Obama restates limited goals for Afghanistan victory.

[Radical Activist]

Did anyone else notice this? Have the goals for declaring victory in Afghanistan always been so modest? Here's what Obama said today:

"Make no mistake, we have a clear goal: we are going to break the Taliban's momentum, we are going to build Afghan capacity, we are going to relentlessly apply pressure on Al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same."

We aren't even trying to defeat the Taliban anymore. We're just going to break their momentum and "apply pressure." I believe that's a change.

Yes, I know true progressives are supposed to express nothing but doom and gloom about Obama betraying us all. But, can I still be encouraged by two positive signals?

1) We have very limited, achievable goals for declaring victory. In fact, their subjective nature means we could declare victory and leave at any time.

2) Obama just took command away from the general who wanted to extend the conflict and gave it to the general who stuck with the withdrawal time-line for Iraq. That's an indication that Obama continues to support the Iraq withdrawal and wants similar results to fulfill his goal of leaving Afghanistan in 2012.

I know some people will accuse me of being a war mongering sell-out for writing anything but the most negative predictions of Obama escalating the war endlessly until the end of time. But objectively, these look like good signs that Obama is trying to end the war sooner rather than later. Maybe he's hearing what we have to say about getting out now.

[tekisui]

1. You say modest, I say arbitrary and undefined.

Sure victory could be declared anytime. But, you don't need to double troops force to do it.

[mdmc]

2. unified stable pro-west secular Afghanistan

anything less = cut and run..

[karynnj]

4. I'm confused - whose position is this?

It's not Obama's, not Biden's, not Kerry's etc

[gratuitous]

9. If I read the post right

That position will be adopted by our fellow Americans who will be running against Democrats in 2012 and 2014 and into the foreseeable future.

As to the original post, call me cynical, but I'll wait and see what happens rather than try to divine at this remove just what this latest rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic might mean.

[mdmc]

13. that is victory

otherwise, why be there at all?

Do we want an anti-west Afghanistan?
Do we want a non-secular Afghanistan?
Do we want a non-stable Afghanistan?

No, we want a little NJ in Central Asia.

[karynnj]

24. There is no way that we will get a secular little NJ there - it is far outside their culture

The goal that I have heard is an Afghanistan that does not allow a terrorist group shelter and an Afghanistan that does not destabilize (further - it does a good job of this on its own) Pakistan.

It can still be suspicious of the west - and it very likely will be secular.

[Radical Activist]

6. Wow. I don't often see an argument for keeping out troops there.

I'm not convinced we can get that kind of government by occupying the country.
I also doubt that's the kind of government they'll have if we leave now.

There's obviously no easy answer.

[mdmc]

15. That is why we opposed the Afghan invasion in the first place

A stable pro-west secular unified Afghanistan (or Iraq) is at least 50 years of blood and treasure away.

[Radical Activist]

28. I don't know.

Pro-west is expecting too much but Iraq had been stable and secular before we invaded. I think both countries can be in the near future.

[JDPriestly]

8. "Unified, stable, pro-west, secular Afghanistan"

Have you been smoking some of that stuff they grow in them thar hills in Afghanistan?

Because only in your dreams will you get a "unified, stable, pro-west, secular Afghanistan." It would be a pleasant dream, a wonderful dream. On that we can agree. But it will be a long time before that dream is a reality.

And that dream will not become reality at the end of a gun.

Our military efforts are pushing people who might be our allies to oppose us. We Americans would react the same way. If any country invaded us, even a country like Canada or the United Kingdom, we would unite behind any ideology, any religion, any belief and fight the invader. That is the way we are. We are proud.

Look at how we react to illegal immigrants. The people who come into our country from South and Central America are just about the most delightful people in the world. They are family-oriented, joyful, hardworking. They are my neighbors. I know Latin American culture fairly well. We couldn't have more delightful neighbors. (I know. I've lived in some other countries.) But still we want to know who comes across our borders and we want to decide whether they enter or not. It's just human nature, but it is especially the nature of proud people like Americans and the people of Afghanistan.

