Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 27, 2011
Retreat From Afghanistan? Not Sure It Is Real

Afghanistan: Obama orders withdrawal of 33,000 troops

I still find the recent announcement of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan quite dubious. As Gareth Porter points out they way the announcement was made gives the military a lot of leeway to still drag the conflict out for many years to come.

But following Obama's announcement of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan, there is a rush to the exits by the allies who were pressed into service there.

France to pull out troops from Kabul

President Nicolas Sarkozy announced on Friday that “several hundred” French troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan before the end of 2011.

Belgium to cut in half its Afghan contingent

BRUSSELS – Belgium's defense minister is proposing to withdraw half of the nation's 580 troops from Afghanistan by next year.

Germany to cut troops to Afghanistan

Germany said it would cut its troops presence in Afghanistan this year and praised US President Barack Obama for 'firming up' plans for withdrawing forces.

Defence plans for Afghan troop cuts

AUSTRALIA'S military planners are preparing for a possible reduction in Australian troop numbers in Afghanistan in response to the drawdown announced this week by US President Barack Obama.

Poland to reduce its Afghan force: PM

Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he was glad to hear U.S. President Barack Obama's declaration on the reduction of American forces in Afghanistan, and had asked the Polish defense minister to prepare a similar plan for Polish troops serving in that country.

While I believe that everyone else will try to get their troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, I am not sure yet that a U.S. exit is for real.

Few seem to remember that U.S. troop reductions were also announced back in 2005:

The announcement – representing the first major reduction in U.S. troop strength there since late last year – launches what is expected to be a gradual decline in troop levels that will also include reductions in U.S. forces in Iraq.

The reduction would bring U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to about 16,500.

"It’s a good thing – it’s progress," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a small group of reporters Tuesday.

There even was a reduction of U.S. troops Afghanistan in 2004:

Troop levels in Afghanistan peaked at 20,300 in April 2004, dropped to about 16,500 by the end of last year, and then increased to about 20,000, earlier this year.

As those pull outs of troops in 2004 and 2005/6 turned out to be fake, what is there to ensure us that Obama's announcement is for real?

Indeed I can think of several scenarios that could lead to another troop increase in the area. A coup in Pakistan, some strife with Iran, a Tet like offense by the Taliban or even a combination of those could all lead to a deployment of more, not less U.S. troops.

Comments

What is interesting is how all these countries act in such lockstep fashion.
We’re supposed to believe that all these democratic parliaments are representing the will of their respective peoples, but somehow they end up all doing the same thing at the same time, and often in opposition to the will of their people.
Gives a body pause to wonder …

Posted by: ScuzzaMan | Jun 27 2011 11:12 utc | 1

b wrote, “As those pull outs of troops in 2004 and 2005/6 turned out to be fake, what is there to ensure us that Obama’s announcement is for real?”
You don’t have faith in the American President? Oh ye, of little faith and all that.
This one may be fake also, but next time we will really do it!

Posted by: joseph | Jun 27 2011 13:19 utc | 2

If you counted all the troop reductions, pull outs, withdrawals, you’d come to a negative amount of troops. Only the ‘surge’ was an addition. A news article from last week showed a graph of the number of troops since the invasion, (fr, graph not on the internet, sorry) and projections for the future according to Oblam’s statements – a wavering rising line with blips up and down, but basically even after this ‘withdrawal’, should it take place – more troops than at any time under Bush.
The European Press and radio made it clear that the murder of the semi-fictitious Binny was a stellar strategic victory in the GWOT and that therefore the GWOT is practically won, no need to invest much any longer. Any excuse is a good excuse…In Switzerland the effect was of pushing forward yet once more legislation ‘reinforcing the WOT’, i.e. letting the SS spy and arrest muslims (to make it short), till 2012.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 27 2011 13:35 utc | 3

Three words…Rare earth minerals, will keep the West there, from now until we exploit their resources. With a minor in geopolitical strategy, we could be there forever. Just like Iraq, we’ll ALWAYS have a presence there.

Posted by: ben | Jun 27 2011 14:24 utc | 4

what is there to ensure us that Obama’s announcement is for real?

