Clinton, Gates Walk Back Obama's "Locked In" Afghan Withdrawal

Despite the president's commitment on Tuesday that a surge of US and international troops in Afghanistan would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011," that date is not a "drop dead deadline"--at least according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates recorded an interview with David Gregory that's set to air Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press. Both Clinton and Gates contradicted Obama's withdrawal language:

HILLARY CLINTON: We're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop dead deadline. What we're talking about is an assessment that in [July] 2011, we can begin a transition. A transition to hand off -- responsibility to the Afghan forces.

ROBERT GATES: We're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We're talking about something that will take place over a period of time.... Our military thinks we have a real opportunity to do that. And it's not just in the next 18 months. Because we will have a significant -- we will have 100,000 forces -- troops there. And they are not leaving-- in July of 2011. Some handful or some small number or whatever the conditions permit, we'll begin to withdraw at that time.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

After the president's speech, CBS News's Chip Reid sought clarification as to whether July 2011 was a "target" or a deadline and asked Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the date. Reid reported that Gibbs then called him to his office "to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in - there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel."

Comments

[ChelseaC]

01:11 AM on 12/08/2009

Can anyone say Vietnam?

[grandtrunk road]

05:34 PM on 12/07/2009

"It is no less a deception when Obama pulls it than when Bush and Cheney did it."

As I.F. Stone, the great radical journalist said, "All governments lie," On the other hand, I have trouble with the notion fashionable in some quarters that Obama is just like Bush, that "Obama doesn't care about the American people," as one HP commenter wrote. Obama came into office with an domestic agenda that I suspect means more to him that fighting the Taliban. I'm not sure what he can accomplish in Afghanistan in 18 months, but he should be held to his time table to begin troop withdrawal.

[MOCONSERVATIVE]

01:42 PM on 12/07/2009

I guess all it took was the prime minister of Pakistan saying WTF? for them to realize that appeasing the libbies wasn't worth losing the war over.

[ewilder]

07:49 AM on 12/08/2009

Your post makes no sense and doesn't seem to address any political reality.

[inrealtime]

12:36 PM on 12/07/2009

All this back and forth here and there is a sign of extreme inexperience. It's scary and is part of the reason for the Presidents sinking poll numbers. Other presidents have had low numbers at the end of the first year but their disapproval numbers were still way below the high negitives Obama is scoring. Many of us were taken with his rhetoric and special campaign, but have left the fold beginning with his first budget and others continue see the mistake they made in supporting him. It's not just one pollster but all including Marris, Gallup, Zogby, USA Today, NYT, Quin, See link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

[ElsaIndy]

08:54 PM on 12/07/2009

The problem is we had no one else to vote for: Hillary was just a First Lady albeit she was a lawyer but had never had any administrative work although she had more legislative experience in Congress than Obama and had spent most of her adult life near or in politics.

And the Republican ticket could not be taken seriously.

There were no serious debates on serious issues , not that it would have made a difference given the slate we had to choose from anyway.

The real problem is who will follow Obama if he loses in the next presidential election as he well might given his sinking polls numbers? And he will lose if we are still in Afganistan and if the economy is not producing jobs. Who will the Republicans put up? It will be their election to lose.

[inrealtime]

12:28 AM on 12/08/2009

You make some valid points. If this continues HRC could very well run again in 2012 like Kennedy did against Carter. If the economy is still in this mess sombody like Romney could possible have some answers....he did it for MA, the Olympics, and several multi-national corporations. I think next time the voters will be more demanding

[Marcospinelli]

11:59 AM on 12/07/2009

"we will begin to draw down troops in July 2011, depending upon conditions on the ground."
========================================

If "drawing down" is dependent upon "conditions on the ground", there can be no drawing down. There will always be some 'condition on the ground' that makes leaving "a threat to our national interests and security".

It is no less a deception when Obama pulls it than when Bush and Cheney did it.

[Jim238]

10:23 AM on 12/07/2009

If Politico and the other media outlets bother to report accurately, the president said that troops could begin to withdraw July 2011 based on conditions on the ground. It was never an absolute date.

