Obama sets course for exit from Afghanistan

President Barack Obama announced a plan on Wednesday to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in a first step toward ending the long, costly war and returning America’s focus toward it’s own troubled economy.

Obama said he would pull 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by year’s end, followed by about 23,000 more by the end of next summer and a steady withdrawal of remaining troops after that.

In a 15-minute televised address, Obama vowed that the United States — struggling to restore its global image, repair its faltering economy and bring down the high jobless rate at home — would end a decade of military adventures prompted by the September 11 attacks in 2001 and exercise new restraint with American military power.

“Tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding,” Obama said, heralding the gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq and the limited U.S. involvement in the ongoing international campaign in Libya.

“America, it is time to focus on nation building at home.”

Yet news that Obama will pull the entire ‘surge’ force he sent to Afghanistan in 2010 is certain to fuel friction between Obama and his military advisors who have warned about the perils of a hasty drawdown.

Nearly 10 years after the Taliban government was toppled, U.S. and NATO forces have been unable to deal a decisive blow to the resurgent Islamist group. The Afghan government remains weak and notoriously corrupt, and billions of dollars in foreign aid efforts have yielded meager results.

Obama’s decision on trimming the U.S. force was a more aggressive approach than many expected. It went beyond the options offered by General David Petraeus, the outgoing commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, whom Obama has picked to lead the CIA.

The president’s decision appears to reflect the competing pressures he faces as he seeks to rein in government spending and halt American casualties without endangering the gains his commanders say they have made across southern Afghanistan.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he supported Obama’s decision, but the plan is unlikely to sit well with the Pentagon’s top brass who worry insurgents could regain lost territory and that fighting along Afghanistan’s eastern border with Pakistan will intensify.

Jeffrey Dressler, a military analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, said the Pentagon would have favored a much smaller initial withdrawal.

“But the fact is that the conditions on the ground don’t merit any sort of withdrawal — it’s not time to be pulling out a substantive amount of troops,” he said. “There’s a lot that has to be done in the east and you’re not out of the woods in the south yet.”

Yet Obama also faces mounting demands from some quarters of the Congress, impatient with a war that now costs more than $110 billion a year, for a larger initial drawdown.

Even after the withdrawal of the 33,00 U.S. troops, about 70,000 will remain in Afghanistan by the autumn of 2012, more than were there when Obama took office.

SHIFT SINCE BIN LADEN’S DEATH

The debate in Washington has shifted palpably since U.S. special forces killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last month, which Obama said showed al Qaeda was ‘under enormous strain.’

Bin Laden’s death has given critics from both parties ammunition to argue that the Obama administration must narrow U.S. goals in desperately poor Afghanistan — focusing on lawless havens insurgents can use to launch attacks.

“We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely,” Obama said. “That is the responsibility of the Afghan government.”

Obama said the United States would continue to support efforts to foster a political settlement with the Taliban. Officials acknowledge a peace deal may be far in the future even if one could be had.

Obama is mindful of the American public’s lack of support for the war as he looks to his 2012 re-election campaign.

A Pew Research poll released on Tuesday found a record 56 percent of Americans favor bringing U.S. forces in Afghanistan home as quickly as possible.

Still, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan remains volatile and Obama will face heat from Republicans if he is seen as rushing toward the exit.

The Taliban has been pushed out of some areas of their southern heartland, but the insurgency has intensified along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan.

July marks the official start of NATO’s handover to local security forces in keeping with a plan to put Afghan soldiers in charge across the country by the end of 2014.

Serious doubts remain about whether Afghan forces, plagued by desertion and illiteracy, will be up to the task.

The more limited U.S. involvement in Libya, where NATO and its allies have been conducting air strikes since March in hopes leader Muammar Gaddafi will halt attacks on civilians, may be the model for future U.S. military engagement overseas.

“What I worry about is the message that is going to be taken away by our allies and potential allies about America’s orientation in the world,” said retired Lieutenant General David Barno, a former senior commander in Afghanistan.

“That sounded an awful lot like an ‘America come home’ speech,” he said.

Even as Obama charts a course for leaving Afghanistan, a major threat remains in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Obama warned Pakistan that the United States would not hesitate to launch strikes on militants targeting Americans.

Still, analysts have cautioned that if the United States walks away from Afghanistan, it does so at its own peril because of the risk the country could topple back into the grip of extremism or renewed civil war. Both of these scenarios could again open the door to al Qaeda.

“What will be important is what happens in two or three years from now,” said Tomas Valasek of the Center for European Reform in London.

“If Obama gets re-elected, and it all goes wrong, and Kabul has turned into another Mogadishu — then he would clearly have some explaining to do.”

Reuters

  • kareemthehippy

    Khalas, 6la3 min afghanistan…

  • kareemthehippy

    Khalas, 6la3 min afghanistan…

  • Anonymous

    Khalas, 6la3 min afghanistan…

  • Sebouh80

    In his nationally televised speech Thursday night, President Barack Obama announced a minimal withdrawal of US troops from the nearly decade-old war in Afghanistan. Obama’s proposal represented a tacit admission of the failure of the US intervention in Afghanistan and of the immense crisis of American capitalism to which a decade of multi-trillion-dollar expenditures on militarism has substantially contributed.
    In concrete terms, Obama’s withdrawal proposal was crafted to give the US military command nearly everything it wanted, while helping him to get through his next election in 2012.
    It calls for a token force of 10,000 to be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The July deadline set by Obama in December 2009, when he unveiled his proposed “surge” that sent another 33,000 troops into Afghanistan, will apparently come and go with no change on the ground in the occupied country. The generals will be allowed to decide what troops will be withdrawn and when over the next six months.
    At the time that Obama announced the surge, the American public was told that it was a temporary measure that would “allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
    In reality, if the so-called “withdrawal” plan is completed, it will pull out only the 33,000 troops that he ordered into Afghanistan 18 months ago. The second round of troop withdrawals is set to take place on the eve of the 2012 presidential election. Still, by the end of 2012, twice as many US troops will remain in the country as were deployed there when Obama first took office at the beginning of 2009.
    One can be sure, moreover, that should the military command demand it, even this limited withdrawal schedule will be revised.
    The initial withdrawal proposal for the end of this year is negligible. While it is roughly the equivalent of two Army brigades, those who will be withdrawn will undoubtedly be made up of support troops, not combat units. The tasks of the support troops can be outsourced to private contractors or other units brought in on temporary duty. Such “temporary” deployments are not counted in the roughly 100,000 figure currently given as the US troop presence in Afghanistan. The real figure is reportedly as high as 155,000.
    Obama claimed that his withdrawal plan was being executed from “a position of strength” and that the White House and the Pentagon “are meeting our goals”.
    General David Petraeus, the senior US military commander in Afghanistan, who Obama has tapped to serve as his director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has consistently described these supposed successes as “fragile and reversible.” He has insisted that the US military needs to keep its full combat strength intact for two more “fighting seasons”, referring to the summer months when the armed groups resisting the US occupation launch their offensives.
    A far more sober assessment of the real state of affairs after 10 years of US intervention was provided by a recent email to Time magazine from a US Army colonel in Afghanistan, who withheld his identity for obvious reasons.
    “The mendacity is getting so egregious that I am fast losing the ability to remain quiet; these yarns of ‘significant progress’ are being covered up by the blood and limbs of hundreds—HUNDREDS—of American uniformed service members each and every month, and you know that the rest of this summer is going to see the peak of that bloodshed,” the officer wrote.
    Referring to claims that after enduring increased casualties and inflicting increased death and destruction for another two years, US forces will be able to hand over a secure country to the Afghan puppet military and police forces, the colonel added, “It’s sheer madness, and so far as I can tell, in the mainstream media and reputable publications, it is going almost entirely without challenge.”
    The concentration on the next two fighting seasons constitutes a stark warning. The US military is preparing to unleash an unprecedented bloodbath aimed at bleeding the popular opposition to US occupation white. Killing of Afghan fighters and civilians alike will escalate sharply, as will the death toll among US troops.
    Unmentioned in Obama’s speech is a central focus of US efforts in Afghanistan for the past month, which is the attempt to negotiate with the regime of President Hamid Karzai a strategic partnership agreement that would allow the US and NATO to secure permanent military bases in the country.