So, there's nothing wrong with unrealistic dreams. But how much are you willing to pay in terms of human lives and money to make your dream real? That's the question.

Your slogan is just that -- a sales pitch, a slogan. It's not real.

[mdmc]

16. a stable pro-west unified secular Afghanistan is at least 50 years away

50 years of wasted blood and treasure..
Yet this was "the plan" at invasion time. Yet, it IS just a slogan..

[sixmile]

3. If we leave who will guard the poppy fields?

We should have learned from the Russians, but our faux-macho MIC keeps this gravy train rolling on while our country literally falls to pieces.

[mike_c]

5. all of those goals are about process, rather than outcome....

We are, in fact, already doing most of those things-- they're actions, not results. We are "breaking the Taliban's momentum"-- there are no existing standards for judging when it's "broken," so there aren't any clear thresholds for success. Likewise, we are "applying pressure to al-Qaeda and it's membership" and "building Afghan capacity," but also without any clear objectives that would signal success or failure.

This is just imperialism without the name. It's about interfering with a client nation's self governance and the PROCESS of imposing American will abroad. There's nothing in there about defeating any enemies or vanquishing their armies because it's not a war, per se-- it's an imperialist struggle against the very people we're pretending to fight for.

[Radical Activist]

10. "We are, in fact, already doing most of those things"

That's why I see it as a positive sign. Obama just declared a definition of victory that we've arguably met already. That means he can justify leaving sooner to Congress and the public. Pretty smart, huh? It's what I would do if I were trying to get out now. If he named a more difficult, long-term goal then I'd be concerned that he was trying to keep us there.

Yes, I realize the reasons this war was started, and I'm also aware that it's a war Obama did not choose. Isn't it possible that he's is trying to make the imperial empire a little less deadly and overtly damaging to the rest of the world? Just a little?

[femmedem]

21. Exactly! I said some of the same downthread before I read this

but without your eloquence and clarity. And labeling it as imperialism is spot on.

[jonnyblitz]

25. good post. nt

[William Z. Foster]

7. nothing to do with doom and gloom

People are opposed to military involvement in Afghanistan. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It has nothing to do with "doom and gloom about Obama betraying us all."

Why is not "even trying to defeat the Taliban anymore" a positive sign? How is having "very limited, achievable goals for declaring victory" a positive sign? Sounds to me like the mission is collapsing, the reasons for getting involved in the first place are being abandoned, and political worries - such as being able to "declare victory" - have taken precedence over other goals. This will be reminiscent of the catastrophic involvement in Viet Nam for many, if anything.

I don't see cause for celebration here, and there certainly is no excuse for taking a gratuitous swipe at critics of the war. Was this all merely an excuse for you to malign critics of the war?

The you say "maybe he's hearing what we have to say about getting out now." WTF? You just got done accusing critics of the war of having an agenda - of spreading doom and gloom and of attacking Obama.

This is a very confusing and self-contradictory post.

[Radical Activist]

14. So why aren't you celebrating?

You wrote:
"Sounds to me like the mission is collapsing, the reasons for getting involved in the first place are being abandoned, and political worries - such as being able to "declare victory" - have taken precedence over other goals. This will be reminiscent of the catastrophic involvement in Viet Nam for many, if anything."

According to your analysis, those are signs that Obama is preparing to leave sooner rather than later, even if it is a lost war like Vietnam. If you're goal is to end the war then that's cause for celebration. Shouldn't you WANT the goals to be abandoned?

So why don't you celebrate? Maybe because you can't stand to acknowledge anything positive as it relates to Obama? That's what it looks like anyway. It looks like you're more focused on the personality than the issues.

[William Z. Foster]

17. I am so lost

Why would I celebrate a collapsing and disastrous mission? This sounds like the "you want America to fail" line of reasoning.

How is this good news for the administration? Why would I want the administration to fail?

I "can't stand to acknowledge anything positive as it relates to Obama?" What are you talking about? I would love to have something positive to acknowledge. This is not it. That does not mean there are none. People are criticizing the administration because it has failed to do the very things that we all hoped we would be acknowledging and celebrating by now.

