We’re Still Conducting Combat Missions in Afghanistan - Even Though President Obama Said Our Combat Mission Was Over

Something I have commented on before, regarding Afghanistan, popped up again in The New York Times over the weekend, and I think it is worthy of another comment.  Hidden away in an article on the trip to Afghanistan by Ashton Carter, our new Secretary of Defense, was this paragraph on what American troops are doing in Afghanistan:

“Already, Afghan and American officials have said, on the condition of anonymity, that the United States forces were playing combat roles in many joint special operations raids and were not simply going along as advisers.  That is at odds with policy declarations by the administration, which has deemed the American role in the war essentially over, but reflects the reality in Afghanistan.”

In December of last year, President Obama said that our “combat mission” in Afghanistan was ending and that our “limited military presence” in that country was for purposes of “training and equipping Afghan forces” and “conduct[ing] counterterrorism missions”.

As I commented back then, it was not true when President Obama said it, and per this weekend’s New York Times article, it is not true today.  As I noted in December, President Obama knew it wasn’t true when he said it, but he said it anyway.

The question (or, more properly, questions) then is: why did he say what he said and, more importantly, what does it mean for the future?  As to why did he say it, I probably shouldn’t be psychoanalyzing the President, but I think a little bit of psychoanalyzing is necessary, especially to be able to answer the second part of the question.

Why is he saying that our combat mission has ended, even though it doesn’t appear to be true?  I think he wants it to be true.  Also, it could be viewed as largely true in that the number missions our troops are going on is a lot lower than it used to be.  Therefore, the President thinks we (i.e., he) can say our combat mission is over, even though it is not literally true, because the number of combat missions we are going on has dropped.¹

So, what does this mean for the future?  Two comments.  First, whatever we have our troops do in Afghanistan for the rest of President Obama’s term can’t be any more than the maximum we can do and still allow the President, et al, to be able to claim that our “combat mission” has ended.  (This sort of fits with what we are doing in Iraq: we can’t do anything in Iraq if doing it would mean the President can’t say that we have no combat boots on the ground in Iraq.)

Second, the Times article mentioned that Secretary Carter, while in Afghanistan, “opened up the possibility of slowing the withdrawal of the last American troops in the country”.  I think what we are seeing here, however, means that, even if we slow the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan (which we have already done), they still need to be out of Afghanistan by the end of President Obama’s term. 

President Obama’s legacy is, inter alia, that he ended our involvement in Iraq (the President would argue that what we are doing in Iraq now is fighting ISIS, not fighting in Iraq) and in Afghanistan.  President Obama needs to be able to say, by the time he leaves office, that our involvement in Afghanistan is over.  The only question then is what level of involvement in Afghanistan could that United States have and still allow President Obama to say that he ended our involvement?  If you can figure that out, then you will know that maximum that we could be doing in Afghanistan as of January 20, 2017.
------------
¹ There is a saying in tennis that a ball that is 98% out is 100% in.  President Obama seems to be taking the opposite approach.