Time magazine cover - What happens when we leave

[classicman]

It may be that Petraeus' honesty is not what the administration, nor the public wanted to hear, but I respect the man for telling the truth.

Perhaps Petraeus won't let himself be boxed in by an unreasonable timetable set perhaps for political reasons.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The timetable was set on McCrystal's claims of what he could do, in what time frame, with more men. That may be moot, now.

[spudcon]

Obama doesn't want to get boxed in with anything except his own ego.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The timetable was set on McCrystal's claims of what he could do, in what time frame, with more men. That may be moot, now.

First off, the amount of men he asked for was not what he got.

I'm wondering about McCrystal's claims. Was he full of crap and just told them what they wanted to hear at the time? I find that hard to believe, given his history, but in light of what happened more recently - that whole episode did provide him an immediate "out".

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

It may be that Petraeus' honesty is not what the administration, nor the public wanted to hear, but I respect the man for telling the truth.

Perhaps Petraeus won't let himself be boxed in by an unreasonable timetable set perhaps for political reasons.

I agree with both... that's what you want from a military leader.
But I'm concerned about his words being made public.

I got the feeling he was saying he already knew his task was impossible, and so he was either giving himself a way out come next July, or publicly challenging Obama now.

McArthur and McCrystal are examples of what happens with military leaders when they challenge POTUS publically, and Obama has already shown he can follow that precedent.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

McArthur and McCrystal are examples of what happens with military leaders when they challenge POTUS publically, and Obama has already shown he can follow that precedent.

When will people realize Obama owns this "plan?" The last Admin's Afghan plan was a failure. Very few would doubt that. <Que long posts by tw & UG>

This one seems quite similar. The military is being asked to do something which it may not be able to do period, but in a timetable that is, according to Petraeus, obviously not militarily possible. This latest round is a clear message that he will not be the scapegoat.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by classicman

It may be that Petraeus' honesty is not what the administration, nor the public wanted to hear, but I respect the man for telling the truth.

Perhaps Petraeus won't let himself be boxed in by an unreasonable timetable set perhaps for political reasons.

I don't think so. Petraeus is nothing if not politically aware. He is the administration's point man on this, floating what will become policy and giving the politicians cover on the right flank as they lose the left.

[Lamplighter]

Stay the course ? NOT

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looking to retire in 2011
By Michael Sheridan 
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, August 16th 2010, 11:18 AM

The Secretary of Defense is looking for an exit strategy of his own.

"It seems like somewhere there in 2011 is a logical opportunity to hand off," he told Foreign Policy magazine.

The 66-year-old indicated that would be the best time for him to step down to make things easier on President Obama during the 2012 election.

Yeah sure I believe that !

[Lamplighter]

I think we finally have an exit strategy for Afghanistan... All of DOD will resign before July 2011.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm wondering about McCrystal's claims. Was he full of crap and just told them what they wanted to hear at the time? I find that hard to believe, given his history, but in light of what happened more recently - that whole episode did provide him an immediate "out".

Things also don't always go as expected. I'm assuming much of what went into McCrystal's claims was the experience in Iraq. Afghanistan is much different, and from what I believe I remember, the similar counterinsurgency strategies of Iraq and Afghanistan are producing different results.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I heard about Petraeus' forthcoming press meetings last week, but I did not expect him to be so explicit about continuing the military effort in Afghanistan beyond next July.

Remember where we are in an ongoing and unresolved war started in 2002. We literally surrendered on the battlefield when we did no phase four planning, did nothing to take out the enemy (bin Laden), and are now refighting a war from scratch. Because we all but surrendered on the battlefield on and after 2003.

Very unusual is to be defeated due to no phase four planning - no planning for the peace. And then going back into combat. Very little military precedent to base conclusions on. Petraeus is discussing that.

At some point, we may have to admit to defeat and pull out. The destruction to the American economy alone is massive. Being discussed by Petraeus (and others) are benchmarks that define a military victory or a military defeat. Too many are discussing only what they understand - a timetable. Petraeus is discussing something far more serious. At what point do we finally admit we are defeated.

To have an exit strategy based upon the strategic objective means we must define conditions necessary to admit defeat. What is our exit strategy? Not our timetable. View the bigger picture. What is our exit strategy?

And do not for one minute assume America cannot be defeated by Afghanistan. We are already suffering serious economic malaise imposed on the American people by "Mission Accomplished". Even America has limits that are more than just military.
Defeat remains a real possibility.

What benchmark would you use to define defeat? It is not rhetorical. Every lurker in this board should be asking themselves that question. If for no other reason, to be listening for a answer.

[wanderer]

Originally Posted by tw

Having essentially made bin Laden into a martyr, we have now provided he and his organization with supporters. Even in some parts of the Pakistani government that regards the Afghan government as an enemy and ally of India. What a mess. Our target is now embedded in and camouflaged by numerous peripheral entities.

Agreed.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by wanderer

Agreed.

He's a smart cookie!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Or was -- there is increasing doubt that UBL is still alive. Some in the SpecOps community figure he got pulverized in Tora Bora after all.