Appearing at the US Senate with Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mr Gates sought to allay Republican and Democratic criticism of the planned troop surge and exit strategy.
But his comments underlined the difficulty for the US in meeting Mr Obama’s goal of turning around the eight-year Afghan war in eighteen months, and satisfying the president’s own party that the troop increase will not be a long term one.
"Our current plan is that we will begin the transition in local areas in July of 2011," he said. "[But] we will evaluate in December 2010 whether we believe we will be able to meet that objective.
"If circumstances dictate in December the president always has the freedom to adjust his decisions".
http://www.ft.com/...
These are comments directly from the administration. So we just gave ourselves another year to see if we leave or surge again.
Also when Bill Kristol agrees with you in everything except the time-line you really know you are on the right track, since his record speaks for itself.
Kristol is basically gloating all the way through his piece.
At the press briefing this afternoon by two senior administration officials, a questioner pointed out that the government of Iran "regards the U.S. government's policy of surging forces as following Bush policy" and that the Iranian regime sees "no change in U.S. policy."
One senior administration official responded:
One reason that this policy may seem to Iran as consistent with previous policies is that it's founded on the same national interest, and that is that, fundamentally, at the very core of this, is the U.S. national interest to protect America and America's allies. And the threat that emanates from this region, centered on al Qaeda, persists.
So that's why there -- it's easy to understand Iran's perspective perhaps that there is some continuity here in the U.S. policy. That's because the interest is consistent.
"The interest is consistent." That’s the heart of the matter. It’s encouraging that Obama seems to understand this fact.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...
It is no wonder that many of us still hear the tones of the Bush Doctrine being spouted as our foreign policy ringing in our ears.
.
Now I have some questions
1] Afghan Police and Military
I haven't heard anything of how this situation is going to change except magically we will have an Afghan Army and police force ready for action, and at strengths hitherto never seen.
2] Stable Afghan Government
As we have seen the elections were corrupt and a sick joke. Karzai would last two seconds without us there.
If the plan is to work we must somehow create a stable and popular government. I haven't heard of a plan except perhaps we install a High Commissioner/Governor to effectively make the decisions for the Afghans.
I would remind everyone that the USSR left behind a weak and unpopular government and we all know how that story ended.
3] War on Terror.
The solution to this one hasn't changed we just keep fighting them over there. Drone attacks in Pakistan, payments to the Pakistan government and building up the army in Afghanistan. Winning hearts and minds and creating a new generation of 'terrorists'.
4] The Warlords and the Drug money
Not much said and pretty much ignored, perilously so in my opinion.
So What is this brave new strategy to get us out?
That about sums it up and its about what the Afghans can expect that we leave behind.
Its all very nice wanting to leave a stable and secure country behind, how many decades are we prepared to stay, the occupied West Bank should give you a clue.
Vietnam not so much, Russia's occupation of Eastern Europe possibly.
I have heard nothing new and until then I will regard it as I always have a senseless and meaningless occupation, we were wrong to go in and we are wrong in staying.
Have a good day.
Alessandra.
Update:
I will repeat the question ignoring the whys and wherefore of our invasion.
Who do we hand over to?
Is there some magic wand somewhere which we can use to create a stable government?
It is the question right at the heart of the matter.
NATO wont be able to do it, the UN is the only option in that case. What preparations are ongoing for a handover to a peace-keeping force?
More questions than answers and increasing troop strength just delays the decision.