"But taken together, these additional American and international troops will 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. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground." Sounds like withdrawing troops is contingent on ground conditions. So Clinton and Gates did not 'walk back' or back pedal.

[wlkcrk]

09:42 AM on 12/07/2009

Why does it take so long to train the afghans?? When I was drafted into the U.S. Army they trained me in 16
weeks and they felt that I was ready for conbat!!!! What is wrong with our president? Didn't he get his instructions from the pentagon correct?? You'd think that he was actually the Commander In Chief....

[garymc8]

10:07 AM on 12/07/2009

They do not want to be trained. Russia went broke trying to take Afghan's oil for 10 years. The same will happen to us. They are TRYING TO BANKRUPT AMERICA.

[ElsaIndy]

08:58 PM on 12/07/2009

And these wars will bankrupt us. We need to get serious about getting our economic house in order. These deficits are not being taken seriously enough.

As far as all this "training" goes, no one is training the Taliban. No one is training those guys who are killing our soldiers. When we have to "train", then we have already lost the war.

[stevenpaulblank]

09:33 AM on 12/07/2009

This is an excellent column - other than its central premise - that Obama presented an absolute deadline for troops coming home - is wrong. What Obama said was: "Taken together, these additional American and international troops will 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. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
In other words, the U.S. plans to begin - not complete - the transfer out of troops - as long as conditions allow.
July 2011 was presented in plain English as an objective or a plan. And Obama never said when all the troops would be removed. So the columns about Gates and Clinton backtracking on what Obama said is also nonsense.

[RadGash]

09:04 AM on 12/07/2009

I remember the old days when the President of the USA was the Commander and Chief. What he said set the wheels in motion to make it happen...

[alphamale2012]

09:16 AM on 12/07/2009

......seems like we're only missing Dick and Donald......

[sak]

08:29 AM on 12/07/2009

Obama is presiding over the demise of our country. We simply cannot fix the problems of the world. Other countries have been attacked by the same terrorists that we have, so let them fix the problem. In the meantime, our country is disintegrating before our eyes. Big business is continuing to cut jobs, they do not invest in the country, but go elsewhere. They don't even need our business anymore becuase other countries are getting richer and can buy products made in China, for example. Our infrastructure is crumpling, our schools are are mess, the newspaper and book industries are falling apart, and yet we can afford to spend billions in Afghanistan?

Someone is getting rich off this project and it isn't me or my friends. There is an old and very wise piece of advice that is given to people who are taking care of an elderly parent or sick child, and that is to take care of yourself so that you can be strong enough to help that sick person. Likewise, we as a country need to fix our internal problems - first of all jobs - before we can fix the ills of the world.

A lot more people die in this country because of lack of health care and other related issues with polluted air and industrial accidents than died in the Twin Towers. If we fixed our internal problems, we would come out ahead even if we did get attacked again.

[garymc8]

10:10 AM on 12/07/2009

But you can't justify NO BID CONTRACTS when you are taking care of America. It is about profiteering. Carlyle group 9 billion net worth in 2000, 40 billion in 2008. The bush family made 31 billion dollars fighting these 2 lie wars for profit.

[nofir2]

08:26 AM on 12/07/2009

I find this conversation disturbing on many fronts.
First, Obama did not say a date for leaving. Troops are not magically gone on a single date. If this surge trains Afghanis and secures much of Afghanistan TheTaliban and Al-Qaeda sitting back and waiting would be to their detriment since coming back would be a fight from a much weaker position. Indeed a whole new ball game. Trained and waiting Afghanis with skin in the game.
Second, following the bush plan? Wake up! Bush said he would leave it for the next president to determine some plan. Rummy didn’t know more troops were requested?
Obama sounds like Bush NOT!
Third. I find it irresponsible of MSM and certain republicans to assert a controversy over a date where a date to withdraw does not exist. It is mere partisanship a evaluation date to be a date certain. This type of partisanship is the story the MSM should be writing about. a Gate to no where!