    He made an oblique reference to this semi-secret scheme, declaring that, while Washington was not trying to “make Afghanistan a perfect place”—a grotesque statement given the tens of thousands of civilian casualties and millions of refugees caused by the US-led war—“What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures–-one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.”
    Behind all the government and media rhetoric about winding down the Afghanistan war and withdrawing US troops, the reality is that the US ruling establishment and the Pentagon are planning to occupy the country indefinitely.
    Washington is seeking such bases not to wage a “war on terrorism” or to promote democracy in Afghanistan. Neither of these pretenses stand up to the slightest scrutiny. The aims pursued by US imperialism are of a geo-strategic character. They are centered on the determination to exert American hegemony over oil-rich Central Asia and to obtain a military beachhead against its principal rivals in the region: China, Russia and Iran.
    Obama likewise signaled that the US would continue and likely redouble its military attacks on Pakistan, asserting that Washington “must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan” and “will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us.” In other words, the campaign of drone missile strikes that the Obama administration has steadily escalated, killing and maiming thousands of Pakistanis, will continue unabated.
    Obama made an empty and hypocritical declaration that the US had “learned anew the profound cost of war” over the last decade of military aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, referring to the more than 6,000 US troops killed in the two countries and the many tens of thousands more who have suffered grievous physical and psychological wounds.
    Like his predecessor, George W. Bush, he could not even make a reference to the millions of Afghan and Iraqi civilians killed, wounded and turned into homeless refugees by these two criminal wars of aggression.
    Obama and his advisers know full well that the targeted audience of the speech, the American public, is overwhelmingly opposed to the war and increasingly seething over the conditions of mass unemployment, falling living standards and sweeping attacks on social conditions at home.
    This is why he included such hollow promises as “the tide of war is receding” and “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.”
    He went on to assert that, while “over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,” now his government aimed to “invest in America’s greatest resource–-our people” and to “unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means.”
    The Afghanistan war, according to official estimates, is costing some $2 billion each and every week. It, together with the war in Iraq, has sucked up some $1.3 trillion. The new illegal war launched by the Obama administration in Libya has already cost some three-quarters of a billion dollars.
    The suggestion by Obama that the minimal reduction of troop strength in Afghanistan will be translated into reduced cuts in social spending or even “new jobs” is a bold-faced lie. The amount of spending shaved off of the Afghanistan war by pulling out 10,000 troops this year and supposedly another 23,000 next represents a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-trillion-dollar budget cuts now being negotiated on Capitol Hill.
    In all likelihood, if the limited drawdown does take place in Afghanistan, it will be because Pentagon planners see the need for freeing up military resources in preparation for new wars elsewhere. Obama’s hypocritical references to supposed US support for the “Arab Spring” and his defense of the US military intervention in Libya as “pragmatic” and “strategic” suggest one possible arena in which the US military sees the need for new deployments.
    All of the actions of the US government are being driven by an internal crisis in which vast expenditures on war have played no small role in wrecking the country and its economy. But this in no way means a turn by the American ruling elite away from militarism.
    America’s ruling financial oligarchy seeks to offset the decline in the economic position of US capitalism on the world market by, on the one hand, relying on its continued military superiority, and, on the other, a relentless assault on the living standards and basic rights of American workers.

    • 316909

      Jesus Christ man where did you copy and paste all that from?

      • 5thDrawer

        Usually, Better and more open reporting in western countries … and reporters don’t get beaten up while having morning coffee.

  • Sebouh80

    In his nationally televised speech Thursday night, President Barack Obama announced a minimal withdrawal of US troops from the nearly decade-old war in Afghanistan. Obama’s proposal represented a tacit admission of the failure of the US intervention in Afghanistan and of the immense crisis of American capitalism to which a decade of multi-trillion-dollar expenditures on militarism has substantially contributed.
    In concrete terms, Obama’s withdrawal proposal was crafted to give the US military command nearly everything it wanted, while helping him to get through his next election in 2012.
    It calls for a token force of 10,000 to be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The July deadline set by Obama in December 2009, when he unveiled his proposed “surge” that sent another 33,000 troops into Afghanistan, will apparently come and go with no change on the ground in the occupied country. The generals will be allowed to decide what troops will be withdrawn and when over the next six months.
    At the time that Obama announced the surge, the American public was told that it was a temporary measure that would “allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
    In reality, if the so-called “withdrawal” plan is completed, it will pull out only the 33,000 troops that he ordered into Afghanistan 18 months ago. The second round of troop withdrawals is set to take place on the eve of the 2012 presidential election. Still, by the end of 2012, twice as many US troops will remain in the country as were deployed there when Obama first took office at the beginning of 2009.
    One can be sure, moreover, that should the military command demand it, even this limited withdrawal schedule will be revised.
    The initial withdrawal proposal for the end of this year is negligible. While it is roughly the equivalent of two Army brigades, those who will be withdrawn will undoubtedly be made up of support troops, not combat units. The tasks of the support troops can be outsourced to private contractors or other units brought in on temporary duty. Such “temporary” deployments are not counted in the roughly 100,000 figure currently given as the US troop presence in Afghanistan. The real figure is reportedly as high as 155,000.
    Obama claimed that his withdrawal plan was being executed from “a position of strength” and that the White House and the Pentagon “are meeting our goals”.
    General David Petraeus, the senior US military commander in Afghanistan, who Obama has tapped to serve as his director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has consistently described these supposed successes as “fragile and reversible.” He has insisted that the US military needs to keep its full combat strength intact for two more “fighting seasons”, referring to the summer months when the armed groups resisting the US occupation launch their offensives.
    A far more sober assessment of the real state of affairs after 10 years of US intervention was provided by a recent email to Time magazine from a US Army colonel in Afghanistan, who withheld his identity for obvious reasons.
    “The mendacity is getting so egregious that I am fast losing the ability to remain quiet; these yarns of ‘significant progress’ are being covered up by the blood and limbs of hundreds—HUNDREDS—of American uniformed service members each and every month, and you know that the rest of this summer is going to see the peak of that bloodshed,” the officer wrote.
    Referring to claims that after enduring increased casualties and inflicting increased death and destruction for another two years, US forces will be able to hand over a secure country to the Afghan puppet military and police forces, the colonel added, “It’s sheer madness, and so far as I can tell, in the mainstream media and reputable publications, it is going almost entirely without challenge.”
    The concentration on the next two fighting seasons constitutes a stark warning. The US military is preparing to unleash an unprecedented bloodbath aimed at bleeding the popular opposition to US occupation white. Killing of Afghan fighters and civilians alike will escalate sharply, as will the death toll among US troops.
    Unmentioned in Obama’s speech is a central focus of US efforts in Afghanistan for the past month, which is the attempt to negotiate with the regime of President Hamid Karzai a strategic partnership agreement that would allow the US and NATO to secure permanent military bases in the country.

    He made an oblique reference to this semi-secret scheme, declaring that, while Washington was not trying to “make Afghanistan a perfect place”—a grotesque statement given the tens of thousands of civilian casualties and millions of refugees caused by the US-led war—“What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures–-one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.”
    Behind all the government and media rhetoric about winding down the Afghanistan war and withdrawing US troops, the reality is that the US ruling establishment and the Pentagon are planning to occupy the country indefinitely.
    Washington is seeking such bases not to wage a “war on terrorism” or to promote democracy in Afghanistan. Neither of these pretenses stand up to the slightest scrutiny. The aims pursued by US imperialism are of a geo-strategic character. They are centered on the determination to exert American hegemony over oil-rich Central Asia and to obtain a military beachhead against its principal rivals in the region: China, Russia and Iran.
    Obama likewise signaled that the US would continue and likely redouble its military attacks on Pakistan, asserting that Washington “must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan” and “will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us.” In other words, the campaign of drone missile strikes that the Obama administration has steadily escalated, killing and maiming thousands of Pakistanis, will continue unabated.
    Obama made an empty and hypocritical declaration that the US had “learned anew the profound cost of war” over the last decade of military aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, referring to the more than 6,000 US troops killed in the two countries and the many tens of thousands more who have suffered grievous physical and psychological wounds.
    Like his predecessor, George W. Bush, he could not even make a reference to the millions of Afghan and Iraqi civilians killed, wounded and turned into homeless refugees by these two criminal wars of aggression.
    Obama and his advisers know full well that the targeted audience of the speech, the American public, is overwhelmingly opposed to the war and increasingly seething over the conditions of mass unemployment, falling living standards and sweeping attacks on social conditions at home.
    This is why he included such hollow promises as “the tide of war is receding” and “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.”
    He went on to assert that, while “over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,” now his government aimed to “invest in America’s greatest resource–-our people” and to “unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means.”
    The Afghanistan war, according to official estimates, is costing some $2 billion each and every week. It, together with the war in Iraq, has sucked up some $1.3 trillion. The new illegal war launched by the Obama administration in Libya has already cost some three-quarters of a billion dollars.
    The suggestion by Obama that the minimal reduction of troop strength in Afghanistan will be translated into reduced cuts in social spending or even “new jobs” is a bold-faced lie. The amount of spending shaved off of the Afghanistan war by pulling out 10,000 troops this year and supposedly another 23,000 next represents a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-trillion-dollar budget cuts now being negotiated on Capitol Hill.
    In all likelihood, if the limited drawdown does take place in Afghanistan, it will be because Pentagon planners see the need for freeing up military resources in preparation for new wars elsewhere. Obama’s hypocritical references to supposed US support for the “Arab Spring” and his defense of the US military intervention in Libya as “pragmatic” and “strategic” suggest one possible arena in which the US military sees the need for new deployments.
    All of the actions of the US government are being driven by an internal crisis in which vast expenditures on war have played no small role in wrecking the country and its economy. But this in no way means a turn by the American ruling elite away from militarism.
    America’s ruling financial oligarchy seeks to offset the decline in the economic position of US capitalism on the world market by, on the one hand, relying on its continued military superiority, and, on the other, a relentless assault on the living standards and basic rights of American workers.

    • 316909

      Jesus Christ man where did you copy and paste all that from?

  • Anonymous

    In his nationally televised speech Thursday night, President Barack Obama announced a minimal withdrawal of US troops from the nearly decade-old war in Afghanistan. Obama’s proposal represented a tacit admission of the failure of the US intervention in Afghanistan and of the immense crisis of American capitalism to which a decade of multi-trillion-dollar expenditures on militarism has substantially contributed.
    In concrete terms, Obama’s withdrawal proposal was crafted to give the US military command nearly everything it wanted, while helping him to get through his next election in 2012.
    It calls for a token force of 10,000 to be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The July deadline set by Obama in December 2009, when he unveiled his proposed “surge” that sent another 33,000 troops into Afghanistan, will apparently come and go with no change on the ground in the occupied country. The generals will be allowed to decide what troops will be withdrawn and when over the next six months.
    At the time that Obama announced the surge, the American public was told that it was a temporary measure that would “allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
    In reality, if the so-called “withdrawal” plan is completed, it will pull out only the 33,000 troops that he ordered into Afghanistan 18 months ago. The second round of troop withdrawals is set to take place on the eve of the 2012 presidential election. Still, by the end of 2012, twice as many US troops will remain in the country as were deployed there when Obama first took office at the beginning of 2009.
    One can be sure, moreover, that should the military command demand it, even this limited withdrawal schedule will be revised.
    The initial withdrawal proposal for the end of this year is negligible. While it is roughly the equivalent of two Army brigades, those who will be withdrawn will undoubtedly be made up of support troops, not combat units. The tasks of the support troops can be outsourced to private contractors or other units brought in on temporary duty. Such “temporary” deployments are not counted in the roughly 100,000 figure currently given as the US troop presence in Afghanistan. The real figure is reportedly as high as 155,000.
    Obama claimed that his withdrawal plan was being executed from “a position of strength” and that the White House and the Pentagon “are meeting our goals”.
    General David Petraeus, the senior US military commander in Afghanistan, who Obama has tapped to serve as his director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has consistently described these supposed successes as “fragile and reversible.” He has insisted that the US military needs to keep its full combat strength intact for two more “fighting seasons”, referring to the summer months when the armed groups resisting the US occupation launch their offensives.
    A far more sober assessment of the real state of affairs after 10 years of US intervention was provided by a recent email to Time magazine from a US Army colonel in Afghanistan, who withheld his identity for obvious reasons.
    “The mendacity is getting so egregious that I am fast losing the ability to remain quiet; these yarns of ‘significant progress’ are being covered up by the blood and limbs of hundreds—HUNDREDS—of American uniformed service members each and every month, and you know that the rest of this summer is going to see the peak of that bloodshed,” the officer wrote.
    Referring to claims that after enduring increased casualties and inflicting increased death and destruction for another two years, US forces will be able to hand over a secure country to the Afghan puppet military and police forces, the colonel added, “It’s sheer madness, and so far as I can tell, in the mainstream media and reputable publications, it is going almost entirely without challenge.”
    The concentration on the next two fighting seasons constitutes a stark warning. The US military is preparing to unleash an unprecedented bloodbath aimed at bleeding the popular opposition to US occupation white. Killing of Afghan fighters and civilians alike will escalate sharply, as will the death toll among US troops.
    Unmentioned in Obama’s speech is a central focus of US efforts in Afghanistan for the past month, which is the attempt to negotiate with the regime of President Hamid Karzai a strategic partnership agreement that would allow the US and NATO to secure permanent military bases in the country.

    He made an oblique reference to this semi-secret scheme, declaring that, while Washington was not trying to “make Afghanistan a perfect place”—a grotesque statement given the tens of thousands of civilian casualties and millions of refugees caused by the US-led war—“What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures–-one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.”
    Behind all the government and media rhetoric about winding down the Afghanistan war and withdrawing US troops, the reality is that the US ruling establishment and the Pentagon are planning to occupy the country indefinitely.
    Washington is seeking such bases not to wage a “war on terrorism” or to promote democracy in Afghanistan. Neither of these pretenses stand up to the slightest scrutiny. The aims pursued by US imperialism are of a geo-strategic character. They are centered on the determination to exert American hegemony over oil-rich Central Asia and to obtain a military beachhead against its principal rivals in the region: China, Russia and Iran.
    Obama likewise signaled that the US would continue and likely redouble its military attacks on Pakistan, asserting that Washington “must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan” and “will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us.” In other words, the campaign of drone missile strikes that the Obama administration has steadily escalated, killing and maiming thousands of Pakistanis, will continue unabated.
    Obama made an empty and hypocritical declaration that the US had “learned anew the profound cost of war” over the last decade of military aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, referring to the more than 6,000 US troops killed in the two countries and the many tens of thousands more who have suffered grievous physical and psychological wounds.
    Like his predecessor, George W. Bush, he could not even make a reference to the millions of Afghan and Iraqi civilians killed, wounded and turned into homeless refugees by these two criminal wars of aggression.
    Obama and his advisers know full well that the targeted audience of the speech, the American public, is overwhelmingly opposed to the war and increasingly seething over the conditions of mass unemployment, falling living standards and sweeping attacks on social conditions at home.
    This is why he included such hollow promises as “the tide of war is receding” and “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.”
    He went on to assert that, while “over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,” now his government aimed to “invest in America’s greatest resource–-our people” and to “unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means.”
    The Afghanistan war, according to official estimates, is costing some $2 billion each and every week. It, together with the war in Iraq, has sucked up some $1.3 trillion. The new illegal war launched by the Obama administration in Libya has already cost some three-quarters of a billion dollars.
    The suggestion by Obama that the minimal reduction of troop strength in Afghanistan will be translated into reduced cuts in social spending or even “new jobs” is a bold-faced lie. The amount of spending shaved off of the Afghanistan war by pulling out 10,000 troops this year and supposedly another 23,000 next represents a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-trillion-dollar budget cuts now being negotiated on Capitol Hill.
    In all likelihood, if the limited drawdown does take place in Afghanistan, it will be because Pentagon planners see the need for freeing up military resources in preparation for new wars elsewhere. Obama’s hypocritical references to supposed US support for the “Arab Spring” and his defense of the US military intervention in Libya as “pragmatic” and “strategic” suggest one possible arena in which the US military sees the need for new deployments.
    All of the actions of the US government are being driven by an internal crisis in which vast expenditures on war have played no small role in wrecking the country and its economy. But this in no way means a turn by the American ruling elite away from militarism.
    America’s ruling financial oligarchy seeks to offset the decline in the economic position of US capitalism on the world market by, on the one hand, relying on its continued military superiority, and, on the other, a relentless assault on the living standards and basic rights of American workers.

