The death of Osama Bin Laden May 1 reinforces congressional advocates of a reduced commitment and U.S. spending in Afghanistan. At the White House, too, the terrorist leader's disappearance reinforces those who advocate a quick withdrawal of some U.S. forces. Several members of government have always preferred an approach based more on the targeted killing of insurgent leaders, rather than the strategy of counterinsurgency, intensive staff that President Barack Obama was ultimately approved.
In the upcoming debates, the late leader of al-Qaeda will probably cited as evidence that the cons-terrorism is a tactic more effective and profitable for the next phase of a war that has lasted nearly ten years. Even before the death of bin Laden, some argued - given the heavy indebtedness of the country, the prospect of the 2012 presidential election and developments on the ground - that the U.S.
plans for reconstruction in Afghanistan went well beyond a mission of ensuring the security of the United States. The current spending of around 10 billion dollars a month, are "fundamentally untenable" and it is urgent that the government should clearly define what its objectives and its plan to emerge from Afghanistan, said Sen.
John Kerry of Massachusetts. A senior U.S. official involved in Afghan politics in the United States argues, however, that "there is no going back" on the strategy that led the deployment of 30,000 soldiers and hundreds of additional diplomats in the war zone since early last year. "We are engaged in a clear way by the president," he said.
But he acknowledged that the death of bin Laden "might have a significant impact on the establishment of goals and pace" of the withdrawal of American troops, expected to begin in July and be completed in late 2014. Members of the government team stressed condition of anonymity that Obama and his national security advisers have not yet addressed the issue of withdrawal, nor the military have made suggestions.
Tuesday, May 10, during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by himself, John Kerry said he was not defending a "unilateral and hasty withdrawal" of U.S. forces. But "I think we should try to minimize our presence," he said. John Kerry is a longtime friend and former colleague in the Senate Vice President Joe Biden, a leader of the faction within the government, believes that the cons-terrorism is a tactic more reliable and less expensive cons Al Qaeda.
The interventions of the Massachusetts senator is often a good indicator of current thinking in the White House. The secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates - whose ministries are responsible for conducting counter-insurgency strategy - though both were in favor of the decision announced in December 2009 by Obama of send more troops to Afghanistan.
At the White House, a senior official said that nothing says that the death of Bin Laden to drive a wedge between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "But his death makes it more likely scenario, which could facilitate the efforts of reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government." Impatience is nevertheless growing in the ranks of parliamentarians.
Within ten days have elapsed since the death of bin Laden, many lawmakers have called for accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan, starting with the troops that Obama plans to repatriate this summer, without specifying numbers. Both the White House at the Capitol, it is considered almost unanimously as substantial military successes were won this year against the Taliban.
But other facets of the strategy - such as improving the economic and political - are subject to less positive evaluations. Many questioned the feasibility of plans involving the recruitment and training of nearly 400,000 Afghans in the security forces responsible for replacing foreign units after they leave.
It is estimated that maintenance costs of the Afghan forces each year to 10 billion, while income tax levied by Kabul are limited to about 2 billion. "So who will foot the bill if we do not want these soldiers and policemen are the engines of the next insurgency?" Asks John Kerry. Obama is awaiting the recommendations of General David Petraeus, commander of coalition forces, about one out in July.
Military source, it says: "From the standpoint of the army, there is no question of reopening the debate on strategy. We were given a mission. For us, it's a strategy that works and is bounded in time. "The U.S. military hierarchy in Afghanistan calls for the continuation of aggressive operations against the Taliban, and a withdrawal more modest in the short term.