I hardly talk about Obama at all - the problems we face are much bigger than any one politician - and do not talk about personalities. Again what are you talking.

You think that if this turns out like Viet Nam - "even if it is a lost war like Vietnam" - I would be celebrating? WTF?

To answer your implied question - no I do not blame America first, and I do not want America to fail, do not want a catastrophe, do not hate Obama, and do not wish the administration to fail.

[Radical Activist]

26. I assumed you wanted to end the war quickly.

I guess I was mistaken. If you want the war to end quickly then the signals I wrote about in my OP are reason for encouragement. I didn't realize you were more concerned with "winning" the war, whatever that means.

[Andy823]

11. Good points.

I want the war to end as much as anyone does, but I also know for a fact you just can't pull out in a heartbeat, it will take time. I didn't agree with the president when he put in more troops, but then again I do not have all the information he has either. I think setting a time line is the best way to pull out and not leave the country in a mess. The government in Afghanistan is corrupt as they come, and no matter when we leave, it will still be corrupt! The Soviets found out that they could not win a war there, and we will also. The president has to make decisions, and even though I may disagree with the time line, I think president Obama is our best chance at getting out of Bush's two wars! Can you imagine how much of a mess not only the wars would be in, but our economy as well if McCain had won? By now he would have probably died of some "mysterious" ailment and we would have president "MORON" Palin in charge! People should think about this when they get upset at the lack of progress in getting our troops home. If the right were still in charge, or if they by some miracle get back in charge in 2012, we would be in a constant state of war invading country after country for God knows what reasons! Same goes with the mess in the Gulf. We have already seen, and heard, how the republicans would handle this mess, make the taxpayers fork out the money and let BP off the hook!

I may not agree with everything he does, but I am sure glad he is in office an not the other choice we had, and contrary to what some may say, he has accomplished a lot since he took office, more than Bush did in 8 years. I will grip and complain, but I will be behind him in 2012 because I now what how much trouble we would be in if he republicans get back in the WH!

And if it helps I don't think you are a war monger for posting this!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Sounds like Obama's version of Nixon's "Peace with Honor".

Or, CYA writ large.

[Radical Activist]

33. Yes, it does.

I interpret this as Obama's way of making a withdrawal politically palatable no matter what conditions are like a year or two from now. It's his way to declare victory and leave. If this means he's still committed to pulling out by 2012 or sooner then I'll take it as a good sign and not worry about how he sells it to the pro-war crowd.

[zipplewrath]

18. Check your realities.

1) We have very limited, achievable goals for declaring victory. In fact, their subjective nature means we could declare victory and leave at any time.

Then we would leave now. These are not "achievable goals". You may have noticed not only haven't we "broke their momentum" but in fact they are breaking ours. We are badly behind schedule on training anyone to take over, and the "government in a box" is not working, predominately because the Karzai government is corrupt to the core. Name the offensive in Afghanistant that is working right now?

2) Obama just took command away from the general who wanted to extend the conflict and gave it to the general who stuck with the withdrawal time-line for Iraq. That's an indication that Obama continues to support the Iraq withdrawal and wants similar results to fulfill his goal of leaving Afghanistan in 2012.

Paterus didn't "stick with the time line" he had a timeline "stuffed down his throat" by the Iraqi goverment. It's called the SOFA and he didn't like it.

You're looking for hope and change, and you're committed to finding it, even if it isn't there.

[Radical Activist]

27. At least you're predictable.

First, the situation in Afghanistan is fluid. Information becomes outdated quickly and I don't believe that anyone not in the country can say with certainty if what you claim is true. I was certain that Iraq would only get more violent but I underestimated the military's capabilities at suppressing a large insurgency.

But I don't think you're appreciating the point I'm making. Even if what you write is true, Obama can plausibly claim that the goals he just stated have been met and leave at any time. By not pledging to totally defeat Al Qaeda, then the US is free to claim victory and leave so long as Al Qaeda hasn't completely overrun Afghanistan. I interpret that as a sign that Obama is giving himself wiggle room to get out sooner rather than later even if the original goals of the mission aren't accomplished. Isn't that the most important thing for those of us who oppose the war?

You worte: Paterus didn't "stick with the time line" he had a timeline "stuffed down his throat" by the Iraqi goverment. It's called the SOFA and he didn't like it.

So what? I don't really care what his motivations were. He stuck to the timeline without making excuses and we're getting out of Iraq. That's the goal. Your point is irrelevant unless what you're most worried about is taking shots at Obama. Honestly, it seems like proving that there's no hope and change is becoming more important to you than the issues themselves.

[zipplewrath]

36. Who will stuff it this time?

That's the question. You claim how successful he was at a rapid draw down in Iraq as a basis for have optimisim in his command in Afghanistan. But if there is no one to stuff a withdrawl plan down his throat there, like there was in Iraq, where is the basis for your optimism?

I have no problem with hope. I've been guilty repeatedly of having it. The problem becomes when "hope" is just a euphamism for "kidding yourself". Given half a chance, Patreaus would still be hip deep in Iraq. He's now being given half a chance in Afghanistan.

[Radical Activist]

37. You make several assumptions without much evidence.

First, we had the military power to keep troop levels up in Iraq. If there was anyone forcing the hand of Patreaus it was public pressure against the war, followed by Obama taking office. Both of those pressures exist today over Afghanistan.

Neither of us can read Patreaus' mind. But it really doesn't matter if he secretly wanted to stay in Iraq as you assume. He followed the plan of withdrawal, which is what a soldier should do when given direction by the civilian head of state. So, it's reasonable to think he's likely to do the same in Afghanistan where the President has set a date to begin withdrawal next year. Career military understand that they're supposed to put their personal feelings aside when a mission has been ordered and Patreaus knows he just replaced a guy who got fired for failing to do so.

You don't need to have hope. I think you'd reach stronger conclusions if you didn't always discount any positive signs and cynically make the worst assumptions. Realism would be a happy middle ground for you to settle on.

[femmedem]

19. "relentlessly apply pressure on Al Qaeda and its leadership" until when?

That's not a clear goal. That's more like a strategy to achieve...what?

[Radical Activist]

29. Until we decide to leave.

That's really the beauty of it. We could leave now by that measure. The negative is that it could also be used as an excuse to stay forever. But, Obama doesn't seem to have any enthusiasm for continuing this war. All we can do is keep up the pressure and see if he stays on track.

[KonaKane]

20. While I remain a staunch opponent to this war, Obama is playing this very smartly

By limiting the scope to goals like this, he is keeping his "defense cred" with the still sizable war supporting (and voting) crowd, and cleverly giving us an out from a clearly hopeless situation.

This is one of those places where Obama shines - he has the capability to achieve an end and look like a victory to both sides.

[Radical Activist]

30. That's how I interpret his actions as well.

While I think he should get out sooner, I see this as laying the groundwork for a politically feasible withdrawal no matter what the situation in Afghanistan is a year from now.

[dipsydoodle]

22. Didn't know Afghanistan was in the World Cup.

:shrug:

[elleng]

23. Good signs, I agree, Radical.

Thanks

[sendero]

31. Achievable?

No, they are not.

8 years ago we were told this shit and look where we are.

No, Afghanistan is not a military problem and there is no military solution.

[Radical Activist]

32. I thought Iraq would only get more violent.

I underestimated modern counter-insurgency tactics. I also believe it made a difference when people saw that US troops were leaving.

There are Afghans who don't want a Taliban government and will embrace an alternative if/when they see the US occupation drawing down. I suspect the people who fought the Taliban in a civil war for years are happy to see the US do some of the work for them.

[earcandle]

34. I agree it appears that way, which is a good thing. We really can't take the catholics our of

America and in a similar way, we can't take the taliban out of
Afghanistan.

They are the people.  The main people who are fighting against
being invaded. 
Silly to keep propping them up like the enemy.  Al Queda, yes,
Taliban are just who
we would be if someone invaded us.  Afghan needs the men and
women who stand for their sovereignty.

Isn't this so?  

[Zorra]

35. Ain't gonna happen as long as that crook Karzai holds power. n/t