Barack Obama has increased, not lowered, the number of US troops in Afghanistan (cc photo: US Navy/Clayton Weis).
The New York Times published an editorial on Sunday (11/24/13) that offered a puzzling history of the US war in Afghanistan:
From his first campaign for the White House, President Obama has vowed to end more than a decade of war, bring the troops home and put America on a less militaristic footing. He has reduced the forces in Afghanistan from about 100,000 in 2010 to about 47,000 today and has promised that all American and international combat forces will be out by the end of 2014.
Now, most people know that Obama did not take office in 2010. So why offer that as the starting point in an analysis of how Obama is “bring[ing] the troops home”? Perhaps because it makes it seem like Obama is actually doing that–even though the facts tell a different story.
When Obama took office, there were about 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan. A massive escalation of that war on Obama’s watch brought the total near 100,000 (ThinkProgress, 6/22/11). So there’s still almost half again as many US troops in Afghanistan as there were when Obama came to the White House. This is a strange way to “bring the troops home.”
The Times editorial is trying to argue that Obama “still has to make a case” for keeping troops there after 2014. That’s certainly true. But why the Times seems to want to erase the significant increase in Afghanistan troop levels under Obama is a mystery.
On the subject of justice, the NYT knows only one variety: ours. Discussing international aggression might bring up our motives which is basically imperialism ( Similarities to Iraq Surge Plan Mask Risks in Afghanistan
David E Sanger December 4, 2009 ). Such a hostile ideal doesn’t fit with the article’s careful parroting of human rights groups. The image of “a residual force that …is needed to protect Kabul, to prove that the United States is not abandoning Afghanistan, and to pressure the Taliban to negotiate a political settlement” for example is partially lifted right out of Human Rights Watch “The long arc of justice in Afghanistan” (August 9, 2013). Bringing up the surge would cause some confusion since any suspicions that the US wants to continue the war are “sinister” (even though the US is openly negotiating for this to be the case). The key to this whole piece is in the “duplicitous” Karzai who — right or wrong — suspects the US of secretly aiding the Taliban to prolong war, and in another “sinister” move tried to take back his country’s prisons. (The Long Goodbye in Afghanistan November 23, 2013). But they cannot bring this up. Amnesty International (a group the Times seems to have suspiciously stopped citing around 2003) called for “a fully functioning justice system that implements international fair trial standards.” (20 November 2013 Afghanistan: War crimes investigations crucial to any security pact with USA). So the simple name-calling suffices, and Karzai’s suspicions and dangerous nationalism are left high and dry. Instead of this record, we are just told: “There is something unseemly about the United States having to cajole [President Karzai] into a military alliance that is intended to benefit his fragile country.”
American blogger Roger Tucker always calls the newspaper, “Jew York Times” for very good reasons.
On May 19, 2011, the newspaper posted an article by Benjamin Weiser saying: “Iranian officials had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks“. He also claimed that 9/11 Commision Report “found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack” – but some how his Zionist guts feeling told him that both Iran and Hizbullah did have pre-knowledge of 9/11.
http://rehmat1.com/2011/05/22/nyt-iran-and-hizbullah-linked-to-911/
This blog is invaluable. The last two articles on US, NYT and Afghanistan are great.
Does anyone look at the comments section? The comment by Rehmat has no business being printed (or being allowed to remain, if it goes up automatically). I doubt that “Rehmat” has to rely on Roger Tucker for his clever play on words…there are any number of survivalist anti-Semitic, Anti-black groups who will add to his chorus. And not just for the Times…for the whole city and much more.
And what on earth does some article on Iran from the Times in May, 2011 have to do with Obama’s history of deployment of troops in Afghanistan?
But your article on the Times’ referring to the draw down from 100,00 was critically important. (As was Lewis’ comment).
How about a petition calling on the Times to acknowledge that the State Dept. sponsors its foreign coverage?
Also, in “his first campaign for the White House”, it was not yet “more than a decade of war” and President Obama did not vow to “bring the troops” home from Afghanistan, as he did with Iraq. He said he’d listen to the generals and left ambiguous as to what he’d do, which ended up being escalation.
The NYT mucked up more than just the starting point of 2010.
Rehmut Are you arguing against Jewish leadership in Israel?Or are you arguing against Jews as a people?I have asked you before and I ask you again….Do you have Jewish friends?Most of your writing and opinions smack damn hard of anti semitism.Im giving you a chance to clear that air.No answer is gonna simply be stubborn silence proving my belief about you.
I hate to stand up for Obama but…..This is a hard call ,probably above all our pay grades.We simply don’t have the intel to discuss this.What we do know is that Obama’s rhetoric going in- shows how little he did know.He was talking out his a #s and the sad thing is that the same goes for health care.One he adjusted ,and one he stuck like an Alabama tick unwilling to change.Hope his judgement is better on the Afghan problem.Bush was asked last week to comment on the presidents handling of “HIS ” war.He deferred saying” he would not question the presidents decisions”.Must make you lot sick to see him showing such class.Clinton on the other hand has begun the process of liberal attack against this president.Self serving as always.
“The New York Times” also misspoke in its description of President Obama’s first campaign. In 2008, he called repeatedly for reducing the military presence in Iraq specifically so that more troops could be deployed in Afghanistan. The 2008 Democratic National Platform said “as countless military commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge, we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq.” and promised “We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan …” Anyone who thought Obama was committed to withdrawing troops from what the platform called “a necessary war in Afghanistan.” just wasn’t paying attention.
Obama was also committed to keeping a significant American military presence in Iraq. While pledging to withdraw combat troops, the platform promised, “we will keep a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces …” In early debates Obama had said that U.S. troops would stay in Iraq until at least 2015 and did not dispute Clinton’s number of 50,000 as an appropriate size for that force. After Bush agreed to ending combat participation by U.S. troops before Obama took office and withdrawing all U.S. military by the end of 2011 or earlier if Iraq requested it, the Obama administration worked hard first to get the Iraqi government to not hold the referendum on an earlier review they had promised and to modify the agreement to allow U.S. troops to stay. Iraq gave in on the referendum but would not back down on the 2011 withdrawal deadline.