"The threat from al-Qaida is now diminished. However, it was the government's main argument in favor of the presence in Afghanistan, says a Western diplomat in Kabul. This can only be in favor of the idea that it is time to start withdrawing. " 
In the upcoming debates, the late leader of al-Qaeda will probably cited as evidence that the cons-terrorism is a tactic more effective and profitable for the next phase of a war that has lasted nearly ten years. Even before the death of bin Laden, some argued - given the heavy indebtedness of the country, the prospect of the 2012 presidential election and developments on the ground - that the U.S.
plans for reconstruction in Afghanistan went well beyond a mission of ensuring the security of the United States. The current spending of around 10 billion dollars a month, are "fundamentally untenable" and it is urgent that the government should clearly define what its objectives and its plan to emerge from Afghanistan, said Sen.
John Kerry of Massachusetts. A senior U.S. official involved in Afghan politics in the United States argues, however, that "there is no going back" on the strategy that led the deployment of 30,000 soldiers and hundreds of additional diplomats in the war zone since early last year. "We are engaged in a clear way by the president," he said.
But he acknowledged that the death of bin Laden "might have a significant impact on the establishment of goals and pace" of the withdrawal of American troops, expected to begin in July and be completed in late 2014. Members of the government team stressed condition of anonymity that Obama and his national security advisers have not yet addressed the issue of withdrawal, nor the military have made suggestions.
Tuesday, May 10, during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by himself, John Kerry said he was not defending a "unilateral and hasty withdrawal" of U.S. forces. But "I think we should try to minimize our presence," he said. John Kerry is a longtime friend and former colleague in the Senate Vice President Joe Biden, a leader of the faction within the government, believes that the cons-terrorism is a tactic more reliable and less expensive cons Al Qaeda.
The interventions of the Massachusetts senator is often a good indicator of current thinking in the White House. The secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates - whose ministries are responsible for conducting counter-insurgency strategy - though both were in favor of the decision announced in December 2009 by Obama of send more troops to Afghanistan.
At the White House, a senior official said that nothing says that the death of Bin Laden to drive a wedge between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "But his death makes it more likely scenario, which could facilitate the efforts of reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government." Impatience is nevertheless growing in the ranks of parliamentarians.
Within ten days have elapsed since the death of bin Laden, many lawmakers have called for accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan, starting with the troops that Obama plans to repatriate this summer, without specifying numbers. Both the White House at the Capitol, it is considered almost unanimously as substantial military successes were won this year against the Taliban.
But other facets of the strategy - such as improving the economic and political - are subject to less positive evaluations. Many questioned the feasibility of plans involving the recruitment and training of nearly 400,000 Afghans in the security forces responsible for replacing foreign units after they leave.
It is estimated that maintenance costs of the Afghan forces each year to 10 billion, while income tax levied by Kabul are limited to about 2 billion. "So who will foot the bill if we do not want these soldiers and policemen are the engines of the next insurgency?" Asks John Kerry. Obama is awaiting the recommendations of General David Petraeus, commander of coalition forces, about one out in July.
Military source, it says: "From the standpoint of the army, there is no question of reopening the debate on strategy. We were given a mission. For us, it's a strategy that works and is bounded in time. "The U.S. military hierarchy in Afghanistan calls for the continuation of aggressive operations against the Taliban, and a withdrawal more modest in the short term.
"The threat from al-Qaida is now diminished. However, it was the government's main argument in favor of the presence in Afghanistan, says a Western diplomat in Kabul. This can only be in favor of the idea that it is time to start withdrawing. "
- You: Strained US relations with Afghan, Pak will hit support for Afghan war: John McCain (30/05/2011)
- House Dems unite on Afghan exit (30/05/2011)
- Now for the price of chasing Afghan shadows (04/05/2011)
- OMG! Obama Hates the Flag (Again!) [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (10/05/2011)
- GOP surprises on Afghan withdrawal (26/05/2011)
Barack Obama (myspace) Barack Obama (answerscom) Barack Obama (homepage) Barack Obama (wikipedia) Barack Obama's Presidential Announcement (youtube) President Obama's Afghanistan Speech pt.1 (youtube) Barack Obama (youtube) Senator Obama sees benefits in Horn of Africa mission (youtube) Barack Obama (musicbrainz)
No comments:
Post a Comment