[intotheabyss]

08:00 AM on 12/07/2009

Does anyone still think we still have a civilian controlled military? It seems more and more like what we now have is a militarily controlled government, including the president. As Tom Englehart of tomdispatch.com said last week. "President Obama has gone from the Commander in Chief to the Commanded in Chief." They're not even bashful about shoving it in our faces.

[onenation]

07:52 AM on 12/07/2009

Maybe I over stated a very little. But your headline "walks back" is the top, isn't it. Sure you END with Gibbs and the chisel.

[jerabaub]

07:05 AM on 12/07/2009

It may be distasteful to many people, including myself, but we regrettably may in in Afghanistan longer than we had hoped.
Don't get me wrong. I am not gleeful over the prospect.
I understand fully that many interests in Afghanistan and here in the U.S. benefit over the U.S. presence. The same can be said of Iraq. Many interests would love to suckle off the American taxpayer tit forever, reaping obscene profits and abetted by moronic neocons here in the U.S. who would rather subsidize the health care of Iraqis and Afghans with American taxpayer monies than assist the American citizen with health care costs.
But Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, was at the epicenter of the attacks on 9/11. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda set up training camps, and persons from those camps attacked us on 9/11. This is in stark contrast to Iraq, which had no camps and no Al Qaeda presence while Saddam was in power.
I still think a timeline is feasible. Pressure the Afghan govt that it must get its act together, that it cannot depend upon the largesse of the American taxpayer forever, that we will not subsidize, nor sacrifice our troops for, a corrupt and sleazy Afghan govt.
If Afghan govt and people can't get their act together in 18 months, they never will. It will demonstrate their commitment is simply not there. At that point, we should leave.

[ProfessorDuh]

07:15 AM on 12/07/2009

"Longer than we had hoped?" How delicately you put it. We have been there eight years. What the hell difference do you think another year is going to make?
How many TIMES LONGER THAN WORLD WAR II will this be? Three times? Five times? Twenty times? Trillions spent to stop a hundred phantom peasants? How many times all the U.S. military and all the U.S. intelligence let Osama bin Laden slip away yet again?
This scam is staring you right in the face, and you refuse to see it.

[jerabaub]

09:09 AM on 12/07/2009

Yes, we have been in Afghanistan since late 2001. But Bush began taking assets from the war there as early as 2002 to prepare for his disastrous Iraq debacle.
So, we never did task Afghanistan with the necessary force. Indeed, Berntsen and other CIA operatives at Tora Bora repeatedly begged Bush admin to send American soldiers to seal the border escape route from which Bin Laden later managed to flee.
I understand the frustration of people on this issue. I am frustrated too.
But unlike Iraq, Afghanistan did harbor those who trained for 9/11, and the Taliban either was indifferent to the training camps, or tacitly supported Bin Laden.
I just think it plausible to seriously dampen the likelihood of Afghanistan being used once again as a source from which to attack us.
I also believe it may be possible to make deals with some elements of the Taliban, have them assist us in the effort to expunge those terrorists who would plot to attack us again.
That is what we did on Iraqi surge(and I will always believe the war there was a huge blunder). Bush will rightly be condemned in history for the Iraq war. But the surge there was all about our paying off, bribing, former Sunni insurgents and terrorists who had previously been killing Americans.
It is a dirty business.

[sak]

08:31 AM on 12/07/2009

There is no Afghanistan. There is no sense of country there. We cannot fix it.

[grf67]

05:11 AM on 12/07/2009

It is past time that Obama replaced Gates and the rest of the holdover bushies. They are continuing to support the policies of bush and cheney and are not helping the current administration. Waiting will make the problem worse.

[Marcospinelli]

05:15 AM on 12/07/2009

Obama supports the Bush-Cheney policies.

That's what Obama formally signed on to last Tuesday. He's committing the US to Bush and Cheney's 'Long War'.

You can't lay these decisions off on Gates or Clinton or Rahm Emanuel or anyone except Obama. He's the president. That's who has the last word.

[MorgaineChya]

05:17 AM on 12/07/2009

I'm just glad it's not close to December 25th, because then they'd be blaming Obama's broken promises and emulating the Bush/Cheeneey military dyansty style, on Santy Claus.