The NY Times explains (to anyone who hasn't already figured it out) that Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date for Afghanistan is utterly phony:
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration sent a forceful public message Sunday that American military forces could remain in Afghanistan for a long time, seeking to blunt criticism that President Obama had sent the wrong signal in his war-strategy speech last week by projecting July 2011 as the start of a withdrawal.
In a flurry of coordinated television interviews, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other top administration officials said that any troop pullout beginning in July 2011 would be slow and that the Americans would only then be starting to transfer security responsibilities to Afghan forces under Mr. Obama’s new plan.
The television appearances by the senior members of Mr. Obama’s war council seemed to be part of a focused and determined effort to ease concerns about the president’s emphasis on setting a date for reducing America’s presence in Afghanistan after more than eight years of war.
Ok, they are adjusting. But it was only a few days ago the LA Times was telling us that publicizing a drawdown date was Obama's bright idea:
In President Obama's Afghan war sessions, a mantra arose: to make the biggest military impact in the shortest time.
Reporting from Washington - It started out as a projection from the military, intended only for the ears of the president and his top advisors. But in a war council meeting at the White House less than a month ago, Obama proposed making it public.
"Let's name that date," he said, according to participants.
And then on Tuesday, he did.
He sure did - he named the hell out of that withdrawal date, all right.
He does this a lot, doesn't he? Say something ridiculous to shore up the left and then send his troops out to say he didn't mean what they clearly heard him say. As for the LAT, HEHE
Posted by: clarice | December 07, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Like during the campaign when he told the Canadians one thing about NAFTA and then sent the hacks out to take it back. And some voted for him anyway.
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 07, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Nice of the Times to admit Obama is not a liar, he's "calibrating the message":
"As they seek to explain the new war strategy, administration officials face the task of calibrating the message about America’s commitments in Afghanistan to different audiences, foreign and domestic, each of whom wants to hear different things."
Also, note on in the Times story on Obama's Afghan plan this:
Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.
“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.
Considering that the final plan covers 18 months, I'm assuming that the bolded phrase is an error; that he was shown a chart showing the Americans in for years, and him selecting an arbitrary date for the pullout to begin ... which happens to coincide with the 2012 elections. Not that the Times would point that out, being so politically naive about such things.
Posted by: Bill Peschel | December 07, 2009 at 03:05 PM
“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers
I bet he says that a lot.
Posted by: bgates | December 07, 2009 at 03:07 PM
I hope Mara Liasson does not get into a discussion of withdrawal dates on Fox New.
Posted by: BB Key | December 07, 2009 at 03:11 PM
LOL! Loved the headline!
Posted by: Amarissa | December 07, 2009 at 03:11 PM
Where have we heard that word "calibrated" before?
Hmmm.
Didn't we have four possible definitions at the time? I can't remember if one of them was "change one's story."Posted by: Extraneus | December 07, 2009 at 03:21 PM
so "who did he lie to?" is the only real question here.
Obama lied, Leftists cried.
Posted by: matt | December 07, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Grrrrr. Just heard a story on that stupid hamster pet that is all the rage as this year's #1 must have toy for Christmas. The name of this ugly little rodent is "Mr. Squiggles." I've had the Squiggles name registered since 1994. Why do I always miss the pot of gold?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 07, 2009 at 03:31 PM
every time odumbo uses big words it shows how stupid he is.
Posted by: your mama | December 07, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Such a bold and decisive leader we have. His major contribution to the war plans turns out to be "let's move this thingy here to the left", and "let's hold a press conference to announce something we probably shouldn't announce publicly".
I can't imagine the serious military leader types sitting around a conference table, jumping up and seizing on these ideas as some kind of great help in their jobs.
Posted by: The Unbeliever | December 07, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Someone this morning said that even though Bush mangled the English language, you never had to spend days trying to figure out what he meant. However, with the greatest orator ever, you have no freaking idea what he means.
Posted by: Sue | December 07, 2009 at 04:30 PM
I bet he doesn't even go the distance of 2011....bails next year. What a pathetic waste.
Posted by: J | December 07, 2009 at 04:37 PM
J-
Since he already authorized about 20k in Afghanistan earlier this year, I'm wonder if he'll use some CAC accounting and deduct what has already been committed from his headline 36(-ish)k and only send about another 16K. He would do something like that and the media would cover for him.
Posted by: RichatUF | December 07, 2009 at 04:48 PM
it's easy Sue. He means whatever he wants it to mean whenever it suits him with the caveat that it's all BS and going to change the next time he opens his cakehole anyway so just shut up and believe in hope and change.
Last guy I read about who got away with this was some Austrian politician back in Germany in the 30's.
Posted by: matt | December 07, 2009 at 04:52 PM
Real good article at Politico: Obama's dangerous Afghan gamble. The author had hands on Afghan experience in the Bush WH and is basically saying that, just as Obama doubled down on Bush's economic mistakes, he appears prepared to double down on Bush's foreign policy mistakes:
Posted by: anduril | December 07, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Matt' comment reminds me of Humpty Dumpty's quote in Alice in Wonderland:
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 07, 2009 at 05:29 PM
OK, whereas the Politico article takes the pessimistic view, this piece from Stratfor takes what I consider to be an optimistic view: The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma. I'm more than a little dubious of some of the assertions here, but here's a slice of it:
1. I'm not sold on the idea that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are truly "stable, pro-American regimes in the region eager and able to attack and destroy jihadist networks." They have shown themselves capable of suppressing internal terror, but let's not forget the degree of support for insurgents of all stripes in Iraq that the Saudis provided.
2. I certainly agree that the long term prospects for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan are poor--the internal divisions are too deep and the rival groups too well armed with too scores to settle.
3. The idea of provoking long term internal turmoil in Pakistan does not reassure me (h/t narciso), but then nothing about that country does.
There's lots more if you follow the link.
Posted by: anduril | December 07, 2009 at 05:40 PM
Anduril,
Is there a reason why you can't post a link instead of those gawd awful long posts? This is the second time I've made that request of you.
Posted by: Jane | December 07, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Jane, what else would you expect from a "Hobbit" nut?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | December 07, 2009 at 08:31 PM
I dunno - maybe some manners.
Posted by: Jane | December 07, 2009 at 08:52 PM
Anduril post a link, perhaps a brief (one or two lines) excerpt, or get your own damned blog!
Posted by: centralcal | December 07, 2009 at 09:02 PM
At least Obama's speeches differ from Clinton's. With Clinton it all sounded great, but the next day you couldn't remember or find that he had actually said anything. With Obama you remember what he said, you just can't decide exactly what it meant.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | December 07, 2009 at 09:57 PM
HEH! You have a point, Jorgx.
Posted by: clarice | December 07, 2009 at 10:04 PM
In response to popular demand, I herewith post a link: Godwin's Law.
Posted by: anduril | December 07, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I'm off for a night, and too much garbage gets circulated. So Reidel I assume decided
to walk off the AQ fight, because they didn't do exactly what he wanted them to do, except capture Zubeydah, Al Nashiri,
Al Libi, KSM and the Gitmo contingent. So dealing with the Hazara and the Tadjiks is worse than dealing with the Pashtuns
No, the Saudis are as stable as the Czarist
Russia was, and for about the same reason.
As for Egypt, consider all the mid level
AQ with the nom de plum Al Masri
Posted by: narciso | December 08, 2009 at 08:00 AM