Petraeus Hedges On July 2011 Afghan Pullback, NYT Airs Skepticism Over War

The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, says that the drawdown of U.S. troops scheduled to start in July 2011 will be influenced by conditions on the ground.

In an interview with David Gregory scheduled to air on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Petraeus, as the AP put it, "hedged" when asked if the deadline was non-negotiable.

"What the president very much wants from me, and what we talked about in the Oval Office, is the responsibility of a military commander on the ground to provide his best professional military advice," Petraeus said. If the desired progress had not been reached by summer 2011, Petraeus said ''I would communicate that to him. ... That's real life.''

As the New York Times reported earlier this week, U.S. military officials are looking to build a case to minimize next summer's troop withdrawal. Petraeus, for his part, after keeping a low profile during his first month on the job, is beginning a media offensive, starting with his appearance on MTP this weekend, in which he is expected to the make the case for a fairly modest withdrawal and for more time to execute the current counterinsurgency strategy.

"Their argument is that while we've been in Afghanistan for nine years, only in the past 12 months or so have we started doing this right, and we need to give it some time and think about what our long-term presence in Afghanistan should look like," a senior military official told the Times.

As CNN reported yesterday, settling the debate about the deadline is one of Petraeus' key goals since taking command.

Yet while the military is preparing its appeal for more time, the New York Times published a lengthy editorial in this morning's paper, stating that "like many Americans, we are increasingly confused and anxious about the strategy in Afghanistan and wonder whether, at this late date, there is a chance of even minimal success."

The editorial lays out a number of familiar concerns -- the lack of counterinsurgency success in Marjah, the untrustworthiness of Karzai as a partner, the inadequately prepared Afghan army -- while also touching on the issue of Obama's deadline.

"President Obama was intentionally vague last December when he said that American troops would begin to transfer out of Afghanistan by July 2011," the Times writes. "Since then, the administration has sent a host -- a cacophony -- of conflicting signals about the deadline, the strategy and its commitment to the war. Americans need regular, straight talk from President Obama about what is happening in Afghanistan, for good and ill, and the plan going forward."

A preview of Petraeus' "Meet the Press" interview:

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

Comments

[JXJASON]

07:59 AM on 08/17/2010

Tell President Obama " BRING OUR TROOPS HOME ".

If your members of Congress voted for the recently passed bill to spend another 300 Billion Dollars on the war in Afghanistan, vote them out of office in the next election.

My Congressman, a Democrat, voted to spend another 33 Billion Dollars on the war in Afghanistan. I will not vote for him again.

[timebon]

12:01 AM on 08/16/2010

I was thinking that there is a kind of similarity between the Afghan war and what was done in the the United States against the Native American population. Both involve rural, land based people living in mountainous regions with their own non-Christian religion. Because the NA population was considered a threat to a white Christian way of life, and in order to make the land in the US habitable for nation building, forts were built as bases of operation and territorial acquisition was carried out over many years, destroying defiant populations or forcibly removing them. But that war went on for the better part of one century...100 years.

Is this what Petraeus is talking about when he says, "...we need to give it some time and think about what our long-term presence in Afghanistan should look like."

I guess the BIA could go to Afganistan and try to turn Islamists into Christians as part of the program.

[mjc]

12:05 PM on 08/15/2010

Petraeus polishes his image of calm, informed militarism. We there to provide "stability"; yeah, sure. One report...perhaps a month or more ago...said that we have only about 5 of the "districts" in Afghanistan under control...out of over 200!! Why is this stability needed? Not that Petraeus says as much, but it is true that we are getting the impression that the REAL war/conflict only just began when the Obama administration came in. It's like the question that used to be asked about China...Who lost China?, i.e., which party or president allowed it to become communist? So in order to keep that question about Afghanistan from being asked, we are there to suck up any empty space there and be on the alert for any problems that might arise. We still support Karzai...and his brother? and corruption is just something to be accepted. On the other hand, the Taliban is hinted as being some sort of insurgent group from the outside, hated by the average Afghan. Not so, not at all. They are part of the fabric of that society. We don't win by "getting rid of the Taliban"!

[gorideabike]

12:30 PM on 08/14/2010

Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them.
Related story: US Joins Third World After Military Bankrupts Economy.

[Chopin]

02:15 AM on 08/15/2010

That's the most succinct prognosis I've read. It seems the imperial machinery is locked on its self-destructive course, unable to respond to reality, and bent on creating a delusional reality from neocon ideology. This plutocratic oligarchy ruling class is still stuck in the visions of imperial grandeur of "the world's sole superpower" status borne in the 1990's after collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course, in the end reality will rudely destroy illusions and trump ideology.