1) the 2012 elections
2) the federal budget
it seems troop reduction in Afghanistan will be one of the strong points of Obama’s electoral strategy
the point is that it’s only a reduction, not a withdrawal, and that it’s occurring in parallel with talks with the Talibans; that these have become officially acknowledged shows how advanced they are, and in what dire position Pakistan is, apparently having lost leverage over the Afghanistan “peace” process (unless it is collaborating with the Us on this front, which I doubt)

Indeed I can think of several scenarios that could lead to another troop increase in the area. A coup in Pakistan, some strife with Iran, a Tet like offense by the Taliban or even a combination of those could all lead to a deployment of more, not less U.S. troops.

yes; and add to those the Us Army opposition (as in Iraq), which might contribute to any of such eventualities, plus others

Posted by: claudio | Jun 27 2011 14:35 utc | 5

@ben

Just like Iraq, we’ll ALWAYS have a presence there

I agree; the Us never “withdraws” (not voluntarily!) from any place on the planet; the problem is that today it must reduce footprint, strategy and costs (post-neocon disaster recovery, plus budget constrains)
but “rare earth” minerals aren’t important; even if it was pure sand, the terms of the situation would be the same

Posted by: claudio | Jun 27 2011 14:41 utc | 6

The withdrawal scam is simply an election maneuver. Obama can afford to APPEAR to withdraw, but he can’t implement a major withdrawal for two reasons:
1- The US military never fails to win its wars!
2- Responding to public opinion was what caused the US to lose Vietnam. The whole point is to show “resolve”–no matter how stupid or expensive the quagmire, the world’s greatest “democracy” shall not respond to public opinion.
Now if the militarists can gin up a nice little war in Libya, then the military might agree to be enticed by another, more important war and also agree to a very quiet draw-down in Afghanistan.
That’s what happened in Iraq: the military was given a nice little war in Afghanistan to compensate for the one in Iraq, which they were becoming tired of anyway. And, no, they didn’t not win in Iraq! And, no, they didn’t respond in the least to public opinion.

Posted by: JohnH | Jun 27 2011 14:54 utc | 7

b
American media is giving you distorted view of reality here. The housing market is dead. The economy is in a Liquidity Trap. Michele Bachmann is the Terminator. The US federal government shortly will stop paying its bills for weeks maybe months. University Graduates, thousands of dollars in debt, are selling shoes, living at home, lucky to have a job. The House Republicans are Loons. Climate change is killing and destroying homes throughout the States. The Obama Administration is the Bush Administration continued for 12 long years. Talk has started about ending Postal Service. And, so on.
American troops are leaving Afghanistan. The only question is when and under what conditions.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jun 27 2011 16:39 utc | 8

map: PNAC progress 6-27-2011 (3657 x 2562 px, 1.4 mb)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1215/pnacprogress6272011.jpg
for the third time of posting

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 16:51 utc | 9

“Just like Iraq, we’ll ALWAYS have a presence there…”
Until you are kicked out, just as in Indo-China. Nothing is permanent and few things are less permanent than over extended Empires at war with 90% of humanity, run by narcissistic idiots and wormeaten by korporate kleptocrats.
You will know when the US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan because there will be foreign troops marching through Cleveland.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 27 2011 17:00 utc | 10

“Until you are kicked out…”
yup, that’s why the really serious people are looting… and you got to admit, the “war on terror” is giving them marvelous opportunities to loot… as C130-loads of 100 dollar bills disappear from the new york fed.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 17:09 utc | 11

just one other little thing here… every time one of the peak oil denial people (al naimi, tillerson, et al) jawbones the price of oil downward, i get a sinking feeling that it’s a prelude to an attack on iran.
now it looks like they’re pulling out the stops… releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserves, a move regarded by some people as a “hail mary” tactic to… what? …drive oil prices down, sure… but why?
in the long run, it’s gonna backfire, because lower oil prices will discourage exploration, development of expensive new oilfields, and financing for alernative energy sources.
so is this tactic meant to put oil prices in a hole that will minimize the effects of closing hormuz when we start a war with iran?
the peak oil endgame is gonna be tricky, especially since peak oil was probably the prime motive for PNAC’s new pearl harbor.
the logic is becoming clearer every day, and the puzzle pieces are falling into a pattern.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 18:18 utc | 12

@VietnamVet – yes, the U.S. is in a bad economic situation. But that could easily be fixed by increasing taxes on the very rich and doling out some keynsian investment.
Chance for that to happen is currently low, but that could change in a few years.
@groundresonance – the releasing oil from the strategic reserve is all about Obama reelection, not about attacking Iran. It wouldn’t help there. Hormuz closed, or even threatened, would put oil at $200/bl independent of reserve releases.