    • Anonymous

      Jesus Christ man where did you copy and paste all that from?

      • Anonymous

        Usually, Better and more open reporting in western countries … and reporters don’t get beaten up while having morning coffee.

  • josephphdman

    president obama should not order troops to leave afghanistan, unless he gets approval from the us generals leading the the operation on the ground.
    to make sure the talaban are disbanded, and not able to regroup, and if that is not the case the us should  deploy nato trooops before withdrawals ,just to make sure the talaban wo,nt come back to power.

    • 316909

      the talaban has already regrouped and control 70% of the country. controlling kandahar is far from controlling a country.

  • josephphdman

    president obama should not order troops to leave afghanistan, unless he gets approval from the us generals leading the the operation on the ground.
    to make sure the talaban are disbanded, and not able to regroup, and if that is not the case the us should  deploy nato trooops before withdrawals ,just to make sure the talaban wo,nt come back to power.

    • 316909

      the talaban has already regrouped and control 70% of the country. controlling kandahar is far from controlling a country.

  • Anonymous

    president obama should not order troops to leave afghanistan, unless he gets approval from the us generals leading the the operation on the ground.
    to make sure the talaban are disbanded, and not able to regroup, and if that is not the case the us should  deploy nato trooops before withdrawals ,just to make sure the talaban wo,nt come back to power.

    • Anonymous

      the talaban has already regrouped and control 70% of the country. controlling kandahar is far from controlling a country.

  • josephphdman

    dear president hosein obama
    why are we pulling out of afghanistan  after 1.3 trillion dollars investments and  many casulties ; and the job is not done yet you will leave the taliban to regroup and you withdraw they will assume power again in afghintan and they will train to conduct terror act again against  the americans ; and if you wonder why our economy is struggeling at home because things like this ,you have waisted 1.3 trillions dollars invested in afghanestan plus loss of lives; you should,nt leave afghanistan unless you make sure the taliban are gone for ever ; then again in iraq  you are making a big mistake leaving toosoon; as soon as you leave iran will be in iraq ,and becse iraq and  iran are  both of shia,s sect now,they will teamup against the rest of the middleeast,with the backup of syria ,the three,s shia,s state ,you wil give iran the advantage and you will the shift the power and influence of iran in the middleeast to a greater scale; president obama with those foreign policies decision you are placing the us national security at risk and with your decision the us is heading to a worst future ; i just pray to god i am wrong ,but this is what i really think of your foreign politicies, and i think you are getting it wrong!!!!
    what i recommend 1- stay in iraq few more years to prevent iran from getting in
    2- help change to democracy in syria ,to break the line of alliance ,iran- iraq- syria -hezbollah,-
    3- stay in afghanistan until the taliban are dismanteled
    4- help strenghten lebanon democracy and help the lebaneese governement take controle of all its territory and disarms terrorrist and forigners in lebanon ,so the democratic lebaneese governement could function and practice democracy in the entire country , so can also breakaway from iran influence .
    this should make  the us and its allies in the middleast safer and the rest of the civilized world .

    • 316909

      Nothing will change. Just like in Iraq the Afgan government will ask the U.S to keep some forces to help protect them. Its just a way of showing he is keeping his promise. Also normally these pullouts are reall not what they seem. They pull combat troops out and keep 10 to 30,000 troops to train and advise the local government and army.

      Another new reason could be because they want to hand the war over to the private sector. Do you know we have more contractors (Private armies) than we have troops in both afgn and iraq. most of these contractors get paid a lot more than regular army do and are corps owned by top ranking cia and government officials who also own weapons manufacturing companies like kbr.