A new class of Americans will have to prepare to pick up the pieces, purge the curse of imperial demons, and start over again to rebuild the nation on a new different foundation. They will chart a new course, guided by sound principles with strong moral and spiritual dimensions. These dimensions are suppressed and absent in all aspects of national life today. They will be the guiding light and hope for a new reborn "Renaissant America". This class of new leaders and new people will be called "the Renaissant Americans".

[baba2nde]

09:45 PM on 08/15/2010

How profoundly prescient!

[1776 or 1984]

09:56 PM on 08/15/2010

The more likely outcome will be f@scists taking over.

The plutocracy will finally take on its final shape -- the shape which they exported upon puppet states for decades. F@acism.

The end-of-the-world Christians, Tea Baggers, and Culture_Warriors will constitute the vanguard masses as being programmed by FOX cable, right-wing media, stadium rallies (Palin-style).

The plutocracy sees they are being exposed, so they can only survive by turning the tables and going for broke.

==================
Be a rebel, not a subject

[ouroborous]

11:56 AM on 08/14/2010

Ah yes: "conditions on the ground" -- the military equivalent of the "what about the children" argument that defies all rationality and trumps all other discussions.

Expected. God forbid we can't justify those billion dollar war machines by bombing SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE.

Even if we get out of Afghanistan, expect the resurgent right wing to try to force Obama to invade Iran this fall.

[Dreamking]

05:40 AM on 08/14/2010

The Oval Office conversation on how to explain that we're staying in Afghanistan:

Let's see: "We have to fight them over there, so we don't fight them over here". Oh wait, Bush already used that.

Um, "we have to continue the fight to honor those already fallen". Merde! Bush copped that one as well?

How about: "The people of Afghanistan want us there because they love Democracy!" Bush used that one in 2005??!!

F' Bush. Let's try Cheney. "We have intelligence that you haven't seen that says that this war is winnable".

Ok, let's go with that one. Cheney NEVER an argument....

[engchina]

03:59 AM on 08/14/2010

Sincw American young people unable to find gainful employment .
This would be a good time to revisit the draft and begin a third war against IRAN.
If you think this the mind of a crazed right winger.. It probably is, and you may have to wait until after the 2012 presidential election.
Sadly, our current President who I generally support,may return to private life, and be replaced by a conservative, whose first day of foreign business will invade Iran, while making military overtures to North Korea, Russia and China. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but there are political and social signs that the USA is willing to sacrifice more young lives for another war. This due to the persistent belief that its citizenry want the US to remain #1 in the world order of countries for the unforseable future.
The majority of americans continue to believe in the divinity of the supreme nation. In the eyes of many Americans the US is forever the economic and social leader of the planet we simply call earth
Any threat to that world order is viewed in America as a direct threat. What is euphemistically called, "a threat to National Security" and used as an arguement for today's wars.
So lets brace ourselves for the invasion of Iran circa date January 21 2013.
The television news stories have already been written and are just waiting for a sell date.
I hope I am wrong.
EngChina.

[JXJASON]

08:07 AM on 08/17/2010

Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted AGAINST the recently passed bill to spend another 33 Billion Dollars on the war in Afghanistan. If Dennis runs for President in the next election I will vote for Dennis Kucinich. You should too.

[MajorMalfunction]

10:39 PM on 08/13/2010

Former Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had it right when he asked "Are we creating more terrorists than we are killing?" Yeah, we are. That's why the war was a lost cause. The US tax payers always end up paying for both sides of every war. This one is no different.

[Chopin]

12:30 AM on 08/14/2010

"The US tax payers always end up paying for both sides of every war."

That became clear last year in Patraeus surge in Iraq. The surge was "successful" as Patraeus trumpeted, because tribal leaders and insurgent fighters were paid under the table to simmer down for a season, until payments stop. What kind of "war" was that? You're absolutely right -- American taxpayers don't even question and make loud protests why and how literally balefuls of billions of dollars are dropped into invisible hands in Iraq, and now into Afghanistan.

GWB: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, . . . er, you can't be fooled again."
We're into 3rd and 4th time now.

[EXAbramsMasterGunner]

10:17 AM on 08/14/2010

Thank you. So many people fail to remember why the surge actually worked and as you stated....."the insurgent fighters were paid". Yet you still hear some of the same pundits spout the same drivel about the surge and how this will work in Afghanistan. Everyone needs to also realize that Afghanistan is so much different than Iraq culturally, politically, and economically. But sadly again, so many people figure that if the nation is in the middle east - they are all the same.

Fanned!

[MajorMalfunction]

10:31 PM on 08/13/2010

The New York Times? Is that thing still around?

[HamletsMill]

02:11 AM on 08/14/2010

Fanned.

[1776 or 1984]

10:24 PM on 08/13/2010

The primary aim is to spend without raising the general standard of living, and, to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs.

The consciousness of being in 9-1-1 w@rs, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of more and more power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

Essentially, the W@r on Terr0r is waged by the Empire against its own subjects, and the object of the w@r is not conquests of territory or to vanquish terr0rists, but to keep the structure of society intact.

Without fear, eventually, the small people in the richest nation would ask its piggy_rulers to spend taxes on things that raise the general well being of the small people (i.e., universal healthcare, good schools, etc.), which would lead to more critical minds.

Real peace puts the Empire at risk. In defense of the Empire, endless war continues ...

[yoyodyne666]

12:13 AM on 08/14/2010

Very nice .....

[kkrimmer]

10:16 PM on 08/13/2010

W.T.F?

I thought Bushole sent Americans to die in Afghanistan in order to destroy al-Qaida and kill bin Laden?

[1776 or 1984]

10:35 PM on 08/13/2010

Lies after lies from the Empire would eventually lead one to believe that the Empire lies as a rule, not on exception. Hence, what precipitated all of these w@rs is a lie.

-----------------------------------
Be a rebel, not a subject

[PaxtontheMeek]

10:01 PM on 08/13/2010

Hey look, The Times is only nine years late.

That might be a record.

[bccmeteorites]

10:12 PM on 08/13/2010

That's funny LOL.

[Chopin]

09:13 PM on 08/13/2010

French PM Clemenceau said: "War is too important to leave to the generals."
That's true today. If you dispassionately analyze what Patraeus + Obama say, they're doing "good cop, bad cop" routine. What each says is vague enough it cannot be pinned down nor clearly understood, neither by 300million American people, nor by Afghan counterparts.

A decision must be made. Let's examine political + military components of this decision:--

Truman said: "Buck stops here." Ultimate responsibility rests with President, clear enough. If it wasn't clear when KoreanWar should end, Truman clarified it by firing MacArthur when he said what amounted to "End depended on conditions on the ground". In short, end of KoreanWar shouldn't and didn't depend on MacArthur's feelings about fighting land war with China.

Has Obama clearly articulated the goal + end of AfghanistanWar? No, he said it in such way that ultimate responsibility + decision for withdrawal depended on EVERYBODY ELSE --- Karzai government's stability, "conditions on the ground", generals' advice.
End of WW2 was clear --- enemies' unconditional surrender.
End of VietnamWar was clear --- when last evacuation helicopter flew off embassy rooftop.

Patraeus says: "I just give military advice, on conditions on the ground". Good, Obama relies on that to decide on when to end AfghanistanWar. It never happened that way in major wars in history. Why would American people accept such dribbles to decide end of war? Why do Americans accept this incomprehensible criterion --- "conditions on the ground"?

[bccmeteorites]

10:14 PM on 08/13/2010

You will have made great strides in the arena when you have reduced your post to four sentences and a single paragraph. And while your at it leave out the spin.

[adrianrf]

10:48 PM on 08/13/2010

or you could try developing some remedial reading skills.
because your response added bugger-all to the discussion.

[yoyodyne666]

12:17 AM on 08/14/2010

You will have made great strides in the arena when you post something on topic. I happen to like chopins statement.

[OliverTwist]

08:04 AM on 08/14/2010

"Has Obama clearly articulated the goal + end of AfghanistanWar? No, he said it in such way that ultimate responsibility + decision for withdrawal depended on EVERYBODY ELSE --- Karzai government's stability, "conditions on the ground", generals' advice."

Seems a reasonable characterization of Obama's statements. That's what he does. Obama tries as hard as he can to be a many faceted mirror.

[Earl]

08:59 PM on 08/13/2010

Both of these wars just seem to be one big endless, expensive military playground.

[adrianrf]

10:51 PM on 08/13/2010

unless you happen to be one of the several million SOBs (men, women & children) who are unfortunate enough to have to try staying alive inside the hellish confines of our "playground" as we indulge our boys and their lethal toys.

[Peter Noble 2]

08:40 PM on 08/13/2010

NYT supports the war but is merely upset that obama is not forthright enough and has not adopted a Churchillian tone to describe this war of choice. Really despicable Editorial as there is no national interest served by shooting dead civilians and farting while trying to win over village elders.

NYTimes has acted like PRAVDA the official organ of the government for decades now and TRUTH is the very last thing they want to hear from Obama.

If it would be a crime to shoot dead pregnant women, already mothers and wives, then it is likely even in war that when our troops dig the bullets out that this is also a crime; a war crime. And Lord knows Obama likes to be nice, so he cannot pretend that criminal acts are good when done by us; better to remain quiet and polish that Nobel Peace Prize.

How did such a nice President continue this despicable war of choice? And let's never mention the terrible toll on those ordered to commit crimes for another's war based on nothing but Hubris.

The Editorial was essentially begging Obama to find a more attractive narrative.