Posted by: b | Jun 27 2011 18:52 utc | 13

it could be that an obama reelection equals an attack on iran… although seems like he would have waited for while to release the oil, seeing as how the effects are gonna be long gone before the election…
but you got to wonder, after the congress did so many jumping jacks for netanyahu, exactly who’s calling the shots, dont you?
it’s just another mystery, but the mystery’s edges are being nibbled on.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 19:00 utc | 14

a new “new pearl harbor” would probably make it all better, from an israeli standpoint… seeing as how the original new pearl harbor was such a success.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 19:09 utc | 15

The US has been talking officially and sub rosa with the Taliban – locals, high up Pashtun peasants, leaders in the community, ‘warlords’, since before 2001. Pipelines (Unocal etc.) Then after 9/11 about delivering Binny. And since then, regularly.
Power sharing in tough. Specially the revenues from the drug trade.
the doc is from nat geog, while the overlay commentary and voice and some interviews / scenes are eye rolling drama, it does show a few interesting pictures, snippets. (hard to come by any visual info)
Btw, it has become conventional to state that the Taliban before the US invasion slashed poppy fields and so on, for religious – societal reasons, as in this doc, but afaik, and as laid out in some UN reports, that is not true. They did destroy a lot, but that was a power grab facing local rivals, and an attempt to make prices rise. Production was ample, treatment / sale inefficient, revenues too low. The Taliban tried to control the market, and they succeeded – with the help of some friends who shall be nameless.
http://documentaryheaven.com/afghan-heroin-the-lost-war/

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 27 2011 19:20 utc | 16

it’s just that the main players in the runup to 9/11, unocal and enron, are both defunct… which put a nearly intolerable demand on manufacturers of document shredders.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 19:29 utc | 17

if you want to refer back to that map posted at 9, you better save it to your hard drive now, ’cause i got a feeling i’m not long for this world.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 19:35 utc | 18

“this world” being moon of alabama…
by the way, if anyone wants a pdf copy, editable in illustrator, of that map, i will try to find a host where i can post it, so you’ll be able to make your own maps… i’m estimating that i’ll be too blind to work on the maps in a few months.
the main thing with the maps is, they’re traced from google maps, so you can paste the illustators paths into photoshop, and manipulate the google maps with colors, circles and arrows, and eight by ten glossy photos.

Posted by: groundresonance | Jun 27 2011 19:50 utc | 19

From NPR, 25 June 2011, quote:
The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion.
That’s more than NASA’s budget. It’s more than BP has paid so far for damage during the Gulf oil spill. (…)
“When you consider the cost to deliver the fuel to some of the most isolated places in the world — escorting, command and control, medevac support — when you throw all that infrastructure in, we’re talking over $20 billion,” Steven Anderson tells … Anderson is a retired brigadier general who served as Gen. David Petraeus’ chief logistician in Iraq.
Why does it cost so much?
(…)
That means most war expenditures lie not in the troops themselves but in the infrastructure that supports them — infrastructure that in some cases will remain in place long after troops are gone.
(my italics)
http://m.npr.org/news/front/137414737?singlePage=true
Human beings are but a small part of the ‘war’ effort, and their ‘comfort’ re. temperature are a trivial part of the whole.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 27 2011 20:09 utc | 20

well the empire needs troops for its ground invasion of Libya…

Posted by: brian | Jun 27 2011 22:12 utc | 21

Funny b, but raising taxes on the top %’ers is even more horrific than ending a couple of wars long out living out their shelf life. Watch for the Republicans to inch ever closer to cut the funding off in a desperate effort to mimic the democrats cutting off the Vietnam funding (remember the VN war was a democratic inspired war) and subsequently winning the following election against Nixon come Ford.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 28 2011 5:52 utc | 22

The American Empire is dead broke. It has exhausted it wealth fighting various wars both domestic and foreign. This is to be celebrated and not morned, as the world at large might have a tiny hope of peace if the Americans fall and can no longer fund a world wide dominating military.
On the other hand, Americans could survive the near future by defaulting on all debt and cutting the military to 5% (or less) of its present size and scope. This, of course, will never happen.

Posted by: joseph | Jun 28 2011 13:02 utc | 23