No one has even discussed this sort of deadline at all. The President has specified a date for beginning some sort of conditions-based withdrawal. The vaguest of the vague, in other words.P.S.: A "deadline" in this context means to me that more than 90% of the troops would be out of the country by that time.
Deadlines vary
Whilst the USA and the UK have recently stated an intention to draw down, within five years, I suspect that any deadline may be affected when other nations withdraw. Particularly NATO / European nations, will there be a "band wagon" effect?
davidbfpo
Yea, we are going to begin a ProcessOriginally Posted by tequila
That may be strictly true. But the intent of the vagueness was to allow the administration to present it to different groups in a way that would most please them, here in the US. One group could be told, yes we're getting out. The other group could be told, no we're not and a third could be told we are but only if.
The forgotten factor was how it would be perceived in Afghanistan and Pakistan by people who may not so clued into American political nuance. They are seeing a deadline. The Americans are going to bug out in 2011, so they have to just hang on or they had better make a deal with somebody as the case may be.
The wording was a great domestic political move and a disaster in the places it mattered most, Afganistan and Pakistan.
As far as the article posted by Fuchs, I wonder if that is a little too focused on the central government. I read what I can about Afghanistan and I know next to nothing (if that is an opening, I concede) but it seems that local, province and region trump national. So if the local guys are good, it doesn't matter that much about the national government.
The other thing I gather is what the local people intensely dislike are the local racketeers. If the local racketeers are removed, this gets back to having a good local guy, people aren't really all that mad at the national government because in the best of times it didn't make that much difference anyway. Good governance with services provided is nice to have but maybe it is more important not to have a criminal picking on you. That may be easier for our forces to arrange than providing a reliable grid.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Well, the Afghanisation is meant to be based on exactly that central government and regional elites and (former) warlords aren't much less kleptocratic.
Even if there were warlords instead of a central government - the incentives would still work the same.
Bifurcation---the separation of something from that which it was previously joined with.
In econometric modeling, it was always a discontinuity, or non-linear change.
For months, I walked by a guard post and said good morning and goodnight to the Georgian troops.
The next morning, they were all gone.
In Iraq, the US was negotiating a departure. So were the Brits. Their negotiations failed,; they were gone.
Stuff happens. Not always under our control.
Often perceived differently by locals.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks