Afghans to Obama: Great job on those timelines, buddy

posted at 2:15 pm on August 25, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When Barack Obama announced timelines for drawing down troop strength in Afghanistan, the administration pretended that the cutoff dates would incentivize the Afghan government to push its reforms and ready its security forces.  Everyone else knew, though, that Obama included them in order to quiet his anti-war base, a strategy that was as ineffective politically as it was obvious.  Unfortunately, that left the Afghans holding the bag, and now they have told the White House that those artificial timelines have the Taliban biding their time rather than surrendering, and that they have “invigorated” the enemy:

The Obama administration’s plan to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011 is giving a morale boost to the Taliban, Afghan officials said Wednesday, echoing remarks made by a top U.S. military official a day earlier.

“This is giving more reason and propaganda for the anti-government elements to prolong the fight,” Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimy said of President Barack Obama’s timetable on Wednesday, according to Reuters.

“Such assertions could be used in favor of insurgents for … empowering their forces and giving reasons to fight,” he said. “The withdrawal should be based on the capability of the Afghan security forces.”

At least it answers one question from the Iraq war.  When George W. Bush announced his surge strategy, Democrats lined up to oppose it, including then-Senator Barack Obama.  When the Bush administration requested funding for the surge, Democrats demanded that timelines be established for withdrawal, a demand that Bush refused to meet.  The administration argued then that timelines wouldn’t encourage the Iraqi government to hasten its formation of a government but would instead provide a boost to the terrorists in Iraq — and perhaps push the Iraqi government into acquiescing to them.

Well, Democrats have been in charge of Afghanistan since January 2009, and they got their timelines in this war.  We know how Iraq turned out.  How’s it looking in Afghanistan?  Not terribly well from the Afghan point of view, obviously.

In order to counter this, Obama will have to give a rather forceful public statement about the timeline being condition-based rather than calendar-based.  That, however, will make his political base unhappy, who have already started to sour on Obama over the war.  Given their unhappiness on the issue and their apparent sullen acquiescence being based on the hard timeline, Obama may have to choose between winning a war and keeping the Left engaged enough to show up in the midterms, both at the polls and in GOTV efforts.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wowsers, this guy can’t do anything right.

Osis on August 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Smart Power.

pain train on August 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

His problem is his base. No matter what he does, they ain’t happy. Timeline–too long, not happy. War cost–too much, not happy. DADT–too soft, not happy. At least the left is consistent…..

ted c on August 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

First the Marine Corps. Then the Afghans themselves. Mr. Obama might be a Constitutional Scholar, but his ability to get inside the mind of the Taliban is almost nonexistant.

Rule one in a fight: Never telegraph your intentions.
Rule two in a fight: Never telegraph your lack of intention.

unclesmrgol on August 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Question: If Bush is to blame for all of Obowma’s failures, shouldn’t Bush get all the credit for winning in Iraq?

Obowma: “The Iraq war victory I inherited from the
previous administration”.

Yea,dream on.

dthorny on August 25, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The only war Obama seems interested in winning is the war against America.

Christien on August 25, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The only real thing bo had to deal with and he totally screws it up. Ruining this country wasn’t good enough, but I never thought he was competent anyway.

tim c on August 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Obama may have to choose between winning a war and keeping the Left engaged enough to show up in the midterms, both at the polls and in GOTV efforts.

Wrong….Obama has no intentions of winning the war only ending it responsibly. I don’t think he has ever used the word “win” when describing the US’s goal, so winning or success is not an option for Obama.

tommer74 on August 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM

The only war Obama seems interested in winning is the war against America.

Christien on August 25, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Fortunately, we do have a timeline on that one.

ted c on August 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM

But of course. All Obama is doing is relying on that one chapter from Sun-Tzu’s “Art of War”: you know, the “Give Your Enemies Your Timeline, and Stick To It” chapter.

/at least I’m pretty sure I saw that chapter in “Art of War”

Edouard on August 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Obama may have to choose between winning a war and keeping the Left engaged enough to show up in the midterms, both at the polls and in GOTV efforts.

