

Gibbs spoke en route to Alaska, where the president stopped at an Air Force base in Anchorage before traveling on to Tokyo for his maiden Asia trip, which will take him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea.

“The president … has asked for, and will want, benchmarks to evaluate our progress,” Gibbs said. “That’s part of his desire to get a sense of where we are rather than committing to an open-ended conflict.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29461.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. As I keep saying, readying tea leaves is not hard

it is HAPPENING... just not today... but we are going to bring the troops home.

[Uben]

2. Oh Hell No!

You can't have an exit strategy! That will let the enemy know when we're leaving! We're screwn!

When the hell did we get people in the whitehouse who actually plan for a way out of a conflict?

I want my money back!





/sarcasm

[tekisui]

3. The past day has been very hopeful.

I hope the rational head prevail, and the hawks take a nose dive.

[ShortnFiery]

4. It will also include sacrificing 30,000 troops to the MIC. n/t

[David Zephyr]

5. I have no idea what this means.

"It’s important to fully examine not just how we’re going to get folks in, but how we’re going to get folks out.”

That statement can be taken various ways.

[lyonn]

8. That is a bothersome quote

"not just how we're going to get folks in,...."

The Afghans want us out.

The Taliban/bad guys get paid handsomely to protect the roads when supplies are being transported to our troops. Is this any way to fight a war? Pay off the enemy to not shoot us?

Eight years ago we got the Taliban out in about a month. If they return and start running the country we can strike again. Spending 30,000, plus or minus, troops to keep the status quo and lose god knows how many of our troops does not make any sense to me.

No more Vietnams. All wars are dreadful, VN was truly dreadful.

Let's concentrate on helping Pakistan work out their bad elements without trying to take over another country. Where will we get the troops? Our fellows are totally worn out. Get a draft started if they want another 30 -100,000 more troops.

It's late, after I sleep on this and re-read statements from the Pres, I will no doubt feel less down about that comment.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

10. I agree, let's do more to help Pakistan, but...

I'm curious as to how you know what the Afghan people want? It seems to me, from what we know, what they want is safety, stability, and enough prosperity to get by. Whoever proves capable of providing that is who they will back.

Secondly, if we can splinter the Taliban movement by bringing some of its factions into the fold, why not do so? It's a broad movement with some factions being more violent and open to helping foreign jihadists than others. Divide and conquer seems wise, given that.

Third, you want to help Pakistan? Well, they're making it pretty clear what they want. They want us to wage a major offensive on the Afghan side of the border, similar to the one they're waging in South Waziristan. If we're going to do that, to cooperate with the Pakistani military in an effective way that crushes the Taliban in their strongholds (instead of this cat and mouse game both the U.S. and Pakistan are playing now), we're going to need more troops.

[lyonn]

13. There have been more comments from the reporters in

Afghanistan that seem to believe the majority want us out. Some say (nice cop-out comment, ha) they want us to help them secure certain areas. Easier said than done. They don't like us acting like we are running the country, we don't seem to be providing security for the past 8 years. We keep to country stirred up taking sides with Karzai govt..

I think making nice with some elements of the Taliban makes sense.

It could work putting a good portion of what troops we have over there to protect the borders, big border tho. Having mini bases scattered over that country looks like a big losing situation, sitting targets for hit and run operations against us. Which seems to be happening now.

Afghanistan and Pakistan want our help but don't like taking orders from us. Just cash and maybe knowing that we would be on the "ready" to protect them if things turned nasty. This is their battle. They need our backing but, how much? Not thousands more of our troops stomping around Afghanistan. It appears that Pakistan is taking action against their opponents, taliban, etc., about time. I certainly haven't a glue as to how corrupt the Pakkie govt. is. Self preservation may rule for their leaders.

[sam sarrha]

6. should be.. GET OUT NOW.!! QUIT SUPPORTING DRUG DEALERS WHO RIGGED/STOLED THE ELECTION.!!

OUR SOLDIERS SHOULDN'T DIE PROPPING UP CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS.. THE PLACE IS A LOST CAUSE.. A BLACK HOLE, A MEDIEVAL FEUDAL CORRUPT THEOCRACY, ITS NOT FIXABLE..

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

7. Cool

Should be interesting to hear what his Afghan policy will entail. It's supposed to be announced around Thanksgiving.

[truthisfreedom]

9. Nice. Those two magic words weren't even in cheney's vocabulary.

bush never said them in sequence at any point in his erected presiduncey.

[optimator]

11. "exit strategy" is a euphamism

This is more triangulation to attempt to please naive people on the left.
It does not mean ending the war.

[bamacrat]

12. If we get out by 2012 would that assure re-election?

That would definitely rally all dems liberals and anyone not hungry for war that doesnt have their head up their ass.

[amandabeech]

14. We're in and there are no guarantees on when we're going out.

The exit date can easily drift further and further into the western horizon.

Afghanistan is a war of guerillas and insurgents. It's not WWI, WWII or the Civil War where you have battle lines and armies that surrender.

We have won the latter type of war. We have yet to come close to winning anything resembling the former. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any invading power in the last 200 years who has managed to win the former. There's nothing about Afghanistan that suggests that it will be any different, but I do note that neither the British Empire or the Soviet Union found success in Afghanistan.