President Barack Obama recently signed a much ballyhooed Strategic Partnership Declaration with Afghan President Harmid Karzai, ostensibly to remove all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. He trumpeted the withdrawal in pursuing a second term, aware that most Americans want out. A late March New York Times poll found 69 percent of the public against our continued presence.
Yet when Mr. Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was questioned, last Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” about the Taliban gaining strength awaiting a U.S. pullout, he replied, “Well, the most important point is that we’re not going anyplace. We’re gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan.”
So, our forces can somehow both leave the country and remain there . . . simultaneously?
Yes, they can!
Well, no. The administration is being duplicitous. Our leaders plan to leave a “residual force” in country for the next ten years. Americans will train (and pay for) the Afghan army. When our state-fed media report that U.S. combat troops are all leaving, tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO soldiers will almost certainly remain.
If you ask me, our original goals in going to war in Afghanistan have been achieved — it is long past time to bring all troops home. But whatever one’s view, we can surely agree that our leaders ought to talk honestly about issues of war and peace. Not trick us.
President Obama should admit that just like his likely Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, he has no plan to actually remove the United States military from Afghanistan within the next decade . . . or ever.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
10 replies on “Withdrawal, with Enduring Presence”
There’s only one Presidential candidate left in the race who advocates a complete withdrawal, as you propose, Paul….Gary Johnson. The only common sense candidate left.
There are too many people pulling strings that have vested interests in America continuing to be the world’s policeman, even though we cannot afford it.
And for the cynical, it also helps to continue digging the Cloward and Piven money pit that will collapse capitalism and bring about the command and control, centrally-regulated socialist utopia.
Now ‘I’ sound cynical. Instead of “utopia”, put “oligarchy”.
Obama is the consummate leftist in that he is covering all bases. He wants to be there without being there. The Obama rules of engagement have cost lives. Obama needs to lose the next election.
Dead on as always, Paul!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I put the onus on Mitt Romney. As the likely GOP nominee it is up to him to challenge what the president says. Romney should be willing to do what John McCain would not: oppose Barack Obama.
Romney is at a disadvantage to Obama–
AS I WAS SAYING–ROMNEY DOES NOT HAVE THE “INTELLIGENCE” REPORTS THAT OBAMA HAS–ALTHOUGH WITH OBAMA’S BEHAVIOR AND ACTIONS, I DOUBT THAT HE READS THEM, ANYHOW.
OBAMA SHOULD BE SOMEPLACE ELSE LIKE MAYBE WONDERLAND
Obama said Afghanistan was the good war, and he significantly increased troops there first, then rejected future military requests. Of course, these requests come from the pentagon and top commanders. Listening to the troops (via the campaign contributions), they believe we should follow Ron Paul’s foreign policy to bring the troops home now.
Regarding Romney and the GOP, other than Paul/Johnson, they were all trying to outdo each other in the debates: I’ll prevent Iran from getting the bomb, then the next guy would say, I’ll be imposing sanctions on Iran, then the next guy, I’ll bomb Iran if they don’t stop, then the next guy said he’d bomb next week (not exactly like that, but more or less). I’m not surprised given the GOP desire to reward their campaign contributors in the military industrial complex.
Frankly, I’m more afraid of the GOP getting us into more wars, actions actually reducing national security (military spending, not defense spending, and creating more enemies), than Obama.
I’ll be voting for Johnson, as I personally think I’d prefer Obama as president than Romney. Given the small difference in their spending plans, I expect the economy to remain in the tank, and then Democrats will get the blame with Obama as president. This will result in fiscal conservative gains in Congress. And Congress controls the budget, which needs to be significantly slashed. Government has currently promised more (future Medicare and Social Security mostly) in future payments, than the value of all wealth (public and private) in the US. USA Today says government obligations amount to $561,264 per household. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1 Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States the average household has only $448,000 in wealth. Politicians have spent all we own. We’re broke and political promises of guaranteed lunches (Medicare and Social Security) will not be kept. Benefits will be cut, or payments will become worth less via inflation.