U.S. will be out of Afghanistan by 2017: White House

[parocks]

The United States will not be in Afghanistan eight years from now, the White House said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obama prepared to explain to Americans next week why he is expanding the war effort.

After months of deliberation and fending off Republican charges that he was dithering on Afghanistan while violence there surged, Obama will address the nation on Tuesday on the way forward in the costly and unpopular eight-year war.

He is expected to announce he is sending about 30,000 more troops as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy that will place greater emphasis on accelerating the training of Afghan security forces so that U.S. soldiers can eventually withdraw.

It appears highly unlikely Obama will offer a specific troop withdrawal timetable, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president would stress that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was not open-ended.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091125/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_usa

[BuddyRey]

Yeah, by then we will have moved on to picking fights with Russia, Iran, and possibly Pakistan. Always bigger and better fish for the Military-Industrial Complex to fry!

[Oyate]

"The US will be out of Afghanistan between now and go F yourself"

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ha! Who believes this bullshit? How did they pick 2017? Of course we won't be in Afghanistan in 2017 let alone 2013 because there won't be a dollar left, not like debauching and destroying the dollar is the best way to get out of Afghanistan....

[South Park Fan]

Why don't they just say "The United States will not in Afghanistan eight years from whatever year it currently is?"

[james1906]

In 2017, China buys the United States in a liquidation sale. They send the American troops home so they can make cheap shit for them.

[Austin]

Right, just like "we'll be out of Iraq within 16 months."

[parocks]

Ha! Who believes this bullshit? How did they pick 2017? Of course we won't be in Afghanistan in 2017 let alone 2013 because there won't be a dollar left, not like debauching and destroying the dollar is the best way to get out of Afghanistan....

If he doesn't lose in 2012 (which is looking likely), he'll be out of office in 2017.

2017 seems like a long time away.

[sofia]

If he doesn't lose in 2012 (which is looking likely), he'll be out of office in 2017.

2017 seems like a long time away.

Dont be so certain...

When communist ACORN and Rahm Emmanuel get done with next years census, and Amnesty gets passed as well.....Obama will have a shit load more of blue state electoral votes and at least 10 million more hispanic O-bot voters to make up for the independents he is losing as we speak.

[dgr]

How about we bring everyone home on leave for Christmas and then take 8 years to deceide who to send back

[RideTheDirt]

wrong

we'll be out in 2013.
After we get Ron Paul elected!

[hugolp]

So Obama will be in office 2 or 6 years more at max. And he says the USA will be out of Afghanistan in 8 years. How convinient.

[Dreamofunity]

Can we really afford a 16+ year war? What's the point?

How come we can take out Hilter in a few years, but killing those poor people in the mountains takes four times as long to... wait, what's our intended goal again?

[idirtify]

In 2017, China buys the United States in a liquidation sale. They send the American troops home so they can make cheap shit for them.

"In 2017, China buys the United States in a liquidation sale. In the deal, they get the American troops so they can make cheap shit FROM them." :) (see "organ farming")

[idirtify]

If there ever was such a thing as Orwellian “Perpetual War”, this is it. And as far as the state ending it from “going broke”, forget it; the state obviously does not recognize the concept. They see plenty of sources of untapped revenue from you and me.

I remember when the wall came down and it was celebrated that the cold war was over and military spending could be drastically reduced. And I remember hearing how the military was scared for its survival and looking for new enemies. Well they found their boogeyman and they’re not letting go. Essentially our standing armies have taken over; just like our founding fathers warned. It’s sickening.

[Golding]

I remember when Bush said the US would be out of Iraq in 2009. Then it was 2013. Obama is simply aiming for continuance of war as an election issue. There's no plan to end the wars.

[klamath]

The military has taken over nothing. These wars are all politician wars. Obama had the full power and authority with the politcal capital to have ended both wars. With the adoration he has in Europe he could have brought NATO along without even trying. It could have been the only good thing to come out of his election and he blew it. I remember when we got into Bosnia it was promised to be only a 18 month occupation yet the leases on the bases were 25 years and the CIC that sent us there (Clinton) loathed the military.

[Michael Landon]

Wrong

We'll be out in 2013.
After we get Ron Paul elected!

Awesome. Agreed.

- ML

[FauxCapitalist]

1) The president is making a promise he may not be able to keep, even if he wanted to, if he's not re-elected in 2012, showing that he's not the one in charge.
2) Whatever happened to the conditions on the ground deciding when to leave? It's not practical to predict what things will be like in such a volatile region and world, even 2 years from now, let alone another 8 years.

It's as believable as his broken promises to:
Let Americans see the full text of each bill that Congress will be voting on 5 days before a final vote, have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months, Guantanamo shut down by the first anniversary of his inauguration, and to pull out of NAFTA, unless other countries agree to concessions.

http://fauxcapitalist.com

[catdd]

Damn right, we'll be broke and have to crawl out of there like Russia did because we couldn't read the writing on the wall.

[andrewh817]

This statement is completely laughable........ Remember how the US would "win" in Iraq after a few short years? Remember how Vietnam was "easily winnable?" Even if this statement was true, it wouldn't be because they fulfilled their objective (stealing land and resources from the Middle East) but because they would have NO MONEY.