Show of hands…how many know the answer to this choice. Wow, too many to count. Class dismissed.

mwdiver on August 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM

This is strict common sense. To think otherwise is absurd. Again, this admin shows that it is clueless. God help our troops and country!

rjoco1 on August 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM

As a Democrat, Obama knows for a fact that the worst enemies this country faces are the Republicans. I’m sure that is who he will care the most about defeating.

backwoods conservative on August 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Mr. Obama might be a Constitutional ScholarSCOFFER, but his ability to get inside the mind of the Taliban is almost nonexistant.
unclesmrgol on August 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

FIFY

dthorny on August 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM

But of course. All Obama is doing is relying on that one chapter from Sun-Tzu’s “Art of War”: you know, the “Give Your Enemies Your Timeline, and Stick To It” chapter.

/at least I’m pretty sure I saw that chapter in “Art of War”

Edouard on August 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM

The less known “Peace through superior surrender” strategy.

the_nile on August 25, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Here is a timeline for you: Odumbo’s complete control over the destruction of America will end on Nov. 2, 2010; and any control over the destruction will end on Jan. 20, 2010.

rjoco1 on August 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I’m sure that is who he will care the most about defeating.

backwoods conservative on August 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Obowma’s enemy is the American middle class: 47% of American’s don’t pay federal taxes as of 2009 and that number is rising to erect the permanent ruling class of libs or zero liability voters.

dthorny on August 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM

The Dems and the antiwar left have forgotten how many died when they pulled the plug on the Vietnamese.Or do they care?BTW where is the antiwar crowd?Where are the massive rallies in DC?Why aren’t they burning Oblamer in effigy?Where is the nightly body count on the MSM evening news?Where is all the oil Bush and Cheney went to war in Iraq for?Gas should be 50 cents a gallon by now.

docflash on August 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM

He’s a constitutional scholar!!! What do the Taliban know, nothing, that’s what.

NickelAndDime on August 25, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Sorry, Jan. 20, 2013

rjoco1 on August 25, 2010 at 2:29 PM

America also has a timeline for Obama: 2012

poxoma on August 25, 2010 at 2:29 PM

When Barack Obama announced timelines for drawing down troop strength in Afghanistan

Timelines? Now plural? I have never even seen one timeline. I sure would be interested in seeing at least one. Do you have it?

Tav on August 25, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Obama will have to give a rather forceful public statement about the timeline being condition-based rather than calendar-based.

Even if he does, will anyone believe him? If the Taliban ramp up attacks, if Iran ramps up attacks in Iraq, does anyone think Obama will try harder for victory?

Skandia Recluse on August 25, 2010 at 2:32 PM

ted c on August 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I see what you did there!

Christien on August 25, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Did I hear that Mr. Obama is going to start cracking down on Yemen? His base will love that.

Cindy Munford on August 25, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I just pray for our military and their families that are left in iraq. They are going to be killed without the help of this bho defending them. God be with those left, please. Those ropma type are already killing people there.
L

letget on August 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM

The Obowma timeline is a digital clock, which changes as often as his opinions…the true meaning of Obowma’s change.

Barackoxymoron: the voters who supported Obowma for
president expecting all that free stuff.

dthorny on August 25, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Timeline:

Line drawn on a suitable scale (days, months, years, centuries, eons) on which key historical, planned, or projected events and periods are marked in the sequence of their occurrence.

Tav on August 25, 2010 at 2:35 PM

/at least I’m pretty sure I saw that chapter in “Art of War”

Edouard on August 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM

that’s in the chapter on intelligence. Sun Tzu mentioned if you get anything like your enemies timeline that you should maybe take advantage of it or something….

ted c on August 25, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Zero was never ready to command or lead anyone or anything. He’s clueless. Even politically the guy is a zero and completely tone deaf.

dogsoldier on August 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Sun Tzu mentioned if you get anything like your enemies timeline that you should maybe take advantage of it or something….

ted c on August 25, 2010 at 2:36 PM

There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. (Sun Tzu)

Tav on August 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM

A major foreign policy demand of the left, Wrong? Whodathunkit!

Speakup on August 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM

You “conservative” nation-builders need to move out fantasy land already.

Hawks for Peace:

“Nation-building is the most prominent — and most important — part of the neocon doctrine,” wrote Jed Babbin in the American Spectator. “And the decision to pursue it is the principal reason that we are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is falling apart, and the real enemy — the terror-sponsoring nations — have grown stronger.”

