Center for a New American Security

Washington, D.C., June 22, 2011 — In his speech tonight, President Obama announced the removal of 10,000 American troops by the end of 2011 and an additional 23,000 troops by September 2012, withdrawing a little more than the 30,000 troop surge he ordered in December 2009.  CNAS experts offered the following analysis on this decision.

CNAS EXPERT COMMENTARY

By Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow
"President Obama's long-anticipated speech outlining the specifics implementing the start of the drawdown in Afghanistan will ultimately please no one. His domestic critics on the left will assail its speed and numbers, while those on the right will argue that he has put at serious risk many of the gains that have been painfully achieved over the last eighteen months. In Afghanistan and the region, observers will find precious little in the speech to reassure them about prospects for an enduring long-term U.S. commitment beyond 2014. On the military front, the president gave commanders impressive flexibility this year by linking the withdrawal of the first 10,000 troops of the surge to the year's end. But he inexplicably removed all such flexibility next year by requiring the remaining 23,000 surge troops to be withdrawn by the summer of 2012 -- necessitating their removal from combat at the height of the fighting season. This problem of untimely diminished capabilities can be overcome by the commanders on the ground, yet opens questions about the nature of the calculus.  But in the end, the key strategic issue for the United States will be whether America's friends and adversaries around the world assess this speech an expression of U.S. resolve -- or as the starting gun signaling a wider U.S. global retrenchment.”

By John Nagl, CNAS President
“President Obama has correctly noted that the Taliban is smaller and far less capable, and that the Afghan security forces are larger and more capable, than they were when the Afghan surge began almost two years ago. He is betting that a smaller American force, combined with our NATO and Afghan allies, will be able to continue the counterinsurgency campaign until, by the end of 2014, only a residual presence of American advisors and Special Forces are required to secure American interests in the region. He is probably right, but LtGen John Allen will have some difficult choices to make about battlefield geometry—how and where he arrays his remaining forces—as he assumes command of the Afghan mission this summer.”

By Kristin Lord, Vice President and Director of Studies
“In deciding to withdraw 33,000 American troops by next summer, President Obama made a difficult but correct decision. While U.S. military commanders should retain maximum flexibility to shape the nature of this drawdown, and while it will create new risks in Afghanistan, the sapping of American economic power is now a greater risk.  The costs of such a high level of commitment in Afghanistan now exceed the benefits to American security interests, and the President’s announcement should spark a broader reconsideration of U.S. priorities. Yet, this partial drawdown of forces should not prompt a run for the exits. America should not make the mistake of abandoning its partners or forgetting its regional security interests. Rather, it should pledge enduring economic, diplomatic, and military support to those capable of sustaining a better future for the region and, by extension, the protection of American interests.”

By Nora Bensahel, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of Studies
“President Obama’s plan to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer will be widely unpopular. Many military analysts and personnel warn that the withdrawal is too rapid: it jeopardizes the progress that has been made at such high cost, which would not be the case if those troops remained for even a few more months. Most Americans, however, will not focus on the troops that are withdrawing, but on the troops that are staying. Almost 70,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through 2013 and into 2014, even though a majority of Americans now favor bringing the troops home as quickly as possible. In the coming weeks and months, the president will need to clearly and consistently communicate the continuing U.S. strategic interests in Afghanistan and why an enduring partnership with Afghanistan will continue to benefit the United States.”

By Robert Kaplan, Senior Fellow
“President Obama's troop withdrawal announcement  has more to do with domestic politics than with the operational requirements of dealing with facts on the ground. The president must be hoping that even with fewer troops, the situation on the ground will be sufficiently stabilized by 2014 to make this withdrawal seem smart from hindsight. For he will ultimately be judged not by how many troops he withdraws now - no matter the domestic political realities - but by how Afghanistan turns out down the road. Meanwhile, the biggest impediment to progress is the Afghan government's own lack of institutional capacity.”

