David Swanson: Leaving Afghanistan by Staying!

Is staying in Afghanistan OK with you, as long as we call it leaving? President Obama has signed an agreement with President Karzai to keep major US military presence in Afghanistan, currently about three times the size Obama began with, through the end of 2014, and to allow a significant unspecified presence beyond that date, with no end date stipulated. Obama stresses that no permanent US bases will be involved, but his agreement requires Afghanistan to let US troops use "Afghan" bases. Obama forgot to provide any reason not to withdraw from Afghanistan now, given majority US desire to end the war. Like Newt Gingrich promising to quit campaigning before actually doing so, Obama is promising to leave Afghanistan, but not yet, except that he isn't promising to ever leave at all. The agreement is open-ended. Obama spoke recently of a transition to Afghan control, but we've heard that talk for a decade. That's not some new bright idea that requires two-and-a-half more years to develop. Obama talked of fighting al Qaeda, but the US has not been fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and has admitted for years that there is virtually no al Qaeda presence there. That's not the two-year project, and it's not the reason to remain indefinitely after 2014. The agreement requires that all "entities" involved in a peace process renounce violence, but the Taliban will no more do that while under foreign occupation, than the United States will do so while occupying. This is not a serious plan to leave, nor is it a plan based on Afghan sovereignty, numerous claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This is a treaty for more years of war, on the model of the Bush-Maliki treaty for Iraq, but with the difference that theirs included an end date.