None of these writers can accurately be described as a budding noninterventionist. But most conservatives who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and favored no more than a limited mission in Afghanistan can agree with them on the following: neither Islam nor foreign lands can easily be reformed by either bureaucrats or the force or the force of arms; our interventions have produced something closer to sharia states than Switzerland’s; Iran is now more powerful in the region rather than less.

Of Motes, Beams, and Holy Wars:

Thanks to Murray’s efforts, and those offered by hundreds of thousands of other Americans in uniform – not to mention an estimated $3 trillion stolen from American taxpayers – Sharia law is now firmly established in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
“The direct subordination of the law of the land to Shari’ah is reflected in the national constitutions of many Islamic countries, including the Constitutions the United States Government had oversight in drafting – both Afghanistan and Iraq,”…

Rae on August 25, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Unfortunately, that left the Afghans holding the bag, and now they have told the White House that those artificial timelines have the Taliban biding their time rather than surrendering, and that they have “invigorated” the enemy:

And anyone who couldn’t see this coming a mile away is either lying, a doofus, or truly wants the Taliban to win.

crazy_legs on August 25, 2010 at 2:48 PM

I think Scooter better concentrate on not irritating Letterman.

a capella on August 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Alexis de Tocqueville went even further than Sun Tzu and said: No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.

Tav on August 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM

It would have been better to be a quiet little community organizer, hiding the fact that you’re a complete Doofus, than getting yourself elected president and proving that fact to the entire world!…at our expense!

AubieJon on August 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I have a mother, and grandmother, both of whom I love dearly. However, they are the types of people, who love to be critical of just about everything, and no matter how one tries, or how hard they work at it, nothing will make them happy. They will find something negative in all things.

This is Obama’s base. They will never be happy despite what is done, or not done. Even if Obama pulled all troops out tomorrow, they’d find something to gripe about. They want all things their way, and won’t even be happy if that happened.

So to he!! with your base Obama. Do what’s right, and you might gain some respect. Until then….you’re looked apon as an incompetent boob who doesn’t know his arse from a hole in the ground.

capejasmine on August 25, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Obama will have to give a rather forceful public statement about the timeline being condition-based rather than calendar-based.

not gonna happen…

cmsinaz on August 25, 2010 at 2:51 PM

The Dems’ Plan in Iraq c. 2005

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi embraced a call by a prominent defense hawk in her party to immediately begin a withdrawal. Two weeks ago, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., set off a firestorm when he said a complete pullout should be achieved in six months.

Bush,June 2005, from a CBC report:

“There are not going to be any timetables. We are there to complete a mission,” the president said. “A democratic Iraq is in the interest for the United States and for laying the foundation for peace.”

Setting a timetable would allow the enemy to wait out the U.S., said Bush.

mankai on August 25, 2010 at 2:55 PM

An exit timeline in a war is the most stupid plan possible.

How brilliant can this guy Obama be? It’s hard to reconcile brilliant with trainwreck.

saiga on August 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Afganistan and this problem is nothing a good 2 week vacation couldn’t solve…

Wyznowski on August 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

This will be an easy decision, what’s a few lives or a lost war when Barry’s political career is at stake?

After all, Barry has proved he is indespensible – as far as Barry is concerned, anyway and that’s all that matters.

NoDonkey on August 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM

“That’s “tall-ee-bahn” to you neocon rubes! And what makes you think I’m rooting for them??”

– President “I swear I’m not really a muslim NTTAWWT” 0bama

CurtZHP on August 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Obama may have to choose between winning a war…

He’s uncomfortable with victory.

He’s sensitive about his ears.

What a man…

kakypat on August 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM

. . . that left the Afghans holding the bag, and now they have told the White House that those artificial timelines have the Taliban biding their time rather than surrendering . . .

The Taliban must be smarter than our President.

Who knew?

listens2glenn on August 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM

As a Democrat, Obama knows for a fact that the worst enemies this country faces are the Republicans. I’m sure that is who he will care the most about defeating.

backwoods conservative on August 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I wonder why Øbama never said “I’m going to fight to get health care reform passed for six months, and then I’m going to give up.” Maybe he’ll set a time line for Cap & Trade. After all, it will focus the Democrats and not help the Republicans at all.

Kafir on August 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM

“Obama may have to choose between winning a war and keeping the Left engaged enough to show up in the midterms, both at the polls and in GOTV efforts.”

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Oh my tear-stained face.

I really did need a good laugh. Thanks Ed.

notagool on August 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM