The Death of bin Laden and a Strategic Shift in Washington

[웃 910]

The Death of bin Laden and a Strategic Shift in Washington

May 3, 2011

STRATFOR

Two apparently distinct facts have drawn our attention. The first and most obvious is U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement late May 1 that Osama bin Laden had been killed. The second is Obama’s April 28 announcement that Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, will replace Leon Panetta as CIA director. Together, the events create the conditions for the U.S. president to expand his room to maneuver in the war in Afghanistan and ultimately reorient U.S. foreign-policy priorities.

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan, as stated by Obama, is the destruction of al Qaeda—in particular, of the apex leadership that once proved capable of carrying out transnational, high-casualty attacks. Although al Qaeda had already been severely weakened in Afghanistan and has recently focused more on surviving inside Pakistan than executing meaningful operations, the inability to capture or kill bin Laden meant that the U.S. mission itself had not been completed. With the death of bin Laden, a plausible, if not altogether accurate, political narrative in the United States can develop, claiming that the mission in Afghanistan has been accomplished. During a White House press conference on Monday, U.S. Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan commented on bin Laden’s death, saying "We are going to try to take advantage of this to demonstrate to people in the area that al Qaeda is a thing of the past, and we are hoping to bury the rest of al Qaeda along with Osama bin Laden."

Petraeus was the architect of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. He symbolized American will in the region. The new appointment effectively sidelines the general. By appointing Petraeus as CIA director (he is expected to assume the position in July), Obama has put the popular general in charge of a complex intelligence bureaucracy. From Langley, Petraeus can no longer be the authoritative military voice on the war effort in Afghanistan. Obama has retained Petraeus as a senior member of the administration while simultaneously isolating him.

Together, the two steps open the door for serious consideration of an accelerated withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The U.S. political leadership faced difficulty in shaping an exit strategy from Afghanistan with Petraeus in command because the general continued to insist that the war was going reasonably well. Whether or not this accurately represented the military campaign (and we tend to think that the war had more troubles than Petraeus was admitting), Petraeus' prestige made it difficult to withdraw over his objections.

Petraeus is now being removed from the Afghanistan picture. Bin Laden has already been removed. With his death, an argument in the United States can be made that the U.S. mission has been accomplished and that, while there may be room for some manner of special-operations counterterrorism forces, the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan no longer exists. It is difficult to ignore the fact that bin Laden was killed, not in Afghanistan, but deep within Pakistani borders. With the counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan dissipating, the nation-building mission in Afghanistan becomes unnecessary and nonessential. In addition, with tensions in the Persian Gulf building in the lead-up to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, ending the war in Afghanistan critically releases U.S. forces for operations elsewhere. It is therefore possible for the United States to consider an accelerated withdrawal in a way that wasn’t possible before.

We are not saying that bin Laden's death and Petraeus' new appointment are anything beyond coincidental. We are saying that the confluence of the two events creates politically strategic opportunities for the U.S. administration that did not exist before, the most important of which is the possibility for a dramatic shift in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

too many things are a 'coincidence' when it comes to the timing, especially in using May 1...

-Hitler's Death

-Bush's "Mission Accomplished"

and and let us not forget "Commie Day."

The symbolism of they day fits and anyone with half a brain can see that there's much more to what went on than meets the eye.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me in the least for them to have known of Osama's location for a lot long than right then and there.

The day was chosen for a reason, the whole situation is setup for a reason.

At the end of the day, in this modern society, everything in Washington is political. People would do well not to forget that.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

too many things are a 'coincidence' when it comes to the timing, especially in using May 1...

-Hitler's Death

-Bush's "Mission Accomplished"

and and let us not forget "Commie Day."

The symbolism of they day fits and anyone with half a brain can see that there's much more to what went on than meets the eye.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me in the least for them to have known of Osama's location for a lot long than right then and there.

The day was chosen for a reason, the whole situation is setup for a reason.

At the end of the day, in this modern society, everything in Washington is political. People would do well not to forget that.

Your right, they wanted to avoid spoiling the wedding.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Your right, they wanted to avoid spoiling the wedding.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is a sound high-level analysis. The useless effort in Afghanistan will have to come to an end. Public support for our engagement there was weak with OBL still around. It's only going to get weaker with him out of the picture. I expect an announcement of a change in course in Afghanistan. Sooner rather than later.

Just please, no banner on an aircraft carrier...

[Vi-Jay 218]

That is a sound high-level analysis. The useless effort in Afghanistan will have to come to an end. Public support for our engagement there was weak with OBL still around. It's only going to get weaker with him out of the picture. I expect an announcement of a change in course in Afghanistan. Sooner rather than later.

Just please, no banner on an aircraft carrier...

Who gets the opium?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who gets the opium?

Whoever caughs up the cash to buy it. Who cares?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Who gets the opium?

Since the US invaded Afghanistan opium has been flooding into Russia.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Whoever caughs up the cash to buy it. Who cares?

The only reason we went to Afghan was to get UBL?

Womens rights? Opium? Democracy?

We got UBL so let's ? let's what?

I'm curious what "shift" you expect.? Please.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The only reason we went to Afghan was to get UBL?

Womens rights? Opium? Democracy?

We got UBL so let's ? let's what?

I'm curious what "shift" you expect.? Please.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/296182-they-want-to-build-a-pipeline-through-a-war-zone/ <---- Maybe that's why...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The only reason we went to Afghan was to get UBL?

Womens rights? Opium? Democracy?

We got UBL so let's ? let's what?

I'm curious what "shift" you expect.? Please.

Democracy in Afghanistan.

Women's rights in Afghanistan. :rofl:

This is what needs to happen:

[Vi-Jay 218]

Democracy in Afghanistan.

Women's rights in Afghanistan. :rofl:

This is what needs to happen:

Thank you for your reply and for making your expected "shift" clear.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Thank you for your reply and for making your expected "shift" clear.

I thought that was clear from the OP. I agree that all signs point to a significant draw-down announcement soon. It's long overdue.

[scandal 951]

Petraeus was the architect of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. He symbolized American will in the region. The new appointment effectively sidelines the general. By appointing Petraeus as CIA director (he is expected to assume the position in July), Obama has put the popular general in charge of a complex intelligence bureaucracy. From Langley, Petraeus can no longer be the authoritative military voice on the war effort in Afghanistan. Obama has retained Petraeus as a senior member of the administration while simultaneously isolating him.

CIA Director is an isolated, sidelined position??

On the contrary.

If there's one thing the OBL raid makes clear, it's the value of intelligence operations wedded to highly effective JSOC forces.

CIA was right at the center of this successful mission. Putting Petraeus into that role, with his years of field experience in theater, is brilliant. The focus in Afghanistan/Pakistan and throughout the region (Yemen, Somalia, Maghreb) is increasingly based on human and electronic intel combined with strike capabilities, not boots on the ground. I can't think of a better guy than Petraeus to be leading CIA during this transition. Taking his eyes off Afghanistan? Hardly.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

CIA Director is an isolated, sidelined position??

You missed the paragraph that followed:

"The U.S. political leadership faced difficulty in shaping an exit strategy from Afghanistan with Petraeus in command because the general continued to insist that the war was going reasonably well. Whether or not this accurately represented the military campaign (and we tend to think that the war had more troubles than Petraeus was admitting), Petraeus' prestige made it difficult to withdraw over his objections.

Petraeus is now being removed from the Afghanistan picture."