Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

The Long War: Afghanistan After July 2011

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
David Wood
Chief Military Correspondent
On my first reporting trip to Afghanistan, beginning in Jan. 2002, I lived for several months with 30 soldiers in a leaky tent heated against the bitter cold with a kerosene-fired pot-bellied stove. Waiting to be airlifted into the mountains to fight the Taliban, the soldiers and I shuffled through rutted snow to another sagging tent for chow and down a beaten path to the hastily built (and unheated) plywood latrine. We washed and shaved outside. The U.S. Army colonel who ran the base told me that no permanent structures would be built there; the policy of the Bush administration was to maintain a "light footprint'' for the few months it would take to finish off the war.
Just two weeks ago, near the end of my fifth tour in Afghanistan, I walked past a large, two-story brick building on a busy street at Kandahar Air Field (KAF), the huge NATO base in southern Afghanistan. It turned out to be an apartment building for American and allied military officers. I counted 12 rooms on each side, 24 air conditioned rooms per floor, two floors with bathrooms and shower rooms. Intrigued, I walked down the street and found another apartment building, and another, and another. Twelve in all, a village rising up out of the desert a few miles from Tarnak farms, the mud-walled compound where Osama bin Laden and the skyjackers perfected the 911 plot.
In Washington, the operative presidential declaration is that in July 2011 the troop withdrawal will commence because they will be increasingly unnecessary in the war. In Kandahar, meanwhile, so much construction is underway that KAF has its own cement factory that churns out concrete 24/7.
And that's just Kandahar. At other U.S. military bases across Afghanistan, bulldozers and cranes are at work, alongside battalions of carpenters, ditch diggers, gravel crushers, plumbers, steel girder welders and electricians, enlarging, expanding and improving.
The reality, in Afghanistan if not in Washington, is that the United States is digging in for the Long War.
That term was coined in 2006 by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He explained, when the term raised eyebrows among Americans impatient for victory, that "we're trying simply to tell the truth.''
At a Pentagon press briefing Feb. 1, 2006, Rumsfeld went on: " And the truth is that just as the Cold War lasted a long time, this war is something that is not going to go away.''
No such dismal outlook clouded President Obama's announcement last December that he had ordered an additional 30,000 troops into the fight. "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,'' he said in a speech at West Point. Beefing up U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, and accelerating the training of Afghan forces, "will allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011,'' the president said, adding that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.''
By now, of course, the reality of war -- the begrudging recognition that war by its nature is unpredictable – has begun to penetrate even Washington's fine marble buildings. Obama's flat assertion -- "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home" -- has been contradicted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates (any drawdowns, he said on ABC's This Week Aug. 1, "will depend on conditions on the ground.'') as well as by Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the top Afghan war commander, Gen. David Petraeus. He has said the commencement of any transition would be "conditions-based.''
But it took the Marine Corps' blunt-spoken commandant, Gen. James Conway, who retires this fall, to name the rhetorical fig leaf that emerges from all the comments officials have made about July 2011: the White House could order an inconsequentially small withdrawal of, say, three dozen troops -- and claim it had fulfilled Obama's promise.
"I certainly believe some American unit, somewhere in Afghanistan, will turn over responsibilities to Afghan security forces in 2011,'' he told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday. But not Marines in southern Afghanistan, he said, where "it will be a few years'' before any withdrawals are possible.
Seeming to call for some forthright talk from the Oval Office, the outgoing commandant added: "I sense our country is increasingly growing tired of the war, but I would remind [them] that the last of the 30,000 troops only arrived this month. I would also quote the analysis of one of my regimental commanders when asked about the pace of the war. He said, 'We can either lose fast or win slow.' ''
The upshot of all this hedging and backtracking, together with the steady drumbeat of sobering news from Afghanistan, is that a general understanding is emerging in Washington that July 2011 may come and go without any significant troop reductions, and perhaps without any troop reductions at all.
"To some extent now, there is more stability about the perception of the timeline than there was six months ago,'' said Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden.''
"There's kind of an understanding that we're talking about a transition that will last [from] 2011 toward 2015,'' Coll said. And the fact that Petraeus will be guiding the pace of withdrawals will provide Obama some cover from political attack. Petraeus, Coll said, "is politically untouchable.''
Still, there are calls for the president himself to be more specific about what lies ahead, to bridge the gap between rhetoric and the reality that is emanating from Afghanistan.
"I think he deliberately wants some flexibility about what to do next summer,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar and adviser to Petraeus.
"But I think he can preserve his leverage on various parties and maintain a little bit of cover with the Democratic Congress by being more direct, that it will take three or four years to phase out.''
Meantime, fresh U.S. troops are training to rotate into Afghanistan this fall to replace units that deployed there a year ago. And in Afghanistan itself, building for the Long War, and the fighting, will go on.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

10 Comments

Filter by:
Bill

He has never been specific about anything, the media has always given him a pass when they would have dug up stories and crucified anyone else. Why should he start now?

September 20 2010 at 10:40 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
MASTER

Afghanistan is the new Vietnam. Maybe even worse.... Thanks Peace Prize Winning Obama!

September 18 2010 at 1:36 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dan

I would love to know why they haven't eradicated the poppy fields!

August 29 2010 at 6:34 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Cactus Pete

Osama bin Laden did everything he could to coax America into Afghanistan. Why? It's called the graveyard of empires. Sure we could win it, but economically we would be destroyed.

August 26 2010 at 9:07 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Cactus Pete's comment
kingnus

Can't win in afghanistan just like no country could invade the U.S. with out it being a constance battle until the end of time.

August 26 2010 at 9:39 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
vallesula

We went to Iraq to democratize the region - at least that was their selling feature as they created this war for profit. Why are we in Afghanistan and what is their selling point ?...; Obama called Afghanistan the " good war", but is it really ?....Jr told us we were goingafter Al-Qaeda when he took the nation intothat dust bowl...; in a matter of weeks, our military licked Al-Qaeda's, Jr NEVAH declared mission accomplished as he removed the troops to go on a natural resources stick-up ( while declaring he was going to democratize the region). Now we're being told, our combat troops are out of Iraq- as they should - cuz, mission was really accomplished during June of 2007 after regaining control of Iraqis oil wells, but the million dollar question is, why are we in Afghanistan? - a place where we have in excess of 100K troops, and by our government's own count, there only remains some 50 foot soldiers from Al-Qaeda. ....AMERICANS, YOUS HAD BETTER START ASKING CAN WE AFFORD TO CONTINUE PI-SSING 100 BILLION DOLLARS PERYEAR,PAYING FOR THESE WARS FOR PROFITS AS OUR NATION DECAYS ?.

August 26 2010 at 5:19 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
olestormy

I am an 83 year old veteran with service from 1944 to 1971. I served in the Navy (WWII). the Army Air Corps, and the US Air Force. I have served in pay grades E-1 Thru E-8, and commissioned grades 0-1 thru 0-4. I retired as a Lt. Col. because of my reserve rank. We are fighting Muslim's because of differences in religious FAITH, Both sides are praying to the same God. Both sides worshiped the same God in OUR Civil War. Rediculous! Faith is what keeps otherwise honest people from looking for the truth. With all the great advances in science and technology; I think it is a perfect time for the religiously faithful to question their faith. This certainly applies to all religious faiths; Christian, Islam, Judaism, and all who believe in a supernatural controlling God. With all the DNA evidence that has been repeatedly duplicated within various scientific specialties; the arguments against evolution should be questioned by people honestly looking for the truth. There is now so much repeatable evidence that the universe, and all matter, were created in a big bang; that here again, the religious faithful must question their faith. What a shame that we are still killing one another over differences in religious Dogma. This is one big world and we are all related. Let's learn to live together. It seems to me, that as we evolved and our brains and thinking ability improved, we started to ask: "Where did we, and those like us, come from." The images on the walls of he caves in Europe and the written record left by the Egyptians and other Middle East civilizations certainly ask that question. Over several thousand years the Egyptians revered several different Gods. The Greeks and the Romans worshipped several different Gods. Only in the last 50 years or so did we learn that the Aztecs, Mayans, Native Americans, and other civilizations in this hemisphere worshipped various Gods. It wasn't until the Israelis discovered their own personal monotheistic God, that most people exposed to those ideas accepted that theology. Why didn't this God influence the earlier civilizations? Since the God of Israel told the Israeli priests that they were His chosen people, non Jews had to find some way to be included and the result was Jesus and Christianity. The Torah and the Bibles are now the two guidelines for the growing idea of a monotheistic God. Mohammad was from another ethnic group and he had his vision and the results were the Koran. Muslims and the Islamic religion grew at an extremely rapid pace. The resulting differences in these theologies came to a head when the Pope decided that Islam was a false religion and it had to be stopped. That battle is still going on. When the King and Queen of Spain decided to spread Christianity around the world, Christopher Columbus gave them the golden opportunity. The result in the Western hemisphere was the near elimination of the great civilizations in this part of the world. Joseph Smith then discovered the golden plates and The Church of Jesus Christ and The Latter Day Saints resulted. This loving God neglected all the previous theologies. Many, if not most, of the differences in attitudes and values among the people of the world, are the result of differences in religious dogma. Modern science has given us a rare opportunity to realize that we are all closely related and our differences in attitudes and values should be resolved peaceably through negotiations. The big disagreement regarding religion, life styles; homosexuality, abortion, etc., could be individual choices and not dictated by those who differ. When we accept the fact that there is no supernatural Deity, and we humans are going to have to rely on one another, there may be peace in this world. Respectfully, Larry J. Kluth(Lt.Col.USAF Ret)

August 26 2010 at 12:48 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to olestormy's comment
barney2022

you say looking for the truth... of all the WWII veterans I know including my father and 2 uncles, I can say that NONE of them use venacular in this regard...so, who is the real author of your exert, lets be honest here?

August 26 2010 at 8:08 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Hank

The only way to win a short war is to invade with overwhelming force and pursue and destroy the enemy. We lost that initiative when we decided to invade Iraq. Now we are left with a long counter insurgency with an enemy supported by our biggest "ally" in the region. The Taliban is free to train and supply its forces protected by the Pakistani border and the ISI. Meanwhile, Pakistan pretends to support us while they undermine any attempt to end the war diplomatically because that is not in their interest. They view the Karzai government as an ally of India, their mortal enemy. That makes the Taliban their ally.

August 26 2010 at 10:47 AM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>