.Al-Qaeda so weak that US Afghanistan withdrawal would be justified
Senior officials who appeared to support a faster exit plan told the New York Times that 20 of al-Qaeda's 30 prominent leaders in the region had been killed in the past 18 months.
During the May 2 raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, the US seized intelligence materials at the al-Qaeda leader's compound which showed that his lieutenants were too afraid for their lives to plan overseas terror attacks.
An official said that the description of Pakistan's tribal areas as a "safe haven" was now a misnomer. Mr Obama has doubled the rate of drone attacks in Pakistan's autonomous areas, adding to tensions with Islamabad but reaping deadly results against al-Qaeda.
Given that one of his major justifications for continuing the war in Afghanistan has been to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaeda, many of his senior officials are arguing that he now has the latitude to bring home US troops at a faster rate than anticipated.
With growing concern in the United States about the duration and cost of the war, Mr Obama is under mounting pressure to reduce the US military presence.
When he ordered 33,000 extra forces to Afghanistan in December 2009 in an attempt to thwart an emboldened Taliban's momentum, bringing the total deployed to 100,000, he said he would begin withdrawing forces in July 2011.
He is expected to announce next week how large that number will be. Most forecasts have put the figure at 3,000 to 5,000
Telegraph
I don't think O will bring to many troops home, maybe a few to appease the hard left, but just a few. If he were to bring them all back now, they would just add thousands to the unemployment rolls, and make his reelection that much harder. The safest place for the soldiers now is deployed and employed
During the May 2 raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, the US seized intelligence materials at the al-Qaeda leader's compound which showed that his lieutenants were too afraid for their lives to plan overseas terror attacks.
An official said that the description of Pakistan's tribal areas as a "safe haven" was now a misnomer. Mr Obama has doubled the rate of drone attacks in Pakistan's autonomous areas, adding to tensions with Islamabad but reaping deadly results against al-Qaeda.
Given that one of his major justifications for continuing the war in Afghanistan has been to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaeda, many of his senior officials are arguing that he now has the latitude to bring home US troops at a faster rate than anticipated.
With growing concern in the United States about the duration and cost of the war, Mr Obama is under mounting pressure to reduce the US military presence.
When he ordered 33,000 extra forces to Afghanistan in December 2009 in an attempt to thwart an emboldened Taliban's momentum, bringing the total deployed to 100,000, he said he would begin withdrawing forces in July 2011.
He is expected to announce next week how large that number will be. Most forecasts have put the figure at 3,000 to 5,000
Telegraph
I don't think O will bring to many troops home, maybe a few to appease the hard left, but just a few. If he were to bring them all back now, they would just add thousands to the unemployment rolls, and make his reelection that much harder. The safest place for the soldiers now is deployed and employed
posted by madtom at 5:13 PM
2 Comments:
That's ridiculous-- bringing them home means jobs here in towns and cities where they are based. Bringing them home is NOT discharging them. Do it now. I cannot see the point anymore.
Best case---Set up a corrupt government that serves the drug trade, arm them, hope they can keep the Taliban from taking over the country and watch them take rich Arabs money to set up madrassas and compounds for who knows what as long as it's Islamic. All we have gained is safety for the opiate trade. Nothing else will change. Little boys will still 'dance' for the horny observant Afghan powerful, women will cower--- life goes on.
"Best case"
Isn't that more or less what we are doing?
I just don't believe it can be done from 30,000 feet. It's hard enough from the ground level. Just look at what a disgrace NATO blowing up everything and getting nowhere fast. I think he's right,,"WINNING"
Post a Comment
<< Home