  • josephphdman

    dear president hosein obama
    why are we pulling out of afghanistan  after 1.3 trillion dollars investments and  many casulties ; and the job is not done yet you will leave the taliban to regroup and you withdraw they will assume power again in afghintan and they will train to conduct terror act again against  the americans ; and if you wonder why our economy is struggeling at home because things like this ,you have waisted 1.3 trillions dollars invested in afghanestan plus loss of lives; you should,nt leave afghanistan unless you make sure the taliban are gone for ever ; then again in iraq  you are making a big mistake leaving toosoon; as soon as you leave iran will be in iraq ,and becse iraq and  iran are  both of shia,s sect now,they will teamup against the rest of the middleeast,with the backup of syria ,the three,s shia,s state ,you wil give iran the advantage and you will the shift the power and influence of iran in the middleeast to a greater scale; president obama with those foreign policies decision you are placing the us national security at risk and with your decision the us is heading to a worst future ; i just pray to god i am wrong ,but this is what i really think of your foreign politicies, and i think you are getting it wrong!!!!
    what i recommend 1- stay in iraq few more years to prevent iran from getting in
    2- help change to democracy in syria ,to break the line of alliance ,iran- iraq- syria -hezbollah,-
    3- stay in afghanistan until the taliban are dismanteled
    4- help strenghten lebanon democracy and help the lebaneese governement take controle of all its territory and disarms terrorrist and forigners in lebanon ,so the democratic lebaneese governement could function and practice democracy in the entire country , so can also breakaway from iran influence .
    this should make  the us and its allies in the middleast safer and the rest of the civilized world .

  • Anonymous

    dear president hosein obama
    why are we pulling out of afghanistan  after 1.3 trillion dollars investments and  many casulties ; and the job is not done yet you will leave the taliban to regroup and you withdraw they will assume power again in afghintan and they will train to conduct terror act again against  the americans ; and if you wonder why our economy is struggeling at home because things like this ,you have waisted 1.3 trillions dollars invested in afghanestan plus loss of lives; you should,nt leave afghanistan unless you make sure the taliban are gone for ever ; then again in iraq  you are making a big mistake leaving toosoon; as soon as you leave iran will be in iraq ,and becse iraq and  iran are  both of shia,s sect now,they will teamup against the rest of the middleeast,with the backup of syria ,the three,s shia,s state ,you wil give iran the advantage and you will the shift the power and influence of iran in the middleeast to a greater scale; president obama with those foreign policies decision you are placing the us national security at risk and with your decision the us is heading to a worst future ; i just pray to god i am wrong ,but this is what i really think of your foreign politicies, and i think you are getting it wrong!!!!
    what i recommend 1- stay in iraq few more years to prevent iran from getting in
    2- change the rgeme in syria to a sunni govevernement to break the line iran iraq syria hezbollah,
    3- stay in afghanistan until the taliban are dismanteled
    this should l make  the us safer and the rest of the civilized world .;

     

    • Anonymous

      Nothing will change. Just like in Iraq the Afgan government will ask the U.S to keep some forces to help protect them. Its just a way of showing he is keeping his promise. Also normally these pullouts are reall not what they seem. They pull combat troops out and keep 10 to 30,000 troops to train and advise the local government and army.

      Another new reason could be because they want to hand the war over to the private sector. Do you know we have more contractors (Private armies) than we have troops in both afgn and iraq. most of these contractors get paid a lot more than regular army do and are corps owned by top ranking cia and government officials who also own weapons manufacturing companies like kbr.

  • Anonymous

    dear president hosein obama
    why are we pulling out of afghanistan  after 1.3 trillion dollars investments and  many casulties ; and the job is not done yet you will leave the taliban to regroup and you withdraw they will assume power again in afghintan and they will train to conduct terror act again against  the americans ; and if you wonder why our economy is struggeling at home because things like this ,you have waisted 1.3 trillions dollars invested in afghanestan plus loss of lives; you should,nt leave afghanistan unless you make sure the taliban are gone for ever ; then again in iraq  you are making a big mistake leaving toosoon; as soon as you leave iran will be in iraq ,and becse iraq and  iran are  both of shia,s sect now,they will teamup against the rest of the middleeast,with the backup of syria ,the three,s shia,s state ,you wil give iran the advantage and you will the shift the power and influence of iran in the middleeast to a greater scale; president obama with those foreign policies decision you are placing the us national security at risk and with your decision the us is heading to a worst future ; i just pray to god i am wrong ,but this is what i really think of your foreign politicies, and i think you are getting it wrong!!!!
    what i recommend 1- stay in iraq few more years to prevent iran from getting in
    2- change the rgeme in syria to a sunni govevernement to break the line iran iraq syria hezbollah,
    3- stay in afghanistan until the taliban are dismanteled
    this should l make  the us safer and the rest of the civilized world .;