The Independent on Sunday has repeated its call for a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan:
Would Afghanistan be worse off today if British forces had withdrawn from combat roles in 2010, as this newspaper proposed on Remembrance Sunday the year before? This is an unanswerable question, but if there are reasons for thinking that the consequences would have been negative, why should they be any less so at the end of 2014, when American and British forces intend to pull out?
The official answer is that another three years will give time for the Afghan security forces to be built up so that they can assume responsibility. That has been the official line for the past 10 years – it has always been claimed that, in another few years, the Afghans will be ready to take control of their own country.
The Independent on Sunday has reported more than once the despairing secret assessments of Afghan capability carried out by the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). There has been no observable progress for years. There are two possible responses to this. One is to say, give us more time and we can fix it. That is the definition of madness: to repeat actions and to expect a different result. The alternative response would be to say, "We are leaving in a year, you must be as ready as possible by then."[...]
Perfect conditions for withdrawal are never going to be achieved in Afghanistan, any more than they were in Iraq. And we have long since passed the moment when the benefits of staying longer outweigh the costs.
In the past few weeks—what with revelations of the mass burning of Korans, the investigations into the use of military air transport for drug trafficking, the killings of 16 people, including children, by a U.S. soldier on the ground, more drone attacks from the air with their almost inevitable "collateral damage" against innocent bystanders, continued reports that the Afghan military is not up to the task being transferred to it and is plagued by deserters and infiltrators, and the constant presence of corruption and warlordism—it's become clear even to many who were previously committed to sticking it out that nothing major is going to change in Afghanistan between now and the 2014 U.S. troop departure set by the Obama administration.
The majority of Americans want U.S. troops out, including trainers of the Afghan military and do not believe the war has been worth fighting.
Not everyone is eager to depart, however. One proposal the Pentagon vehemently denies is being considered would shrink U.S. forces to under 20,000 in 2014 and transfer command authority over various special operations forces that would remain in Afghanistan to the CIA.
Reducing the U.S. presence faster would be a political boon for the White House and the Afghan government, with Afghan sentiment raw over incidents ranging from civilian casualties from U.S. strike operations to the recent burning of Qurans by U.S. troops.
But a CIA-run war would mean that the U.S. public would not be informed about funding or operations, as they are in a traditional war. Oversight would fall to the White House, top intelligence officials, and a few congressional committees. Embedding journalists would be out of the question.
Two senior defense officials said that neither the CIA nor U.S. Special Operations Command has put this plan forward officially to [Secretary of Defense Leon] Panetta, the former CIA director.
When will we ever learn?
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2011:
Yesterday, Democrats said they would be willing to move towards the GOP's position on spending cuts in order to avoid a government shutdown.
Today, Republicans responded by moving the goalposts, saying that unless Democrats agree to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Republicans will block an increase the national debt limit, forcing the United States into default:
McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned on Friday that GOP senators will not vote to increase the government's borrowing limit unless President Barack Obama agrees to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, laying down a high-stakes marker just weeks before the debt ceiling is reached.
I guess the question is whether prematurely conceding to the GOP on spending cuts was a genius chess move designed to bait Republicans into touching the third rail of Social Security and Medicare, or whether it was a boneheaded play that will result in Democrats agreeing to a GOP plan to slash entitlements.
Tweet of the Day:
Who says we lose strength as we age? I used to only lift $50 worth of groceries now I can lift $90 worth of groceries with one hand.
— @mmcintee via Tweetbot for iOS
High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.