<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<p>[Ron Szoke pointed out the importance of this article on last
night's "News from Neptune" (7pm Fridays on cable channel 6/99).
As Nichols suggests, the combination of recession and war may well
defeat an incumbent president - as happened in 1952 and 1968 - and
perhaps 1992 as well. A consummation devoutly to be wished, as it
seem the only way to mitigate the US invasions and occupations in
the Middle East and North Africa. --CGE]<br>
</p>
<h2>Obama's Too-Slow Afghan 'Exit' Strategy Scores Him No Political
Points </h2>
<div class="views-field-value byline"> <a
href="http://www.thenation.com/authors/john-nichols"><span>John
Nichols</span></a> </div>
<div class="article-info-string"> <span class="article-date">June
22, 2011</span></div>
<div id="wysiwyg">
<span class="print-link"></span>
<p>Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for president
because grassroots progressives thought he was marginally more
antiwar than Hillary Clinton.<br>
<br>
After securing the nomination, Obama was elected president.<br>
<br>
Upon securing the Oval Office, he promptly abandoned any
pretense of being opposed to military misadventures abroad,
appointed Clinton as his Secretary of State, kept the
Bush-Cheney regime’s team at the Department of Defense, surged
more troops into Afghanistan and steered US forces into a new
fight with Libya.</p>
Now, the president is <a
href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/167967-obama-afghanistan-us-troop-surge-withdrawal-war">proposing
to remove some of the troops he sent to Afghanistan</a>—about
10,000 (roughly 7 percent of the occupation force) by the end of
the year.
<p>The US force on the ground in Afghanistan will still be more
substantial than the force that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
put on the ground there.</p>
<p>Indeed, even by the most optimistic timeline proposed by Obama,
the US occupation force will at the end of Obama’s first term be
much larger than the US force that was there when Bush and
Cheney left the White House in 2009.</p>
<p>Under Obama, the war will continue for years to come.</p>
<p>Under Obama, another billion dollars will continue to be spent
every week to ten days on an occupation that the American people
and the people of Afghanistan want ended.</p>
<p>And Obama’s best-case scenario does not have the United States
out of Afghanistan by 2012, 2013 or 2014. While the president
imagines that combat forces may be largely out of the
Afghanistan by then, he does not guarantee that. And he suggests
that a dramatic US presence will remain beyond 2014—<a
href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57595.html">and
almost certainly beyond what the president hopes will be his
second term</a>.</p>
<p>That’s too slow a timeline, according to everyone from House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to Republican
presidential candidate <a
href="http://www.politico.com/2012-election/">Jon Huntsman</a>—who
issued some of the first negative reviews of Obama’s vague and
disappointing speech. Huntsman voiced what is almost assuredly
the most popular political sentiment of the moment, calling for
“<a href="http://www.politico.com/2012-election/">a safe but
rapid withdrawal</a>.”</p>
<p>Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin, D-Michigan,
shared the view, suggesting that Obama had not gone far enough
and calling for an “accelerated withdrawal” of US forces.
Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, summed up sentiments among
Congressional Democrats when he said, “I appreciate the
president’s announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal
should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope.”
Key Republicans in Congress, especially in the House, were
similarly unimpressed with the president’s plan.</p>
<p>Congress was not impressed by Obama’s speech.</p>
<p>But what of the American people? Is there any reason to believe
they will be impressed that Obama has added another footnote to
the story of what has become his war?</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Will Obama gain any political advantage as a result of his
much-ballyhooed announcement?</p>
<p>No way.</p>
<p>“Removing a few brigades this year, then several more next
year, still leaves more than double the US troops in Afghanistan
than when President Obama took office. There’s no military
solution in Afghanistan. It’s time to bring all troops and
contractors home and focus on the political solution, which is
the only way this costly war will end,” explained Paul Kawika
Martin, the political and policy director of <a
href="http://www.Peace-Action.org">Peace Action</a>, who
bluntly—and correctly—suggested that voters will be
“disappointed” with Obama’s tepid timeline.</p>
<p>The president is out of touch with his base within the
Democratic Party, which will neither be satisfied nor energized
by a tepid troop drawdown.</p>
<p>That’s significant, as Obama needs to renew the faith and
commitment of the base that nominated and elected him in 2008 if
he hopes to be reelected in 2012.</p>
<p>As significant is the extent to which the president is out of
touch with the great majority of Americans.</p>
<p>A new <a
href="http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/167825-pew-poll-majority-of-americans-favor-immediate-afghan-pull-out">Pew
Research Center survey</a> finds that 56 percent of Americans
want all US forces removed rapidly from Afghanistan. That is,
according to Pew, an “all-time high” level of support for what
might reasonably be defined as “immediate” withdrawal. (The term
“immediate” can reasonably be read as a shorthand reference to
the quick, orderly and complete removal of forces over a period
of several months. What is actually “immediate” is the
commitment to get all the way out; the process, necessarily,
takes some time.)</p>
<p>The 56 percent support for rapid withdrawal represents a
dramatic spike in antiwar sentiment since a year ago, when only
40 percent of those surveyed were in favor of a quick exit.</p>
<p>The Pew poll finds that <a
href="http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/167825-pew-poll-majority-of-americans-favor-immediate-afghan-pull-out">67
percent of Democrats</a> favor ending the Afghanistan mission
(up from 43 percent a year ago). Among independents, 57 percent
favor a quick exit (up from 42 percent last year). Among
Republicans, 43 percent are for rapidly removing the troops—and
the tax dollars—that are being poured into America’s longest
war. That’s a doubling of antiwar sentiment in the party of Bush
and Cheney.</p>
<p>Obama may not recognize the shifting sentiments with regard to
the Afghanistan imbroglio. But his potential challengers do.</p>
<p>Leading Republican presidential contenders, including former
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Utah Governor Jon
Huntsman, support a speedier withdrawal than does Obama.</p>
<p>Other prominent Republicans, such as Texas Congressman Ron Paul
and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, favor the swift
removal of all troops.</p>
<p>On Tuesday night, Obama committed himself and his
administration to a vision of an extended occupation of
Afghanistan—and occupation with no likelihood of a conclusion
until after his first term is finished.</p>
<p>That will not yield him any political benefits. But it might
help his Republican opponent, who might well run in 2012 as a
more antiwar candidate than does Obama.</p>
<p>“In November 2012, voters will want to see less than 67,000
troops and even more contractors still in Afghanistan,”
explained <a href="http://www.Peace-Action.org">Peace Action’s
Martin</a>. “The President will need to speed up his plans and
announce more troops coming home to please the electorate.”<br>
</p>
<p><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/161605/obamas-too-slow-afghan-exit-strategy-scores-him-no-political-points">http://www.thenation.com/blog/161605/obamas-too-slow-afghan-exit-strategy-scores-him-no-political-points</a><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>