stoneric

U.S. eyes Afghan drawdown starting by 2013: By Adam Entous – Sat Nov 28, 1:43 pm ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States should be able to begin scaling back its troop presence in Afghanistan from a post-surge peak by 2013, according to an assessment by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal gave his assessment to a delegation of U.S. lawmakers who visited Kabul earlier this week, participants said on Saturday.

It is unclear whether President Barack Obama will spell out a schedule for a drawdown of U.S. forces when he announces a revised war strategy on Tuesday.

The centerpiece of that strategy is expected to be the gradual deployment of about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to secure population centers and train more of the country's security forces.

Pentagon officials hope NATO members will contribute up to 10,000 extra troops and trainers to supplement the U.S. buildup, pushing the overall number closer to the 40,000 additional soldiers recommended by McChrystal to counter a resurgent Taliban.

Britain has said it expects countries to pledge another 5,000 troops on top of those sent by the United States.

A drawdown schedule could help Obama blunt opposition to a troop increase within his own Democratic party, which controls Congress. Rising U.S. casualties and military costs have sapped public support for the war, threatening Obama's standing ahead of congressional elections next year.

An international conference on Afghanistan, to be held in London in January, would aim to set conditions for a gradual transfer of security responsibilities to Afghan control.

McChrystal met the visiting U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday.

"I asked him: 'If you get these troops that you are requesting, the 40,000, where's the tipping point? At what point will we begin to draw down?'" Republican Representative Mike Coffman told Reuters. "McChrystal responded: 'Sometime before 2013.'"

Pentagon officials had no immediate comment.

There are now roughly 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 allied forces in Afghanistan.

Coffman said McChrystal's assessment that a drawdown could begin before 2013 was "realistic" given the difficulty of training enough Afghan army and police units to take over security responsibility from U.S. and NATO troops.

"Irrespective of that, any increase in troops is going to be a challenge in Congress," Coffman said, citing Democratic opposition.

One proposal made by leading Democrats would set the goal of having about 400,000 Afghan army troops and national police officers by 2012 -- more than twice the forces' current size and a year earlier than currently planned.

But some administration officials questioned whether that was realistic.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said an eventual drawdown in Afghanistan could follow the Iraq model, under which U.S. forces could pull back from city centers as Afghan forces take the lead.

As an interim step, officials said, a transition to greater Afghan control could begin within the next year in parts of Afghanistan that are more stable.

McChrystal's target for starting a drawdown would fall within the five-year timeframe cited by Afghan President Hamid Karzai for when he sees his forces being ready to take over from Western troops.

The White House has said it sees U.S. troops out of the country within the next eight to nine years. But the Pentagon has cautioned against setting specific dates, saying any handover depends on conditions on the ground.

******************** ******************** ******************

Our foreign policy in a nutshell: Insane general wants 80,000 more troops to insure job(unexplained) has a good chance at success, not saying that success is assured with 80,000 more troops. Insane general expected to get 30,000+ and now claims we could expect a drawdown by 2013. So we're not assured of success even with his wish list of 80,000, yet he can now forcast a drawdown with less than half the troops he actually wants? And this after 8years of failure.

This is on top of the fact that we will be working with an Afghanistan government that ranks 178 on a list of 179, corruption wise and just finished an election that was so corrupt it made Iran's election look utopian. Our template for our Afghanistan surge, which would be Iraq, ranks 176. We also want to train 400,000 Afghans to be part of a security force that their economy can't support.

mcchrystal supposedly sleeps 3 hours a night and eats 1 meal a day. It shows.

Prophet Saddam

Ego Tripping

They are pipe dreams of the M.I.C. We're leaving but they are throwing a tantrum now. It's clear we have a hidden agenda there and I'm open to any theories that are floating around out there, because I honestly haven't looked into the puzzle enough.

