"Allen, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, says the White House hasn't given him any timetable for further cuts after September 2012. That's when the last of the 30,000 "surge" troops Obama dispatched will be gone, leaving about 68,000 U.S. soldiers.
"No one has conveyed to me that at the end of September I'm going to get a number" for more withdrawals through 2013, Allen said in an interview here Tuesday. He said the president's policy, as he understands it, is for a "strategy-based drawdown" that's driven by the situation on the ground, rather than a preordained timeline.
Yes, but that's precisely what the debate is about.
According to Pentagon officials, Allen favors keeping most of the 68,000 in place until late 2013, so that the U.S. has two "fighting seasons" to bolster Afghan troops before giving them full responsibility in 2014. But Vice President Joe Biden and some other administration officials want a commitment to steady, sustained withdrawals through next year's election campaign. Allen told me that "there could be a quicker drawdown" if military conditions allow but that there is no "glide path." Some in the White House would disagree." Ignatius
------------------------------------------
Somehow the present generation of general officers think they are in charge of geopolitics and national policy. The Iraq "crowd" were sure rhey could dictate the terms of US eventual withdrawal from that "country." Even now there is a three-star left behind in Baghdad as leader of "the three hundred" who seems to think that he can do what he likes without approval of the Iraqis. Good luck to him.
In Afghanistan, General Allen, USMC does not seem to comprehend that he does not have a free hand. The American people are fed up with these two wars. Allen is reputed to be a smart man. He should remember that marines work for the American people like everyone else in the armed forces. In the end, the opinion of the citizenry determines foreign policy. Bush fils agreed to the terms of our withdrawal from Iraq because the Americnn people had turned against the war. If the next president is a Republican, that president will inevitably be forced to accept the desire of the American people for an end there.
I have favord a CT strategy for Afghanistan with continuation of SOF operations on a personnel base of 20,000 soldiers (more or less). I think we are past that now. I think that is no longer possible politically either in America or South Asia. Time has moved on.
IMO we will go to the "three hundred" option in Afghanistan. Pursuit operations againt dangerous extremists must continue but such operations will not be based in Afghanistan for long. pl
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111222/OPINION04/712229965
I could be wrong but I believe by the end of the next year the foreign policy of the USA could be dramatically impacted by events elsewhere than Afghanistan. Like PL is prefer that some capability CT wise exist there for a long long time.
Wondering what we know about US military ops along the Iranian/Afghanistan border--open source of course?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 22 December 2011 at 12:01 PM
I think, hope, you are right about the eventual pull-out of US forces from Afghanistan. I am one of those who believe we should have been out of Afghanistan long ago.
This might be as good a place as any to say, for the record, that you were right about the US "completely" withdrawing from Iraq, and I was wrong (believing that the US would find some way to remain in force on at least some of the super bases built there). I hope you are just as right this time. I don't mind at all being wrong on Iraq. Would that I were in a similar fashion more often.
I am now watching with horror the lead up to war with Iran. I would LOVE to be wrong on that one.
Posted by: RAISER William | 22 December 2011 at 12:35 PM
Elsewhere than Afghanistan, me wonders if Gen. Allen (and those with like-minded pigeon holed mindset) doesn't understand the latest from the CSTO crowd -- no support or basing of U.S. Forces on CSTO member soils.
http://siberianlight.net/csto-slams-door-on-us-bases-in-central-asia/
Gone are the 'stans' for basing. We have left a bad taste in the mouths of the Uzbeks with our airbase setup. If anger could tie a knot, what the Uzbeks could tie would fill a room, literally with their anger. D.C. has squandered and thrown away the good will that was handed our way after 911, with their errant 'we've-got-to-support-Israel-at-all-costs' mantra ahead of what is good for U.S. and with the nations whom we have relations with. D.C. really has pissed off the ME crowd.
Lilly pond approach as our next basing option?
Posted by: J | 22 December 2011 at 01:57 PM
The article states: "One boon for the Taliban is that governance is very poor in most parts of Afghanistan. That's the weakest link of the U.S. strategy -- and a problem even the optimists don't contest."
After a decade the Afghan's still don't trust Karzai and his government. Neither do I and I don't think he's worth a dollar of my money or the life of another American. Let David Ignatius give up his tax cuts and go enlist if he thinks supporting the current Afghan government is worth it.
Posted by: Fred | 22 December 2011 at 02:45 PM
"Somehow the present generation of general officers think they are in charge of geopolitics and national policy."
Clinton was the first president that I can recall where quite a few folks questioned his legitimacy - legitimacy for the office, legitimacy for the CinC position, the whole 9 yards. You had guys refusing to salute him, taking down his portrait, etc.
Opening that Pandora's box was a disaster. 8 years of delegitimizing horseshit from the right, and then another 8 years of the same from the left, and now another 3 years from the right.
When half the electorate sincerely believes what they've been told, that the President is not a legitimate holder of that office, you end up with officers who believe it as well and act accordingly. Which is what we've been seeing now for quite some time.
A yearly refresher course on the chain of command might be appropriate.
Getting us the hell out of Afghanistan would also be appropriate.
Posted by: The Moar You Know | 22 December 2011 at 04:32 PM
TMYK
The process of sending "hot-running" officers to civilian graduate schools well precedes the Clinton era which was a "marker" that showed how far outside their "lane"some officers had strayed. I dislike Clinton as a draft dodger, a political version of Jane Fonda but there was a limit. The army sent me to a civilian graduate school fully funded as a major, so this is not "sour grapes." They also sent me to the War College in residence. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 December 2011 at 05:00 PM