Biden - Wars Are Over When We Say They're Over

Joe Biden was a fountain of insight, or something, during the debate with Paul Ryan. Here he is on the war in Iraq, "ended" by Obama:

On Iraq, the president said he would end the war. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake; we should have left -- that he ended it -- Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake; we should have left 30,000 troops there.

So, troops out means 'war over'. But over in Afghanistan, Biden went awry, if we can believe David Sanger of the Times:

At the debate, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. could not have been more emphatic: By the end of 2014 Americans will be out of Afghanistan. “We are leaving. We are leaving in 2014, period.” After that, he said, it was up to the Afghans to secure their own country.

But leaving? Not exactly.

In every major conversation with the Afghans and the Pakistanis, American officials talk about their plans for an “enduring presence” of American troops.

No one says, at least officially, how big that enduring partnership would be. But the internal estimates cited by American officials in recent interviews run from 10,000 to 15,000 troops. That would include a counterterrorism force, probably made up of special forces and training forces. Those troops would be there to keep the Afghan security forces on track and as a tripwire to keep the Taliban from taking Kabul, if they ever threatened the capital again. The force would include drone operators, so that the United States can keep patrolling the skies and, on occasion, launch missile attacks inside Pakistan or in Afghan territory.

And, least discussed of all, it includes bomb search teams and other specialists to keep an eye on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. There is no bigger concern inside the Obama administration than how to respond if a nuclear weapon or nuclear material were at large, and after a 2009 scare — when the White House briefly thought the Pakistani Taliban might have obtained nuclear material — President Obama has insisted that the United States be able to respond quickly, according to interviews with current and former administration officials.

So an enduring American presence in Afghaistan won't be a tragedy and won't be inconsistent with declaring the war to be over. However, a similar approach to consolidating our gains in Iraq would be. I am sure that is clear to the Democratic base, if no one else.

FWIW, Ryan responded with the conventional wisdom, as reported in the Times, that Team Obama kinda sort wanted to keep a US presence in Iraq but blew the Status of Forces negotiations. Here we go:

And with respect to Iraq, we had the same position before the withdrawal, which was we agreed with the Obama administration: Let’s have a Status of Forces Agreement to make sure that we secure our gains. The vice president was put in charge of those negotiations by President Obama, and they failed to get the agreement. We don’t have a Status of Forces Agreement because they failed to get one. That’s what we are talking about.

 

Comments

[matt]

Joe has telegraphed the same outcome as in Iraq. We leave with our tails between our legs and the country reverts to tribal and ethnic conflict.

He has no interest in Afghanistan. Never did. Never will.

2 1/2 years ago during the president's agonizing over the Surge in Afghanistan, Joe was "the sane one in the room" arguing that we withdraw to bases from which we could launch attacks against Al Qaeda.

The man is dumber than a rock.

[narciso]

And according to Bowden, he was one who was holding off on the Seals takedown at Abbotabad.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Biden - Wars Are Over When We Say They're Over--

If Joe Biden votes for wars in the forest but then claims he didn't, was there ever really a war to be over?

[narciso]

Here is the link I was referring to;

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/what_might_have_been_the_trial_of_osama_bin_laden

[Cecil Turner]

The Iraq SOFA negotiation was a travesty . . . and there's little evidence to suggest anything different will happen in Afghanistan. Time for a "reset" button.

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

I win!!!!!!!

[Have Blue]

Yes you do.

[Have Blue]

I already posted that in the top post.

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

No one even knows what we are talking about Have Blue, which confirms what idiots we both are - and Hit is worse than you and I combined. That we can take to the bank!

[Tom Roberts]

Long term, there will always be US interests in South Asia:
1. Making sure that the local thugs don't endanger US commerce or diplomats.
2. Making sure that the local thugs don't endanger, too much, US allies in the region.
3. Preventing failed states from becoming terrorist sponsors which threaten the US.

There are several ways to address all three, and arguably these are the reasons why the US militarily intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also the reason why we try to maintain close alliances with Israel and India (+Saudis, sorta kinda...) But the fairly obvious drift of current foreign policy is to toss the whole area in the waste basket, for no cogently stated reason other than bringing troops home on some arbitrary schedule.

And arbitrary schedules, or policies, will ensure that goals like #1-3 never get met. Think of what happened with the Brits withdrew rapidly from their empire from 1948-56. Some good things and some inevitable things happened. But such arbitrary schedules produced much of the squalor and confusion in Africa in the last 5 decades, for instance. Histories of 2001-2012 will probably read that GWB overreached, but then Obama ran away from dangers known and unknown.

[Gus]

Obama couldn't come to a Status of Forces agreement, because the Iraqi's know Obama is weak. Nothing Obama ever does is in the best interests of the United States. JOZO Biden said that Obama had gotten our foreign allies to respect us again. Could JOZO give just ONE example of a solidified ally?

[boatbuilder]

I was sort of listening to the debate in a bar, with the Yankee game going on, so I couldn't hear everything. I do recall thinking that Biden's repeated insistence that we were bailing out of Afghanistan and that it was up to the Afghans to "step up" was particularly egregious. He seemed to think there was something particularly meritorious about cutting and running. My thought was that even if--or especially if--your plan is to cut and run, announcing it to the enemy and to the rest of the world for purposes of pure domestic political advantage was low, even by Biden standards. I wonder how the families of the guys still fighting over there felt about it.

[Tom Roberts]

IN re 'Afghan stepping up':
The recent historical record of green on blue murders implies the stepping up might resemble Elphinstone's retreat from Kabul in 1842. We might even see another craven capitulation prior to a hasty march out.

[jorod]

Every family has an Uncle Joe.

[Frau Aussendienst]

"Every family has an Uncle Joe."

We keep ours out of public display.

[Sara]

I can't think of an Old Uncle Joe in my generation, but my Mother used to talk about her Great Uncle "Ol Uncle Joe, I gots to have me green medicine." He lived with his nephew, whose wife was a teetotaler. She relented and allowed "Ol Uncle Joe" one shot of "green medicine" each night, but only after he read at least 25 Bible verses. And yes his name was really Joe.

[ida_lee]

I saw your post. But I can't understand this entirely. I want more details from this topic. Since, this will help me this clearly.

Increase Youtube Views

[sbwaters]

Spammers have a certain way to show their lack of self-esteem.