But my confidence also assumed that we'd actually fight until we win--with whatever force level we have. That won't happen, according to Secretary Panetta. No, we stop fighting next year:
I think I've said this before, but you know, if you kind of stand back and look at where we are, 2011, I think, was very much a kind of turning point in terms of the war in Afghanistan. And probably the most important thing was not only our ability to really go after the Taliban, but it was also the fact that the Afghan army stepped up to the challenge and were involved. You know, we've had indications that the Taliban itself had -- in many ways, you know, their main incentive for continuing this war is to fight foreigners. But when they're fighting Afghans, it becomes very different and it impacts on their -- you know, their desire and their incentive to continue the war. So I think we have made an important turning point in 2011.
And so consolidating those gains is going to be what we have to do in 2012, ensuring that we continue the transitions, ensuring that we continue to improve the Afghan army during this year.
And 2013 becomes an even more critical year, more critical because we'll be going into the final transitions, final tranches, and those'll be some of the most difficult areas. But nevertheless, you know, our goal is to complete all of that transition in 2013 and then, hopefully, by mid- to the latter part of 2013, we'll be able to make -- you know, to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advice and assist role, which is basically fulfilling what Lisbon was all about.
2014 then becomes a year of consolidating the transition and making sure that those gains are in fact held, so that we can move towards a more enduring presence beyond 2014.
Ah, the old liberal assumption that our presence fighting and dying side-by-side with our local friends inspires enemies, so we should get leave. We defeated our enemies in Iraq with our troops and have smacked down the Taliban with our troops, but never mind. In the end, it is just an excuse to run dressed up as being smart (leaving Afghanistan sooner is a "faster, smarter" exit--hurray!). My word, our president has many minstrels willing to sing about bravely retreating.
Mind you, I want our local allies to take over the job as soon as they are able, but that is just to avoid having our troops die to win when locals should be doing the job for a win that they have an interest in achieving, too.
All these years, the left said that Afghanistan was the "good war" that was the "real war" on terrorism rather than a "war of choice." If it was left up to them, they claimed, they'd win the real war. Darn that Bush for being "distracted" by Iraq! Yet when it is up to them, our left wants to get out. Sure, the trotted out the "well it is too late to win now--darn that Bush!--but if only we had done this years earlier we'd have been resolute" excuse, but that is all it is--an excuse. They always have excuses. I guess the "pivot to the Pacific" is the current "more important" thing we have to do rather than win the war we are fighting right now.
I'll credit the Obama administration for adding troops to Afghanistan, but unless they are willing to stay the course until we win, what was the point? To get a trophy scalp of Osama bin laden to wave at re-election rallies? Why did we endure more casualties with more troops being used more aggressively if we won't commit to the win?
Why declare "mission accomplished" too soon?
Our efforts may very well be advanced enough by fall 2023 to make this aggressive and telegraphed timetable work. I won't say it dooms us, but there is now a lot of pressure for our troops to pound down the Taliban in the east during the coming fighting season. It's sad when we are seen colliding with the French trying to get through the exit first.
When you read stuff like this, you understand why Taliban prisoners are confident of eventually winning once we're gone. We pound them and still we walk away while some of them survive? It's easy to believe Allah is on your side in those circumstances. Indeed, now the Taliban might think they'll win even sooner.
UPDATE: Secretary Panetta is trying to downplay the idea that we will withdraw from combat missions in mid-2013 by reminding us that US troops will still be there, ready for combat:
Even as Afghans assume the security lead, ISAF will continue to have to be fully combat-ready, and we will engage in combat operations as necessary. We’re going to have to have – you know, our troops are going to have to defend themselves. They’re going to have to deal with, you know, some special operations. They will have to deal with extremis situations that might develop. But clearly they will have to continue to be combat-ready in that period as I – as I also mentioned yesterday.
I understand that if we are planning on turning over combat duties in 2014 we have to have some assurance that Afghan forces can handle the job. And pulling back while being capable of jumping in is part of that process. That isn't unreasonable. But for God's sake, don't emphasize that in order to score political points at home for "responsibly ending" another war. It makes it look like we're running and encourages the enemy to hold on and achieve victory rather than making the best of their pending final defeat.
