06-10-2016, 09:47 PM
*** 11-Jun-16 World View -- In a reversal, Obama allows US troops in Afghanistan in combat roles
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** In a reversal, Obama allows US troops in Afghanistan in combat roles
****
![[Image: g160610b.jpg]](http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g160610b.jpg)
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter (Getty)
In a significant reversal of policy, president Barack Obama's
administration will now all American soldiers to fight alongside
Afghan troops in combat situations, and will allow close air support
in combat. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed the change in
policy, and said,
[indent]<QUOTE>"This is using the forces we have ... in a better way,
basically, as we go through this fighting season, rather than
being simply reactive. This makes good sense. It's a good use of
the combat power that we have there."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
By "fighting season," Carter is referring to the fact that the Taliban
are most active during the summer months.
The change in policy comes one day after John Sopko, appointed by
Obama as Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
(SIGAR), said that the situation in Afghanistan is continuing to
deteriorate:
[indent]<QUOTE>"The bottom line is too much has been wasted in
Afghanistan. Too much money was spent in too small a country with
too little oversight. And if the security situation continues to
deteriorate, even areas where money was spent wisely and gains
were made, could be jeopardized."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
He said the planned drawdown of U.S. troops could compound the
reconstruction effort's problems and add to the amount that already
has been wasted, which he estimated is in the billions of dollars.
Since the end of 2014, US forces have been in Afghanistan only in an
"advisory" role, and were only authorized to hit Taliban targets for
defensive reasons, or to protect Afghan troops. The change in policy
appears designed to stop the deterioration of the situation in
Afghanistan. Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Our army is capable of fighting, the only thing we
need is air support. We welcome this decision from America and it
will boost the morale of the Afghan army."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The Afghan army may be capable of fighting, but with the US restricted
to an "advisory" role before now, the Afghan army has been
losing to a resurgent Taliban.
According to Obama's original timetable, all US troops should have
left Afghanistan by now. Obama has been forced to reverse himself
several times, and there are currently 9,800 US troops in Afghanistan.
The schedule calls for a reduction to 5,500 troops as the president
leaves office in January, but this reduction is opposed by
many military analysts and by the Afghan government.
The Hill and AFP and AP and Reuters
****
**** Change in policy was resisted because of political implications
****
According to reports, the Obama administration had been debating this
policy for months because it had been requested by military generals,
but vetoed for political reasons for fear of damaging Obama's legacy.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama criticized his predecessor, George
Bush, for being at war, and promised to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
But he's botched that commitment in both countries, and the NY Times
has noted that as of May 6 of this year, President Barack Obama
officially became the U.S. president to have been at war the longest —
longer than Lyndon Johnson, longer than Abraham Lincoln and certainly
longer than George W. Bush. Obama is virtually certain to be the only
U.S. president to spend a full eight years at war.
In interviews earlier this year, all three of Obama's former
secretaries of defense confirmed that the Obama administration ignored
military advice, and made military decisions based on inexperience and
ideology. This criticism is not ideological. I've been following
these issues for years, and non-partisan military analysts have always
been overwhelmingly critical of Obama's decisions, rarely if ever
defending them.
Former defense secretary Robert Gates wrote in his book, “Duty:
Memoirs of a Secretary at War," that Obama "doesn’t believe in his own
strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all
about getting out." Instead of getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan,
what Obama is discovering is that basing military decisions purely on
politics and left-wing ideology is a sure way to get in deeper.
Daily Caller and Washington Post (7-Jan) and Daily Caller (7-Apr)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Ash Carter, Robert Gates,
John Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction,
SIGAR, Dawlat Waziri
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- In a reversal, Obama allows US troops in Afghanistan in combat roles
- Change in policy was resisted because of political implications
****
**** In a reversal, Obama allows US troops in Afghanistan in combat roles
****
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter (Getty)
In a significant reversal of policy, president Barack Obama's
administration will now all American soldiers to fight alongside
Afghan troops in combat situations, and will allow close air support
in combat. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed the change in
policy, and said,
[indent]<QUOTE>"This is using the forces we have ... in a better way,
basically, as we go through this fighting season, rather than
being simply reactive. This makes good sense. It's a good use of
the combat power that we have there."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
By "fighting season," Carter is referring to the fact that the Taliban
are most active during the summer months.
The change in policy comes one day after John Sopko, appointed by
Obama as Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
(SIGAR), said that the situation in Afghanistan is continuing to
deteriorate:
[indent]<QUOTE>"The bottom line is too much has been wasted in
Afghanistan. Too much money was spent in too small a country with
too little oversight. And if the security situation continues to
deteriorate, even areas where money was spent wisely and gains
were made, could be jeopardized."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
He said the planned drawdown of U.S. troops could compound the
reconstruction effort's problems and add to the amount that already
has been wasted, which he estimated is in the billions of dollars.
Since the end of 2014, US forces have been in Afghanistan only in an
"advisory" role, and were only authorized to hit Taliban targets for
defensive reasons, or to protect Afghan troops. The change in policy
appears designed to stop the deterioration of the situation in
Afghanistan. Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Our army is capable of fighting, the only thing we
need is air support. We welcome this decision from America and it
will boost the morale of the Afghan army."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The Afghan army may be capable of fighting, but with the US restricted
to an "advisory" role before now, the Afghan army has been
losing to a resurgent Taliban.
According to Obama's original timetable, all US troops should have
left Afghanistan by now. Obama has been forced to reverse himself
several times, and there are currently 9,800 US troops in Afghanistan.
The schedule calls for a reduction to 5,500 troops as the president
leaves office in January, but this reduction is opposed by
many military analysts and by the Afghan government.
The Hill and AFP and AP and Reuters
****
**** Change in policy was resisted because of political implications
****
According to reports, the Obama administration had been debating this
policy for months because it had been requested by military generals,
but vetoed for political reasons for fear of damaging Obama's legacy.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama criticized his predecessor, George
Bush, for being at war, and promised to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
But he's botched that commitment in both countries, and the NY Times
has noted that as of May 6 of this year, President Barack Obama
officially became the U.S. president to have been at war the longest —
longer than Lyndon Johnson, longer than Abraham Lincoln and certainly
longer than George W. Bush. Obama is virtually certain to be the only
U.S. president to spend a full eight years at war.
In interviews earlier this year, all three of Obama's former
secretaries of defense confirmed that the Obama administration ignored
military advice, and made military decisions based on inexperience and
ideology. This criticism is not ideological. I've been following
these issues for years, and non-partisan military analysts have always
been overwhelmingly critical of Obama's decisions, rarely if ever
defending them.
Former defense secretary Robert Gates wrote in his book, “Duty:
Memoirs of a Secretary at War," that Obama "doesn’t believe in his own
strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all
about getting out." Instead of getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan,
what Obama is discovering is that basing military decisions purely on
politics and left-wing ideology is a sure way to get in deeper.
Daily Caller and Washington Post (7-Jan) and Daily Caller (7-Apr)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Ash Carter, Robert Gates,
John Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction,
SIGAR, Dawlat Waziri
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
