General Petraeus Out In Afghanistan By End Of Year: Report

***UPDATE*** Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell released this statement:

Despite some sensational speculation by one of the London papers, I can assure you General Petraeus is not quitting as ISAF commander, but nor does he plan to stay in Afghanistan forever. Obviously he will rotate out at some point, but that point has not yet been determined and it will not occur anytime soon. Until then, he will continue to ably lead our coalition forces in Afghanistan.

General David Petraeus is expected to leave his post as commander of United States troops in Afghanistan, the Times Of London reports early Tuesday evening.

The Washington Post reported earlier in the day:

No final decisions have been made, but military officials said that Petraeus, who took command last July, will rotate out of Afghanistan before the end of the year.

The general who replaces Petraeus will have to navigate a tricky relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani leaders...

According to the Times, the Pentagon is expected to name a replacement for Petraeus by the end of the year.

President Barack Obama tapped Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal last summer after controversy swirling around critical comments the then-commander made about Obama administration officials to Rolling Stone landed him out of his post.

Reuters reports:

Petraeus has been talked about for a while as a possible successor to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), who is expected to retire in October. Any move would be part of a broader shake-up in the administration, which will also see Defense Secretary Robert Gates retire this year.
...
His departure, especially with Gates on his way out, could create the space for Obama to recalibrate Afghan strategy, backing away from the military surge and focusing more on a political settlement - if he wants to do so.

The Post notes that Petraeus is not the only leading U.S. official in Afghanistan expected to rotate out of his post this year. Among others, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who has expressed reservations about the country's Afghan war strategy, will reportedly leave his job in coming months.

The Times reports:

It forms part of a sweeping reorganisation of top American officials in Afghanistan, which the Obama Administration hopes to present as proof that its strategy does not depend on the towering reputation of one man.

Comments

[HLL]

06:17 PM on 02/17/2011

Please, General, when you leave Afghanistan, will you take all the troops home with you? ☮

http://www.stopthesewars.org/

http://costofwar.com/en/

[theaetetus]

12:26 PM on 02/17/2011

military intelligence

[allengoldchain]

07:51 PM on 02/16/2011

Well the way everyone is leaving this administration... there may be some merit to the london story

[Debbie McPherson]

05:01 PM on 02/16/2011

I read in The End Of America by Nomi Wolf, that Blackwater has a military base in Virgina on 7000 acres that is well enough equipped to take down a small country...all built on taxpayer nickel ...talk about privatizing - how about they just do away with the Pentagon budget and DOD budget and Homeland Security budgat and just keep Blackwater on call to protect us...
 
I'm being cynical of course, but this govt's obsession with keeping all these pumped up military units in this day and age is just assinine....at this rate, America will be such a poor and bankrupted little thrid world country it won't be worth defending....they are smothering the life and economy out of America in this crazy military spending us to death...
 
it makes no sense...the fear mongering...the terrorist with a bomb in his underwear coming to get us.... trillion dollar a year DOD couldn't save us frome ven that...what a horrible joke...

[wyldthings]

04:49 PM on 02/16/2011

I do not get it. I know of no General in this Country that has started a war. Every war I know of that America participated in was started by Politicains. The President along with the congress send our Generals to war and Most have never been there. Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, G.W. Bush or Obama. Now these Presidents were all elected by the people but some have to trust their Military Commanders more than some, but I stand by the statement NO  U.S. General has started a war!

[tipper18]

04:26 PM on 02/16/2011

Obama had to strike a big deal with this dude to get him to drag his bony little butt to Afghanistan after the McChrystal embarrassment. The obscenely ambitious general gets Mullen's big job, and his Commander-in-Chief doesn't have the Petraeus in 2012 threat hanging over his head. The joke may be on the Prez. The little general wants to be president. Read between the lines. He's still talking about it - telling reporters he's not running when they haven't even asked. Even if P-4 waits until 2016 to make his run, he'll make Obama's life miserable as his top military advisor. This is fun.

[wyldthings]

04:55 PM on 02/16/2011

First of all that bony little butt has seen more foul deeds and been under fire than you'll ever know or comprehend. Second no Presidents make deals with Generals. They replace or fire them. As far as President in my life time only Eisenhower and Clark ran for President.

[murphthesurf3]

11:56 AM on 02/16/2011

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE MCCHRYSTAL WAS REPLACED BY PETRAEUS?
What difference is Petraeus making?


Helmand Province which was a Taliban stronghold is now solidly in allied hands.

The Northern Alliance which fought with the U.S. in the first year of the Afghan War has become active again and has taken effective control of most of the north.

Taliban operations are now hit and run and very small. The ranks of the Taliban leadership have been decimated and the rank and file has shrunk by as much as half.

30 percent of all field operations are being run by Afghani forces.

Local security is on track to be handed over to Afghani forces this summer.

AND THE U.S. IS ON TRACK TO BEGIN REDUCING OPERATIONS AND PULLING OUT FORCES.

[Chopin]

12:51 PM on 02/16/2011

Pulling out cannot be a conditional clause that sounds like ...
"begin pulling out in summer of 2012 ... IF ... blah blah blah ... conditions on the ground ... blah blah blah ... are favorable ... blah blah blah ... Afghani troops and police can stand up as we stand down ... blah blah blah ... if nothing else goes wrong in the meantime... blah blah blah ... if there's no resurgence of Talibans ... blah blah blah ... "

Folks, this CONDITIONAL withdrawal is like conditional zex or conditional drinking, it can go on FOREVER.

[murphthesurf3]

01:43 PM on 02/16/2011

The D Day Landing in WW was rescheduled 9 times. Why? Conditions necessary for that action were not met.

Military planning, economic planning, social planning, are conditionally based. If this, then that.

In the case of Afghanistan, a decision locked in without assessment will do precisely what those who opposed any timetable were afraid of: the Taliban would disengage until the withdrawal date and then come roaring back.

This is how we withdrew from Iraq. That is how it works.

[murphthesurf3]

12:18 AM on 02/17/2011

You wrote: (MY RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS)



I'm not military strategist, but just normal critical thinker.

There's one critically important overriding factor you've completely overlooked and inadvertently or conveniently ignored:--

In latter stages of WW2, 1942-44, strategic momentum and growing industrial + economic prowess (economic + military output) were UNMISTAKABLY on western allies' side against the fascist axis alliance (Germany + Japan + Italy). Therefore, the western alliance could afford to wait for best strategic + tactical moment to launch D-Day invasion into Europe + Germany. During that time, their power was growing dramatically, and power of axis alliance was receding. Military historians would confirm that truth. SO YOU ADMIT THAT CONDITIONS DO AFFECT THE DECISION MAKING PROGRESS. GOOD. THAT'S PROGRESS. YOUR D-DAY ANALYSIS IS INTERESTING BUT NOT VERY ACCURATE. BRITAIN WENT INTO A DEPRESSION AFTER THE WAR; FRANCE LAY IN RUINS, THE U.S.S.R. WAS BROKEN. THE U.S. WAS GIVING ALL IT COULD. THERE WAS A DESPERATE NEED TO END THE WAR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. D DAY WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE THE FRENCH UNDERGROUND WAS NOT READY; BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY NEEDED WAS NOT DEVELOPED, BECAUSE INSUFFICIENT FORCES HAD BEEN AMASSED IN BRITAIN, BECAUSE SOME WANTED THE USSR DAMAGED EVEN FURTHER, BECAUSE THE NATURE OF GERMAN DEFENSES WERE NOT KNOWN. VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH YOU LIST.

Today, by sharp contrast, USA + sundry NATO allies in Afghanistan are on economic downhill slide. USA in particular is on exponentially accelerating binge growth of national debts, on fast track towards national fiscal bankruptcy. Time is NOT on America's side. Every passing month of continuing war is increasing war debts, working against national solvency of USA. Any Nobel economist worth his salt would confirm that truth. MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE CLEARLY CHALLENGES THE RELEVANCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THIS: EVERYTHING YOU SAY HERE IS GENERALLY TRUE BUT YOU DO NOT DEAL WITH ONE IMPORTANT REALITY: THERE IS A REAL AND DANGEROUS ENEMY WAITING FOR US TO LEAVE AN UNPREPARED AFGHANISTAN AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HOPE FOR THE BEST.

Examine the national debt clock:--
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Get visual + intuitive understanding of exponential growth of national debt. Try this simulation:--
http://www.otherwise.com/population/exponent.html

Click on "Run applet", select various growth rates (1.05 or 1.10). Watch growth of total national debt on vertical scale of the graph (treat "population size" 100 = $1Trillion total national debt). The growth of the total size is accelerating at greater and greater magnitude in each successive equal time period.

YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE MONETARY. MINE ARE SECURITY ORIENTED.

[tipper18]

04:27 PM on 02/16/2011

Obviously, you're in the military - or a retired Patriot. Either way, you're not reading and listening first-hand reports from people other than David Petraeus.

[murphthesurf3]

05:49 PM on 02/16/2011

Neither.