By Patrick Cronin, Senior Advisor and Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Program
“Many will judge the president by whether they think he can reduce America’s Afghan burden without sparking wider conflict or looking irresolute by abandoning a ‘necessary’ war. As important as it is for the United States to get serious about aligning its expansive ends with its finite means, the rationale for downsizing in Afghanistan should be based on a more realistic, clear and compelling objective, and not just our newfound appreciation for balancing the check book.”

By Richard Fontaine, Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow
“The president has a difficult task in balancing the imperative to succeed in Afghanistan with the desires of a war-weary American public and pressing economic concerns at home. But the withdrawal timeline he laid out in this evening’s address will, I hope, be subject to further refinement. Under the current plan, the bulk of surge forces will leave in the middle of the 2012 fighting season. By keeping them in place for just two or three additional months, the military could deploy near-maximum combat power next year. The extraordinary costs of this war are daunting, but the accelerated reduction will make only a relatively small dent in the total cost, which will probably hit $100 billion in 2012. The United States continues to have vital national interests bound up in Afghanistan’s success, and I hope that the administration will revisit its withdrawal plans as conditions on the ground evolve.”

By Brian Burton, Fellow
“Once again, U.S. interests and strategy have been largely overshadowed by what should be a second-order debate over the size and timing of upcoming troop withdrawals in Afghanistan. President Obama was wise to expand his remarks to include an appreciation of U.S. interests in the region and beyond. However, the decision announced by the president is unlikely to positively impact other critical aspects of the war, notably the commitment of the NATO allies and Afghan and Pakistani leaders’ perceptions of American staying power. More broadly, the short-term focus of the current debate over troop numbers comes at the expense of long-term strategic thinking about the nature of the threats posed by transnational violent extremist groups in the region and the most effective approaches toward mitigating them.”

By Travis Sharp, Bacevich Fellow
“The withdrawal of U.S. surge forces from Afghanistan will at best generate very modest budgetary savings. In fact, some savings will be consumed by additional costs related to the withdrawal, such as transporting troops out of theater, repairing worn out equipment, and increasing funds to train Afghan security forces. Political leaders may try to frame the withdrawal of U.S. surge forces as fiscally responsible, but tonight's announcement does virtually nothing to solve the nation’s long term fiscal challenges.”

By Matt Irvine, Researcher
“Even with the withdrawal of the surge forces by summer next year, more than 68,000 soldiers and Marines will remain in the country into 2013, double the number at the start of president Obama’s term. The real tests for the U.S. war strategy will be how to manage the remainder of those forces into 2014 and beyond and the long-term trajectory of the ever-turbulent U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Without a clear plan for the future role of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the administration risks sending mixed signals to both our allies and enemies, limiting the prospects for a long-term political solution to the conflict and lasting stability in the region.”

REPORTS:

• Beyond Afghanistan: A Regional Security Strategy for South and Central Asia, by Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Andrew M. Exum, Matthew Irvine
• Responsible Transition: Securing U.S. Interests in Afghanistan Beyond 2011, by Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Andrew M. Exum
• Leverage: Designing a Political Campaign for Afghanistan, by Andrew Exum
• The Economic Imperative: Stabilizing Afghanistan Through Economic Growth, by Nathaniel C. Fick, Clare Lockhart

TRANSCRIPTS AND VIDEOS:

• At its Fifth Annual Conference on June 2, 2011, CNAS featured the roundtable discussion, "Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda: 10 Years After 9/11 and Beyond," with Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post; Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), CNAS; Steve Coll, New America Foundation; Ambassador Anne Patterson, Former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan; and Bing West, author of The Wrong War. Read the transcript and watch the video.
• CNAS also featured a keynote address by Army Lieutenant General David M. Rodriguez, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command (IJC) and Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, titled "Afghanistan 2011: The Operational Commander's Perspective." Read the transcript and watch the video.

BLOGS & SOCIAL MEDIA:

Stay up to date with all CNAS news on Twitter @CNASdc and on Facebook; listen to iTunes podcasts; and watch exclusive CNAS interviews and event highlights on our YouTube channel. Read Andrew Exum on Abu Muqawama and Tom Ricks on The Best Defense.