Exclusive: Obama's Secret Afghan Exit Formula

[kpete]

Source: The Daily Beast

Exclusive: Obama's Secret Afghan Exit Formula
by Leslie H. Gelb

Obama is keeping under wraps a hush-hush plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan—and he hopes it will satisfy those pushing for a quick exit and the diehards determined to stay the course, Leslie H. Gelb reports exclusively.

By July 15, President Obama will unveil a plan to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan by upward of 30,000, but to withdraw them slowly under military guidance over 12 to 18 months, according to administration officials.

In sum, the quick exiters get the big 30,000 or so number, and the die-harders get one last year-plus at near full strength to weaken the Taliban. Ain’t democracy grand? Officials caution that since no announcement will be made for almost a month, and since Obama is still being battered from all sides, the projected withdrawal total and end dates could change somewhat. No one, not even Obama’s most intimate national-security aides—Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough, and Ben Rhodes—can be certain of their boss’ final calculations, but key officials feel confident that the president’s secret thinking will generally hold.

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-06-11/obamas-secret-afghan-exit-formula-leslie-h-gelb-with-exclusive-details?cid=hp:mainpromo2

[DCBob]

1. This sounds good to me... at least making some progress towards getting out of that hellhole..

:thumbsup:

[rusty fender]

29. Ever hear of a guy called "Baghdad Bob"?

:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :shrug: :rofl: :spank: :rofl:

[DCBob]

34. ever heard of a...

[rusty fender]

58. touche'

Yeah, I can be that sometimes.:spray:

[Citizen Worker]

33. Just a reminder: Nixon ran on a "secret plan" in 1968 and again in 1972. Beware of secret plans.

[tekisui]

44. Except we won't be. 3 and a half years is not an exit plan.

And that 3 and a half is NATO's hope. The US has separate operations that come with no fixed end.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the next president will have to be the one to get us out of Afghanistan. Obama likely won't, even if he gets a second term.

[wordpix]

60. ""VP Biden along with NSC Adviser Tom Donilon mark the center—there is no left."

snip:
"The positions of senior officials in this process reflect a mixture of serious thought and gamesmanship. Vice President Biden along with NSC Adviser Tom Donilon mark the center—there is no left. They’re pressing for a July announcement of 30,000 in cuts over 12 months. Tellingly, Obama already gave public voice to their rationale. “We will begin a transition this summer,” he said a week ago. “By killing bin Laden, by blunting the momentum of the Taliban, we have now accomplished a lot of what we set out to accomplish 10 years ago.”

:wtf: "No left?" Pres. O should remember who worked and donated to get him into office

[Hubert Flottz]

2. Obama needs to fire anyone even remotely connected to the...

republican party, bushco and the PNAC.

That's a change I could count on.

[Plucketeer]

35. That would be a start

But what would be even BETTER is to sit him down in front of a monitor and make him watch all of his campaign LIES to we who supported and fought to get him elected. Hell, Weiner lied about something I don't give a shit about. But our esteemed President lied every time he spoke - before being granted tenure in the oval office.

[No Elephants]

3. Isn't 30,000 the number he "surged?" Better than nothing, but...

[tekisui]

5. 30,000 was his second surge. His first surge was 26,000.

This is no withdrawal, and there ain't nothing quick about it.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

4. What bullshit. Quit trying to satisy the war-forevers.

The quick exiters get nothing. 30,000 out in a year and a half! There is nothing quick about that. And let's not forget that Obama increased the total number there by 56,000.

[Javaman]

55. Shhhh, stop injecting facts into the conversation. What did I tell you about that?

Don't make me come back there!

[xchrom]

6. so he's bringing the 'surge' down?

& there are still no afghan units ready to take our place?

[tekisui]

8. It sounds like he's only bringing the surge down over the course

of a year and a half, too. That means it will be only a token handful to come out in July.

[Vattel]

16. My prediction: 5,000 will come out this summer.

He will throw the anti-war folks a bone even as he bows to his overlord (the MIC). Now NATO is talking about 2014 as a target for Afghan security forces being ready to take over responsibility for Afghanistan's security. 2014! And that's only a target.

[JackRiddler]

26. Yeah, and it will be hyped like World War II ended.

[tekisui]

43. 5,000 would less than 10% of the forces he escalated.

And would be only 5% of the total number there.

[JackRiddler]

46. I'm aware.

Just look at how the ridiculous article in the OP is trying to make a reduction of the escalation over 18 months time sound like "withdrawal."

[tekisui]

47. It's ridiculous. Even suggesting that would satisfy the 'quick exiters'.

[JackRiddler]

48. Well, it will satisfy the "reasonable" ones.

Anyone not "satisfied" is defined as an extremist, someone who wants ponies. Their opinions are to be discounted. There will be a group of actors playing "liberal" pundits in the media (like Joe Klein or Maureen Dowd or whoever) who will be allowed to speak as "quick exiters" and say how awesomely satisfied they are and anyone who complains just hates the president or wants to disarm unilaterally, etc. etc.

[tekisui]

53. How right you are. Sad but true.

[Divernan]

28. To those who still support Obama, a promise of future action is all they require.

And they will tout promises as if they've all ready been kept. Like saying we're no longer at war in Iraq, because Obama withdrew all the "combat" troops.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/13/us-iraq-usa-army-idUSTRE68C1XU20100913

IRAQ "COMBAT" OVER BUT 50,000 U.S. TROOPS STILL IN DANGER.(Reuters)

U.S. Staff Sergeant Kendrick Manuel swung his rifle over his shoulder and grumbled about being viewed as a "non-combat" soldier in Iraq. "When NBC talked about the last combat troops are gone, they made it sound like everything is basically over," he said, after escorting a 19-truck convoy through a part of northern Iraq where roadside bombs and mortar attacks are still a danger.

"To us it was like a slap in the face, because we are still here ... we are still going in harm's way every time we leave out of the gate," Manuel said at a U.S. military base, Camp Speicher, near Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit.
U.S. networks such as NBC showed what the U.S. military labeled the last combat brigade rumbling into Kuwait. Soldiers whooped and shouted on camera that the war was over.

Yet, there are still six brigades made up of 50,000 troops in Iraq, ahead of a full withdrawal at the end of 2011. Their focus is to assist and advise their Iraqi counterparts, not lead the fight against insurgents, but they remain heavily armed and face frequent threats.

[Divernan]

30. More hype from MIC's BFFs in the White House , just like re "end of combat in Iraq"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/13/us-iraq-usa-army-idUSTRE68C1XU20100913

Iraq Combat over but U.S. Troops Still in Danger.

"The hype around the change of mission, which allowed President Barack Obama to say he was fulfilling a pledge to start ending the unpopular war, set off complaints among some soldiers left behind who were no longer viewed as combat troops.

U.S. military convoys are still shot at and bombed, and bases are mortared, despite a change in the name of the U.S. mission from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn. "That doesn't really change a thing, it is still dangerous," said 22-year-old Specialist Byron Reed, on his second deployment in Iraq, as he prepared to escort a convoy to Camp Speicher from Balad air base in Salahuddin province.

U.S. Staff Sargeant Kendrick Manuel said changing the mission's name meant little if any of his soldiers were to be killed by a roadside bomb. "If a life is gone, it is gone," he said. "As long as we are going in harm's way, it (the war) is not over for us."

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Bingo.

This is supposed to "satisfy" the war opposition. :eyes:

[Dokkie]

37. what war opposition?

see all Obama has to do is point to the even more war mongering party and whatever remains of the war opposition would vote for him. This is a 2 party system, it always results in a vote of the lesser evil :(

[PragmaticLiberal]

31. Unfortunately.....

there isn't.

[Fearless]

7. Well if he thinks he's fooling everyone, in reality he'll fool no one.

The rethugs will be screaming that he's the cut and run president, particularly if the Afghan regime falls apart. Meanwhile, his base will be asking why they're still there in two years at all, be them traditional military forces or "contractors" who are still spending our money at a pointless and useless endeavor.

[pasto76]

10. "Yeah, but I actually killed OBL"

british PM said few weeks ago that Afhganistan is no longer a global nthreat. They have their own security issues, but none that warrant our intervention. Or at least require a overhaul of the mission there.

[Javaman]

56. have to keep the gravy train going for the defense industry.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are nothing more than test grounds for their new deadly toys.

I'm beginning to think that these "wars" are less about whatever bullshit story they tell us and more about developing weapons for the next stage of warfare, which will be with China in about 5 to 10 years.

[No Elephants]

12. Quite a few Rethugs claim to want out of Afghanistan.

[Fearless]

15. I don't know any.

[Dokkie]

38. I can give you the names of a few of em

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and even fricken Sarah Palin (even if I doubt her sincerity) wants out of Afghanistan.

[krabigirl]

61. Several do, including my rep. I was shocked when I heard it but still.

Also, Ron Paul.

[Cal33]

19. It's the proverbial in trying to satisfy both, he satisfies nobody.

[naaman fletcher]

9. shhh... it's a secret. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

23. well, it is as much a secret....

as it is a withdrawal. He surged 56K, and wants to pull out 30K in 12-18 months- color me underwhelmed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. What, no 13 herbs and spices?

[tekisui]

13. 3 and a half years to get out is a pathetic exit plan.

In fact it is not an exit plan at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. "Oh what an enormous mess we make

when at first we practise to triangulate"

This will work out as well as fixing the economy did.

[PuffedMica]

17. Standby, the troops that get to draw down will abandon their equipment in Afghanistan

This will lead to another round of defense acquisition to replace the military equipment left behind.

The defense contractors are cheering as the gravy train make an additional run.

[Dokkie]

40. true

and if we are fortnate, the troops would be replaced by mercenaries and the weapons would not be transfered to fighters would would end up attacking us with it

[Mulhane]

20. And the Mercenaries?

There are more mercenaries and "shadowy status" killers there than US troops.

[1monster]

21. Hmmm... I seem to remember another "secret" plan to get us out of a war

and that war went on another seven years (although, it only took another five years to start drawing down the number of soldiers in that country. And the only reason all the troops were withdrawn in the seven years was because the North Vietnamese Army shoved them out.

[jkappy]

22. This Downturn Hardly Eqauls the Upturns in Libya & Yemen n/t

[LiberalEsto]

24. Didn't Nixon have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War? nt

[JackRiddler]

25. This article is Orwellianism with a tongue-in-cheek tone.

If it's accurate in reporting Obama's plan, then absolutely nothing has changed. It cannot be characterized as a change or as any form of concession to war opponents. All along the admin has claimed a withdrawal would "begin" in July 2011. 30,000 troops is no more than the second Obama escalation ("surge"). An additional 18 months time is as long as that "surge" has already run. If that's the rate of "withdrawal" US troops will still be "withdrawing" from Afghanistan in 2020.

[harun]

49. +1

[SoapBox]

27. Not much of a secret anymore...nt

[ixion]

32. Doesn't sound like a withdrawal at all, to me...

just more Beltway BS.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

39. no....

Listen, if the war against Afghanistan has useful purpose and is just, we should stay until we defeat our enemy (a notion that barely even makes sense in Afghanistan where it's largely our very presence that creates most enemies).

On the other hand, if it isn't clearly purposeful and just then there isn't any justification for it at all and we should withdraw with all possible dispatch. To do less is dishonorable in the extreme. It's a crime against humanity.

This "hybrid approach" Obama proposes seeks to recognize the futility and injustice of the war against Afghanistan by admitting the need to withdraw quickly, then draws it out to appease those who don't give a tinker's damn whether any war is purposeful or just-- those who are happy to commit crimes against humanity for their own purposes. WE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. The war is either something we should prosecute, or it's something we should have zero involvement in. Our national honor is not served by trying to have a little of both, nor are the causes of either victory or peace.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

[JDPriestly]

41. That's so Obama.

I think that if the very rich want to pay for the war, they should get their stupid war. But not one cent should be taken from any existing program to pay for these rich men's wars. The rest of us get absolutely nothing other than expensive gasoline at the pump in exchange for all the blood and guts we toss around the world. Horrors!

Let the Walton heirs pay for this. I don't see why any of us normal people should.

And for this, they want to cut money for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security as well as public school funding and everything else. It is just disgusting.

[ClarkUSA]

42. How the fuck does media whore Gelb know all this when he admits not even Obama's top aides know?

Is The Daily Beast getting private briefings from the President now? :sarcasm:

It's so damned easy for hit-needy websites to manipulate anti-Obama Outrage. God knows there are enough PUMAs.

[tekisui]

45. It is becoming increasingly clear that the advice Obama is getting

is for the removal of just a token number, 3-5,000. When you keep in mind that Obama increased the troop number there by 56,000, and that 5,000 would be only 5% of the total force there, it is not very 'significant'.

So far the high end mentioned is 15,000 from Levin, but that won't happen. 5,000 or even 10,000 over a year and a half is an insult to our intelligence. Aside from that 3 and half more years of war in Afghanistan is a wasteful and counter-productive plan. May was the deadliest month for Afghan civilians, the Taliban are easily retaking villages. Obama's surge didn't work. Time to get the hell out.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Prove it.

[Forkboy]

50. PUMAs everywhere, I tell you!

"Ah, but the strawberries...that's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes."

[ClarkUSA]

64. Is that what you think? That's a bit of an overstatement, given Obama supporters outnumber them.

However, it's clear that they live to attack President Obama 24/7. But you knew that. :)

[Forkboy]

65. Oh, there's some here, no doubt.

But sometimes it seems like you think every criticism of Obama stems from them. To me it seems kind of paranoid, hence my post.

[ClarkUSA]

71. Not "every".

But a statistically a very significant number of them, certainly. If you want to know more, you can PM me.

[Forkboy]

74. You can say it in public, I won't alert.

I would like to see your stats, the fact that you even have them being pretty interesting, beyond what they might say. But I think you can keep your conversations with me public. If you have evidence that backs up your claims the light of day won't hurt you. It might even help raise awareness for the Admins, which perhaps are the ones you should send your stats to. :shrug:

[Divernan]

52. Gelb won highest awards from State Dept.& Pentagon, Pulitzer Prize -journalism/New York Times

To name just the few of his lifetime of impressive accomplishments which can fit into a subject heading. Before providing this massively impressive list of accomplishments, I observe that you, being one of President Obama's staunchest champions on DU, are reacting with totally inappropriate obscene language to Mr. Gelb, when I suspect what really upsets you are all the anti-Obama comments by DUers on this thread. If you bothered to read the entire article, you would realize that Gelb is not attacking Obama. He gives a detailed and insightful outline of the range of opinions of the major players trying to influence Obama, and actually quotes Obama's statements from a week ago, wherein Obama stated that he WILL begin a transition this summer. Your obscene dismissal of an elderly statesman who won a Pulitzer Prize while reporting for the New York Times, as a "media whore" is so far beyond the pale, it beggars belief.
From the OP's link:

"The positions of senior officials in this process reflect a mixture of serious thought and gamesmanship. Vice President Biden along with NSC Adviser Tom Donilon mark the center—there is no left. They’re pressing for a July announcement of 30,000 in cuts over 12 months. Tellingly, Obama already gave public voice to their rationale. “We will begin a transition this summer,” he said a week ago. “By killing bin Laden, by blunting the momentum of the Taliban, we have now accomplished a lot of what we set out to accomplish 10 years ago.” In other words, most of the job is done, and the United States and NATO now can safely transition from a counterinsurgency approach, with a lot of troops and a lot of nation-building, to a more limited and focused counterterrorist strategy. Interestingly, the Biden-Donilon approach expects little from negotiations with the Taliban and seeks to proceed with troop cuts regardless of these negotiations. Their bottom line: Start transferring responsibility for the war to where it practically and ultimately belongs, to the Afghans.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn’t settled on a formula but tends to share Pentagon concerns about withdrawing too quickly and reopening doors for a Taliban surge. She is likely to emerge somewhere between the key White House clan and the military brass; that is, somewhere between the 3,000 to 5,000 desired by the military and the full 30,000 wished for by Biden. She also might seek a compromise on the withdrawal timetable. Clinton wants to push ahead on the negotiating front as well, though with a special twist. She wouldn’t talk solely with the Taliban leadership; rather, she’d also attempt to split off as many individual tribal leaders as possible.

As for departing Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, there isn’t much mystery about his dearest preference: the lowest possible reduction in the longest possible time. Barring that, he’d go along with a reduction figure of about 15,000 over 18 months with emphasis on backloading the withdrawal of combat troops and frontloading support forces. U.S. forces, he insists, can tip the scales militarily. “f we can hold on to the gains we’ve made over the last year or so and expand security further,” Gates said last week, “then we may be in a position where we can say we’ve turned the corner by the end of this year.” This line of reason, expressed publicly, tends to box in Obama politically, and won’t be easy to neutralize. It reinforces mounting criticism that Obama is “abandoning” Afghanistan, a false and nasty charge.

One lion has yet to roar: General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and soon-to-be CIA director. Everyone knows his position likens to Gates’. But just maybe, Obama and Petraeus have agreed that the general will say his piece in full only in the privacy of the Oval Office. If he would talk publicly only of options, that would relieve some pressure on the White House."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now as to your obscene name calling of 74 year old Mr. Gelb (who has a PhD from Harvard), and is the distinguished President Emeritus of the Foreign Relations Council, I refer all readers to this bio of Gelb's lifetime of award-winning accomplishments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Gelb

(snips)
Gelb was director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the Department of Defense from 1967 to 1969, WINNING THE PENTAGON'S HIGHEST AWARD, the Distinguished Service Award. Robert McNamara appointed Gelb as director of the project that produced the controversial Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

He served as an Assistant Secretary of State in the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1979, serving as director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs and winning the Distinguished Honor Award, the HIGHEST AWARD OF THE US STATE DEPARTMENT.

He was diplomatic correspondent at the New York Times from 1973 to 1977, and returned to the Times in 1981; from then until 1993, he was in turn its national security correspondent, deputy editorial page editor, editor of the Op-Ed Page, and columnist. This period included his leading role on the Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1986 for a six-part comprehensive series on the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative).

He serves as the chairman of the advisory board for the progressive foreign policy think tank, National Security Network, on the board of directors of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, member of the board of directors of the Truman Scholarship program, board of directors of the Nixon Center and the advisory board of United Against Nuclear Iran.

[tekisui]

57. Well done. You soundly defeated that attempt to attack the messenger.

[Divernan]

68. Thanks, but it was awfully easy, given Gelb's stature & accomplishments

[ClarkUSA]

62. So what? You didn't answer my question. How does he know something he says even top NSA aides don't?

[Divernan]

67. Gelb clearly presents the range of possibilities re #s of troops & time frame.

As stated at the very beginning of the article: "Officials caution that since no announcement will be made for almost a month, and since Obama is still being battered from all sides, the projected withdrawal total and end dates could change somewhat. No one, not even Obama’s most intimate national-security aides—Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough, and Ben Rhodes—can be certain of their boss’ final calculations, but key officials feel confident that the president’s secret thinking will generally hold."

In case you are not familiar with the standards of journalism followed at the New York Times, when high level sources are "off the record" or confidential, the editorial board requires at least one other solid confirmation. Obviously, a man who was president of the Foreign Relations Council for over a decade and is now President Emeritus, plus having a lifetime at the highest levels of the corridors of power in New York and Washington, has got many, many high level contacts to provide Gelb information re this topic.

You really like that phrase, "media whore" don't you? You throw that out at a man who won a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times & has a lifetime of distinguished service & work. Clearly, this is all you can come up with, rather than a substantive disagreement with any of the author's analysis.

You have consistently posted to make yourself one of President Obama's most ardent supporters on DU. You lose credibility and win Obama no support by calling distinguished Americans obscene names.

I repeat, respond to the article, if you have anything of substance to add to the discussion.

[ClarkUSA]

69. No, "Gelb clearly presents" his story as a sure thing aka. the OP headline.

He's shit-stirring like a good media whore to drive website hits. If he were honest, he wouldn't have chosen that bullshit sensationalistic headline.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

70. "Prove it!"

Oh, wait...you did just that. :rofl: :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

72. He furnished a red herring. He didn't answer my question.

[Nossida]

51. How about

Bring all the Troops home.
Don't pull 30k out, simply
to send in 30k Mercenaries.

[wordpix]

59. Obama---always the conciliator

[lunatica]

66. Whatever it takes, just do it

Finally there's talk of leaving!

[somone]

76. The audacity of triangulation

The ruling class is so pleased with his performance they're renewing his contract for another 4 years