My sources are multiple.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/02/07/as-egypt-remains-an-open-question-progress-is-seen-in-afghanistan/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023673137120548.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/President-Obama-Cites-Progress-in-Battling-Taliban-al-Qaida-112040604.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606147.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/15/what-the-numbers-say-about-progress-in-afghanistan/
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/gen-david-petraeus-discusses-war-afghanistan-koran-burning/story?id=11603031

I would interested in your sources.

[murphthesurf3]

06:41 AM on 02/18/2011

Several days later.....no response to my list of sources.

Why?

[Deparis]

11:05 AM on 02/16/2011

Why should I care? What changed when he replaced McChrystal­? NOTHING! What will his replacemen­t change? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! So, again, why on God's green earth should I freaking care? Patraeus is going to keep getting rich and helping enrich the MIC criminals, our young boys and girls are gonna come home either dead or maimed, poor and living either under bridges or a mental institution, and Obama is going to keep on sending war gadgets to murder children, women (young, old, pregnant and otherwise) and old crippled Afghans whose only crime is to live in a godforsake­n land that does not have a powerful military to protect its people from acts of aggression by the US and its NATO "allies."

[ShawnRay]

09:54 AM on 02/16/2011

General Petreaus is a great general and he understands how to run a country better that our current administration. He listens to the people and he makes changes to make life better.

[AFP 2012]

01:11 PM on 02/16/2011

Let's get him on the ballot if he is leaving Afghanistan: americansforpetraeus2012.org

[ShawnRay]

03:00 PM on 02/16/2011

Here is the problem. After working for and briefing him, I think General Petraeus is probably a Democrat. His policies are pretty liberal minded. I like the website that you posted and I believe that he would be an outstanding politician, but he is liberal. I am a Reagan Conservative but I would vote for him.

[Billy Jack]

09:26 AM on 02/16/2011

Pull all the troops out, and let Petreaus stay

[Winnie71]

09:17 AM on 02/16/2011

The President has a plan, give it time to work. "we are winning the future" He will get us out in his second term, promise

[kenhamlett]

10:10 AM on 02/16/2011

The President said as a candidate that he would never allow troops to be committed to a foreign war without (1) a clear purpose, (2) a clear definition of what constituted victory, and (3) a definite exit strategy. What is the purpose in Afghanistan -- or the "plan," as you call it? Is it to capture Osama bin Laden? Is it to force the country into a democracy? Is it to make the world a safer place? It has accomplished nothing like any of those objectives. What constitutes victory? The Vice President recently said "we will be out by 2014, "whatever happens." That does not seem like a clear definition of victory to me. The following day, the White House issued a statement clarifying the VP's statement, saying that we might, in fact, remain in Afghanistan longer. Some exit strategy that is. I respect -- and even understand -- your loyalty to the President. But, this war is going nowhere -- even the recent WH "assessment" showed "limited progress, with the situation still very fragile" -- and it is draining our economy, forcing us to cut excellent programs for people in this country, and damaging our reputation around the world (which was better after the President's election, but is now declining again). You say, loyally, that "we are winning the future." In fact, thanks to this endless and unsuccessful war, "we are mortgaging the future." You may still believe, but I am a Democrat, and most of us do not.

[Debbie McPherson]

04:51 PM on 02/16/2011

ken
 
F & F
 
Reports are rampant that the corruptiona and waste in Afghanistan are simpy outrageous - and yet, Obama has upped the Pentagon, DOD budget  --- meanwhile Americans are being shorted in the budget 61% of his propsed cuts are directly on the peple in America who need the most help....he is taking money from our pockets and sending it to rebuild and build Afghnaistan - even though we all know that money gets hijacked by corrupted business and officials and never really finishes what they are paid to do...it's all a terrible farce and is the single biggest waste off taxpayer money and it comes as a terrible destructive force because thsi money is desperately need to rebuild America...
 
so why does it go on? are we sinking more and more money into a miltiary buildup to portect the multinational corporations as they go about conquering the world through slave markets??? I fear so, beacuse these days the only work being done in Washington is to build up bankster and MIC and protect the multinationals who have offshored all our jobs...
 
the American people have been completely sold out...we ahve NO representation in Washington.

[Dantee]

08:56 AM on 02/16/2011

Counting bodies is quite rewarding, but lobbying is where it's at.

[Anthony from Tennessee]

08:41 AM on 02/16/2011

It amazes me how many people posting here (for or against) have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

[JimMichie]

07:50 AM on 02/16/2011

Petraeus Out In Afghanistan By End Of Year? We need to get our troops and mercernaries the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq RIGHT NOW! Let Petraeus stay there forever!

[Macready]

08:07 AM on 02/16/2011

fanned and fav'd JimMichie . . . ditto