iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama: Afghanistan Deadline An 'Obsession' For Some

First Posted: 06/28/10 12:26 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:55 PM ET

Obama Afghanistan Deadline
President Barack Obama of the United States speaks during his closing press conference at the G20 summit in Toronto, Sunday, June 27, 2010. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

TORONTO (Associated Press) - President Barack Obama said Sunday that there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He said his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful.

Obama's show of frustration about when he will end the unpopular war in Afghanistan came in his closing press conference at the G-20 summit in Toronto, where industrialized countries committed to slash their budget deficits in half by 2013. The president said the United States shares that commitment.

At the end of a week in which he dismissed his top commander in Afghanistan, Obama defended his war strategy and said the United States would assist the Afghans "for a long time to come."

"I don't have a crystal ball," the president said when asked about a five-year Afghanistan exit strategy endorsed Saturday by the Group of Eight major industrial democracies.

"I think that right now the debate surrounding Afghanistan is presented as either we get up and leave immediately because there's no chance at a positive outcome, or we stay basically indefinitely and do quote unquote whatever it takes for as long as it takes."

Obama's policy falls somewhere in the middle, thereby pleasing few. He reiterated that a July 2011 date to begin withdrawing troops does not mean the U.S. will "suddenly turn off the lights and let the door close behind us." Under Obama's policy, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will first climb to 98,000.

Obama offered a rationale for the nation's very presence in Afghanistan.

"You'll often hear, why are we in Afghanistan when the terrorists are in Pakistan?" Obama said.

He contended America would be less secure if al-Qaida still could be housed in Afghanistan, and contended there remains "a vital national interest that Afghanistan not be used as a base to launch terrorist attacks."

In Washington, CIA Director Leon Panetta expressed skepticism about whether insurgent groups in Afghanistan were interested in reconciliation with the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

"We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation, where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce al-Qaida, where they would really try to become part of that society," Panetta said on ABC's "This Week."

Obama sounded more positive.

"I think that we have to view these efforts with skepticism, but also openness," the president said.

Obama also issued a warning to North Korea, saying its alleged sinking of a South Korean warship was "belligerent behavior that is unacceptable" to the international community. Forty-six South Korean sailors died in the March incident.

"It is absolutely critical for the international community to rally behind" South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Obama said.

Obama told reporters bluntly that he hoped Chinese President Hu Jintao would recognize that North Korea crossed a line in the warship sinking.

"There's a difference between restraint and willful blindness to consistent problems," Obama said, referring to Beijing's worry that instability in the North could cause major problems across the border in China.

Obama said he wants the U.N. Security Council to produce a "crystal-clear acknowledgment" of the North's action. The cooperation of China, a veto-wielding member of the Security Council and North Korea's major international supporter, is crucial to that goal.

Obama said shying away from the harsh facts about North Korea's behavior is "a bad habit we need to break."

He also emphasized the importance of China carrying through on its pledge to introduce more flexibility in how it manages its currency, the yuan.

"A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage," he said. "As I told (Chinese) President Hu Jintao yesterday, the United States welcomes China's decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces. We will be watching very closely in the months ahead."

The G-20's final summit communique did not mention China's currency directly, only generally expressing a need for countries to have flexible currency exchange rates. It did not take China to task for its managed currency policies, which American manufacturers blame for the loss of millions of jobs because they keep the cost of China-made products artificially low.

Asked about the timing for China to increase the yuan's value, Obama said that as more market forces come to bear, he believed the Chinese currency "is going to go up significantly."

Obama was asked about the prospects of his Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, whose confirmation hearings begin Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said his former Senate colleagues "should pay attention to Elena Kagan's record and her testimony ... and then vote their conscience."

He called objections to Kagan raised by Republicans "pretty thin gruel."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

TORONTO (Associated Press) - President Barack Obama said Sunday that there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He said his focus is on making sure the mi...
TORONTO (Associated Press) - President Barack Obama said Sunday that there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He said his focus is on making sure the mi...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,986
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (91 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tony wise
07:13 PM on 07/27/2010
skepticism? really mr.potus...

1.3 billion taxpayer dollars to give amnesty to terrorists ...you dont sound very skeptical to me at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2796610._CH_.2400

well either that or you just like to toss money at corruption.

oh ya...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61L4L120100222

you know, this government:

http://www.examiner.com/x-36012-Yemen-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m1d23-Yemens-human-rights-atrocities-fuel-al-Qaeda-rights-group-says
03:32 PM on 07/03/2010
When Progressive becomes like Naderism became..another cog in the GOP program, then I'm done with it and will settle for just being a plain old Dem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FACTISFACT
A war veteran. Finally retired
04:48 AM on 06/30/2010
The concern of ending the war cannot be more concern than the President, but the war that was started by the previous regime made such a mess before they left that ending the war abruptly then and even now would be disastrous for the troops as well as the civilians.

President's strategy to end the war over a stipulated period is the only correct. However, a fixed date would not be correct as it will depend how the situation takes turn when in which way will also depend, what action to be taken.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
11:32 AM on 06/30/2010
Think for many who voted for him and expected great things from him (Obama), his talk during the campaign for the presidency wasn't the same as his actions when he acquired it. These wars may have started during the Bush administration but Obama has made them HIS wars now and set deadlines which even the Bush folks didn't. As I have stated below...and elsewhere, it would be better if we were told what we are there for, the mission, and when we will know it has been accomplished. Then we can leave.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FACTISFACT
A war veteran. Finally retired
01:10 AM on 07/01/2010
Hi! My Friend mjc thanks a lot for you comment on FACTISFACT'S comment.

After having gone through your comment, FACTISFACT noted your points raised therein. He however would try to put forward some reasons why Obama probably could not yet make up to all the promises he made before he took over the office.

One need to take into consideration that when Obama made the promises when he did not have the deep information regarding previous administration.

The Iraq front is now on the close under the watch of the president and just watch all the hazards faced during its closure.

Obama took office and as the days passed he was engulfed with insurmountable obstructions on every issue he laid his hand on..

If you take up the case of Guantanamo prison closure issue, the President ordered the closure of the Guantanamo prison, what happen?.

My Friend, let me tell you, what this President is doing and had already done none else would have achieved so much in so short a time under continuous obstruction. .

So before coming to any conclusions one should minutely consideration all prose and cones of the issues.

My Friend, FACTISFACT says, difference is to observe who gives up and who strives to make certain all said is done, and the President in this case is the person who is striving to keep up to his promises, he needs time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
04:22 PM on 06/29/2010
Wonder if Leon Panetta is going to be another source of disagreement within the Obama administration. He doesn't see al Qaeda under every bush like some in Washington or in Afghanistan and that seems to take that terrorist group out of the picture as a good reason to stay there, whatever length of time. But Obama has a problem with setting out "deadlines" which don't really conform to reality, as in GITMO. Perhaps it would be better if he had a valid explanation of why we are there in the first place and go from there as to when that mission is accomplished; likewise at Guantamano.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
12:52 AM on 06/30/2010
Yes. He says, "...America would be less secure if al-Qaida still could be housed in Afghanistan, and contended there remains 'a vital national interest that Afghanistan not be used as a base to launch terrorist attacks.'", but doesn't explain why he thinks that is so. What does it matter what country Al Qaeda is housed in? What is this "vital national interest" he speaks of? None of them ever explain. Also, what exactly does it mean that "the mission is successful?":They never explain.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
06:25 PM on 07/01/2010
You got it, Acharn. Panetta said there are fewer than fifty al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the ability to launch terrorist attacks from Afghanistan is probably limited at best. But the vital national national interest has nothing to do with al Qaeda. The Chinese are very interested in Afghanistan because there are minerals there that are not as available to the world's economy as much as there. But we are not getting the truth about our "mission".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cj5
12:56 PM on 06/29/2010
A statement like that could cost Obama big time. It now seems that this is the beginning of a military quagmire that U.S. leadership has faced in the past, like Vietnam. The U.S. also faces the same fate of the former USSR, but at least Gorbachev knew when to bow out. Obsessed, Mr. Obama? You're absolutely right the people of your nation are obsessed with the deadline of this war. For 9 years the American people have been on a "war on terror" roller coaster, financially and emotionally, and we're still figuring out what to do over there. It is imperative that your administration provide us with even an glimmer of closure. We'll take anything, but instead you bow to the needs of military might and corporate mercenaries over the needs of everyday Americans, so that you can appeal to both parties with this open-ended withdrawal. This plan is not a plan, but just a half-promise, so that if you're short on votes come next election, you can pick and choose the best scenario. This moving deadline is a political convenience, and not a plan in any sense of the word.
08:20 AM on 06/29/2010
I didn't vote for Obama, and "wasted" my vote on Ron Paul. I'm glad I did. Better to lose in a good cause than to win in a bad one. Are all the sheepies ready for Iran? Saddle up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hollybork
08:06 AM on 06/29/2010
This article makes it sound like Obams is in Afghanistan for the long haul, to keep a presence together to prevent a take over by Taliban forces. But if Obama fails to withdraw our men and women from Afghanistan in 2011, he will face challengers for the 2012 election. Not only progressives, but the whole country is disgusted and tired of this war. Obama cannot survive the disapproval of the American people over this war forever. Take a lesson from LBJ and Nixon, Mr. President.

Does Obama (who strikes me as no hawk) truly think fighting the Taliban in an Afghanistan Civil War with that miscreant Hamid Karzai as our "buddy" is worth his political future? I doubt it. He is too ambitious to accept a single failed term of the Presidency.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
07:29 AM on 06/29/2010
It's the media that has an obsession, Mr. President. We, the people already know you're moving the goalposts, AGAIN.
12:46 AM on 06/29/2010
Oh,i am Cambodia boy and i am a freshman at university... Oh, i accept what isone thing that Obama said "Obama defended his war strategy and said the United States would assist the Afghans "for a long time to come." Therefore,i think Obama have a good idea for increase a lot of US soldiers at Afganistan for along time on. So i think, he is thinking about the best strategy to fight the Taliban. Thus,he will get benefit for this purpose and the power of USA will increase than the power of China. So only USA can win every countries which are so weak. From Elene
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
futbol4fun
A lot of you are too obtuse to understand sarcasm
11:31 PM on 06/28/2010
"There's an obsession with people who seem to think I have to keep my word."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hollybork
08:08 AM on 06/29/2010
Ha ha. Nailed it. Fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guitarsandmore
devoted father, community activist, musician, reti
08:08 PM on 06/28/2010
By the time Obama gets done saving us from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and other unimportant targets there won’t be any of us left to save.

It is called the law of diminishing returns. At some point throwing more and more money at Afghanistan does not produce any better results for the people of America.

Obama has acquired an old broken down boat called the U.S.S. Afghanistan and is willing to mortgage my house, sell my kids, and have me give up eating, all so he can fix up this old worthless boat. Great effort but wrong priorities Pres.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
futbol4fun
A lot of you are too obtuse to understand sarcasm
11:46 PM on 06/28/2010
I really don't believe that Obama is calling the shots on this one. Pakistan is believed to have trillions of dollars worth of natural resources. There is absolutely NO WAY we will be leaving anytime soon. The Corporations know that if the U.S. pulls out, the Chinese government will be the one's collecting. The Government knows that if the U.S. pulls out, the Chinese military will have access to all of these resources. New technology is built on heavy metals, which we have very little of. Guess where most of them have been found? That's right, Asia.

Look at it this way. If China continues to improve their relationship with Russia (huge reserves of gas and oil as well as God knows what in much of the untouched Siberian region), U.S. pulls out and then the troubles start again. China follows an international doctrine set by Bush, invades in the name of National Security, receives Russian support in UN Sec Council and then We are left with old, oil-based technology while Russia and China have access to literally unlimited, highly valued resources.

Are we really naive enough to believe that Obama is going to pull our troops out?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
futbol4fun
A lot of you are too obtuse to understand sarcasm
11:53 PM on 06/28/2010
Last I checked, we were taking on water here too.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DHK
06:28 PM on 06/28/2010
Famous lies and other mis-leading statements: Obama promised to let tax cuts of Bush to the wealthy die. He is busy continuing them:Obama promised why cant you have a health plan like the Congress. Why indeed.Obama promised a draw down in 2011. Remains to be seen.Obama promised to punish corruption of the Constitution specifically Torture.Huh?? Obama won the Nobel Peace prize: give it back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ
01:16 AM on 06/29/2010
A lot of people apparently don't like the truth! Democrats are neither progressive nor leftist--they only talk like they are. In truth they are just Wall Street lackeys, exactly the same as Republicans are.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
04:33 PM on 06/29/2010
Please don't judge all Democrats by Obama. He had to pick a party to run on but as others have stated here most of what he has "done" is to create a reason to run again in 2012. DHK has enlightened us with some of the real disagreements between Obama's policies and those of many Democrats. But for sure, no one should think for one minute that Obama is a progressive or liberal; more like a bit right of center on the political spectrum.
05:46 PM on 06/28/2010
WAR IS THE OBCESSION
Obama must have his hand forced.
He is gettung bad advice from the high ranking Israeli military war monger sitting at his right hand
As bad as Kissinger ever was.
12:14 AM on 06/29/2010
so its not his fault?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pinkladee
luvs all things pink
05:17 PM on 07/03/2010
Hella no, according to some the POTUS is or will be faulted for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED OR WILL HAPPEN ANYWHERE! Get a grip!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:08 PM on 06/28/2010
The US is locking into a perceptual state of war.

We've been engaged in one form of warfare or another for much of the last 60 years, and now the US is mired in wars that even our own intelligence services find are making us less secure. That will in turn make more war a necessity.

The US command in Afghanistan sees no real possibility of a definitive victory. From 'The Runaway General' in Rolling Stone magazine: "Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. 'It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win,' says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. 'This is going to end in an argument.' "

As author Hastings put it: "So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible."

It may not be the outcome articulated or desired by this administration, but it's the one we seem to be headed towards.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LouGots
09:58 AM on 07/05/2010
But Hastings is simply wrong about counterinsurgency in general.. There was little Nazi "insurgnecy" affter WWII, because we did not permit. In fact, we shot about a thousand of the would-be "werewolves" ourselves, and the other allies were less kind.
photo
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
04:03 PM on 06/28/2010
The "obsession" with a deadline is caused by seeing all possible justification for fighting the war fade away while the war heated up. It's an "obsession" with seeing American lives and treasure thrown away.

And "obsession" with a deadline? What about the "obsession" with fighting a war without a goal?