Semi-kudos to Obama for not just throwing in another 80k which I'm sure Bush would have (and raised him another 8k). But shitty nonetheless that anymore are going to be going at all. I see this ending soon though, things are just getting too damn connected at this point.

__________________

DdC

Unocal

__________________

Prophet Saddam

pipeline

__________________

John F. Kerry

lol at calling every american general who gets put in position of authority, (in most cases by working their asses off and risking their lives for your well being for 20-30 years beforehand) a traitor, or stupid, or some other bulshit names, when they have literally nothing to do with the conflict created by politicians and are tasked with doing anything and everything we ask of them to fix it.



betray us and mkcrackhead should go have a beer summit with we lost reid and crazy pants pelosi.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

stoneric

Why don't you refute what I said? mcchrystal wanted 80 thousand and wasn't sure that could do the job. He's going to get 30 thousand and he's planning a drawdown. Instead you go off on some bullshit jingoistic rant about the virtues of being a kiss ass.

Why do you continuously bring up reid and pelosi? They continue to vote for war funding. You have to remember what thread you're on, this isn't about healthcare reform. You harry and nanc are on the same team on this one.

Ego Tripping

He never responded to ziplock's amazing post in the Forever War thread either (called it). He's a troll of the worst degree.

__________________

John F. Kerry

hmmm maybe u should ask ziplock if thats true, or if my response wasnt directed at assholes like u for the very reason that you in this post showed me was a good one.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

stoneric

There was a 2nd page to that thread, read it and you'll see what Ego is talking about.

Ego Tripping

Well, he thanked my post, so we know he saw it. Classic j-wonder avoidance.

__________________

Prophet Saddam

I've wondered why his trolling is still allowed when he was already banned once before.

At least keep him out of A&P.

__________________

John F. Kerry

....im really interested when the last time prophet saddam or ego trippin made a useful comment in a and p, i constantly make new threads and constatly try to debate with people and opine and i continued the discussion with ziplock via pm on the thread ego is referencing specifically to AVOID the trolling of those jerks, which worked nicely, because we had a nice exchange that way.


so while im sure everyone realizes saddam is nothing but a pot calling the kettle black, it still just amazes me that if anyone is banned from a and p its him, not me, as he hasnt made a useful thread in a and p in years, and if you look at his posts in here every single one is not disagreeing with me (like i like people to do ) but to talk shit and to get rises out of people, when all those people want to do is talk politics with other non-asshole people.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

SageTree

__________________

John F. Kerry

when i dont make threads i dont see dozens of other people making threads, so then i think ok im going to make a thread, then cue the 4 assholes who are gonna be like oh what a fool cant we just ban him. its the same round robin chorus all the time, and its soo annoying because they dont make threads of their own, they just wait and wait till i make a thread and then ruin it.

talk about trolls.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

John F. Kerry

as far as stonerics comment, i respect stoneric because he disagrees not like a jerk, but like a reasonable person.

i think first of all that i stand by my defense of american generals- they are professionals who work hard, have immense discipline, and do the job assigned to them .


as far as the political wisdom of continuning the war in afghanistan, i agree with GWBush and Barack Obama that we have to finish the job we started and clean up the mess we made.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

SageTree

I think it's cool you make threads JFK. You're almost as guilty for jumping into the holes they dig for you , as they are for digging it, though.

A&P always looks pretty much the same to me, must be what SS & HT looks like to other people.....

I enjoy all your opinions, but why does everything have to be so personal? What is anyone really winning here by being on the 'right' side...and that isn't a conservative pun

__________________

John F. Kerry

im pretty sure thats what i say, i have nothing wrong with them being liberal and anti war and pro healthcare reform , as long as they have no problem with me being against it,

__________________
Nasa under Obama

verklingen

no one has a problem with your beliefs, man. it's the blatant disregard for anything even remotely resembling rational discourse. that's what chaps my hide, at least.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

SageTree

Right on man. Whats that quote about defending to the death someone's right to disgree?

__________________