Afghanistan — Afghanistan Timeline Not a Withdrawal Date, Officials Say

WASHINGTON, June 16, 2010 — Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s direc­tive call­ing for the start of a con­di­tions-based draw­down of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 should­n’t be con­sid­ered as an exit date, but rather the begin­ning of the trans­fer of secu­ri­ty respon­si­bil­i­ties to the Afghans, the top U.S. mil­i­tary com­man­der in the region told a Sen­ate pan­el today.

U.S. Cen­tral Com­mand com­man­der Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Under­sec­re­tary of Defense for Pol­i­cy Michele Flournoy tes­ti­fied before the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee. The hear­ing was a con­tin­u­a­tion from yesterday’s meet­ing, which was post­poned after Petraeus had faint­ed due to dehydration. 

The offi­cials picked up where they had left off, explain­ing the essence of Obama’s Afghanistan strat­e­gy and the sig­nif­i­cance of set­ting a time­line. They also pro­vid­ed an update on Afghanistan operations. 

“As I not­ed yes­ter­day, I did believe there was val­ue in send­ing a mes­sage of urgency — July 2011 — as well as the mes­sage the pres­i­dent was send­ing of com­mit­ment — the addi­tion­al, sub­stan­tial num­bers of forces,” Petraeus said. “But it is impor­tant that July 2011 be seen for what it is: the date when a process begins, based on con­di­tions, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits.” 

Petraeus added that his agree­ment with Obama’s pol­i­cy was based on pro­jec­tions of con­di­tions in July 2011. 

“We’re doing all that is human­ly pos­si­ble to achieve those con­di­tions,” he said. 

Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates and his experts and lead­ers in the region will con­duct “rig­or­ous assess­ments” through­out the year to deter­mine progress and, if nec­es­sary, make adjust­ments in the strat­e­gy as July 2011 approach­es, Petraeus said. 

“I will pro­vide my best mil­i­tary advice to the sec­re­tary and to the pres­i­dent on how I believe we should pro­ceed based on the con­di­tions at that time, and I will then sup­port the president’s deci­sion,” the gen­er­al said. “Pro­vid­ing one’s forth­right advice is a sacred oblig­a­tion mil­i­tary lead­ers have to our men and women in uni­form, and I know that that is what the pres­i­dent expects and wants his mil­i­tary lead­ers to provide.” 

Although pleased with Petraeus’ expla­na­tion of the mean­ing of the July 2011 time­line, some on the com­mit­tee voiced concerns. 

Petraeus attempt­ed to assuage the leg­is­la­tors’ con­cerns, point­ing out that some “jour­nal­is­tic accounts” have mis­con­strued the president’s strat­e­gy. The July 2011 time­line is sub­ject to con­di­tions on the ground at that time, he explained. 

“What I have tried to explain today is my under­stand­ing of what July 2011 means and how it is impor­tant, again, that peo­ple do real­ize, espe­cial­ly our part­ners, espe­cial­ly our com­rades-in-arms in Afghanistan and in the region, that that is not the date when we look for the door and try to turn off the light, but rather a date at which a process begins,” he said. 

July 2011 “is an inflec­tion point,” Flournoy said. “It is a point at which the end of the surge will be marked and a process of tran­si­tion that is con­di­tions-based will begin.” Set­ting a goal to begin the tran­si­tion U.S. mil­i­tary forces out of Afghanistan should­n’t be con­sid­ered as detri­men­tal to the U.S. government’s long-term com­mit­ment there, Flournoy con­tin­ued, not­ing a recent strate­gic dia­logue held with Afghanistan Pres­i­dent Hamid Karzai and his cab­i­net, in which U.S. offi­cials dis­cussed “long-term secu­ri­ty assis­tance, long-term com­mit­ments to build capac­i­ty, gov­er­nance [and] development.” 

And, the par­tic­i­pants at that meet­ing depart­ed with “no ques­tions in their mind about the depth and endur­ing nature of the U.S. com­mit­ment to Afghanistan,” Flournoy said. “I think that has to be [an] impor­tant con­text in which this con­ver­sa­tion happens.” 

In his open­ing remarks at today’s meet­ing with the Sen­ate pan­el, Petraeus not­ed ini­tia­tives, such as the for­ma­tion of the NATO Train­ing Mis­sion Afghanistan com­mand, that are pur­su­ing greater part­ner­ship with Afghan forces. Such ini­tia­tives, he said, are intend­ed to help Afghan forces achieve the capa­bil­i­ty to assume the lead­ing role in operations. 

“To that end, I think we should note that Afghan forces are in the lead in Kab­ul and in a num­ber of oth­er areas and mis­sions,” Petraeus explained. “And they are very much in the fight through­out the coun­try, so much so that their loss­es are typ­i­cal­ly sev­er­al times U.S. loss­es. Our Afghan com­rades on the ground are indeed sac­ri­fic­ing enor­mous­ly for their coun­try as are, of course, our troop­ers and those of our [inter­na­tion­al] part­ner nations.” 

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs) 

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefence.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →