4-Point Guide to Obama and Afghanistan: "This is Not a Withdrawal, It is a Limit to Escalation"

Yesterday President Obama announced that 10,000 American troops will leave Afghanistan by the end of 2011. Another 20,000 will exit the country by summer 2012.

A few key points, especially with most of the US media falling prey to the Administration's misleading presentation of the announcement:

1. This is not "a substantial withdrawal". It is a limit to the escalation in the US military presence begun by the Obama Administration soon after it took office.

See also Afghanistan Video and Transcript: Obama Announces "Withdrawal" of US Troops

Consider how The New York Times gets it all wrong: "The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 'surge' of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country."

There was not one "surge", as the Times implies. There were two: one in March 2009, when Obama doubled the number of US troops in Afghanistan, and another in December 2009.

When the President took office, there were about 30,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan. There are now more than 100,000. 

Even if Obama sticks to his declaration, there will be about 70,000 US troops in Afghanistan in summer 2012, more than double the number who were there when he assumed the Presidency.

2. This "withdrawal" is based on an Al Qa'eda puppet show.

For years, the Bush and Obama Administrations have used the pretext of Al Qa'eda as a threat within Afghanistan to justify their operations. They did this, even though they knew that this threat was an illusion --- US intelligence agencies estimated there were no more than 300 Al Qa'eda members inside the country and reported that the number was likely to be about 100.

In a rare glimpse into the pantomime, a "senior administration official" used a conference call with reporters to say "no terrorist threat from Afghanistan has been present for 7 or 8 years, well before the Obama administration surged troops there in 2009".

Yet yesterday Obama used the death of Osama bin Laden to claim that Al Qa'eda was on the defensive and was primarily a threat to Pakistan. The rationale of Al Qa'eda's menace from an Afghanistan base, used to justify the 2009 escalations, could be withdrawn.

Thus, the President could shift from "imminent danger" to "imminent victory" in his presentation. Most observers have not recognised that both were illusions.

3. This is not a Presidential victory over his military advisors, with a full US withdrawal as the eventual outcome.

The Times, fed by one faction within the Administration, again puts out the story-line: "The troop reductions, which were decided after a short but fierce internal debate, will be both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders....Mr. Obama’s decision is a victory for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has long argued for curtailing the military operation in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama indicated a willingness to move toward more focused covert operations of the type that the United States is conducting in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere."

That might serve as a short-term narrative, but it could well be out-of-date within months. The US is already committed to a military presence in Afghanistan until 2014, and some military officials and their allies in Washington have put out the line that --- with Afghanistan unable to provide for its "security" --- that date might be extended.

And the "threat" from Afghanistan, albeit not from Al Qa'eda, does not disappear even as Obama puts forth his proposed drawdowns. The Taliban and other insurgent groups control areas of the country and pursue operations elsewhere.

Unless there is a political resolution bringing in those groups, the conflict will continue. And at any point, that conflict can be used by the US military to say that withdrawal --- even a partial withdrawal --- is misguided.

4. This is a speech looking towards a domestic victory.

Obama's announcement should be seen primarily in the context of his position inside the US, not in that of America thousands of miles away.

The President was caught between a pledge and a hard military place. When he escalated the American commitment in 2009, he had to give the promise that it was not open-ended, setting a date of July 2011 to begin withdrawal. At the same time, he had to face the prospect that the situation inside Afghanistan in July 2011 would be no more favourable than it was in December 2009.

Bin Laden's death gave him an opportunity, however, to escape the dilemma. He could claim that the challenge had now moved to Pakistan, even though the US would meet its commitment to help Afghanistan secure itself. In short, he could offer a marker of advance even if no advance has been made.

This was the real significance of the speech. It gave Obama domestic breathing space "as the president faces relentless budget pressures, an increasingly restive American public and a re-election campaign next year".