Afghanistan Plan Conference Call
 |
James Joyner | Friday, March 27, 2009 |
Denis McDonough, deputy assistant to the president in charge of strategic communications for the National Security Council, and Caitlin Hayden, director of communications at NSC, held a conference call this afternoon, organized by the White House, to discuss the plan with invited bloggers.
Uncharacteristically, I managed to get in the first question and some follow-ups:
JAMES JOYNER (Atlantic Council): “What’s the exit strategy? How will we know when we’ve won and can go home?”
MCDONOUGH: Afghans take the lead role. We’ve seen “fundamental strategic drift” and now have a “clear goal” to have “key metrics” to measure success.
JOYNER: “What’s the timeframe? Ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years? Or simply however long it takes to achieve metrics?”
MCDONOUGH: We’ll have regular reporting to assess metrics.
JOYNER: “But we’re willing to stay indefinitely so long as we’re achieving process?”
MCDONOUGH: So long as we can achieve support of American people.
NOAH SHACHTMAN (Wired), SPENCER ACKERMAN (Washington Independent), FAIZ SHAKIR (Think Progress), ALEX THURSTON (The Seminal), ILAN GOLDENBERG (National Security Network), BRANDON FRIEDMAN (Vet Voice), DAVID AXE (War is Boring), and LAURA ROSEN (Foreign Policy) also got in questions.
See my New Atlanticist writeup, Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Conference Call, for my notes on their questions as well as a quick take on the plan itself.
Of course, Dave Schuler has previously given his thoughts, which I endorse, as well as his speculation on what the plan would say, which proved prescient.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Afghanistan Plan Conference Call
- Are We There Yet? (Afghanistan Edition)
- Jim Jones Outstanding National Security Advisor Choice
- Expanding the Security Council?
- FEMA Fake News Conference
- Do We Need a Bigger Hammer in Afghanistan?
- In Which I Disagree with Brent Scowcroft
- McCain Calls for ‘League of Democracies’
- The New Plan for Afghanistan
- Did the Surge Work? Who Can Say?
- Third Quarter Growth Revised Downwards
- Obama Cabinet’s Limited Private Experience
- Google Apologizes for Michelle Obama Monkey Picture
- No OTB Radio Tonight
- Colleen Blanchard Schuler, RIP
- That’s What I Call A Loophole…
- Obama “Keeping An Eye” On Robots
- Phil Carter Quits Administration
- Census Worker Hanging Suicide, Not Right Wing Murder
- Swine flu is more popular than Dodd
I managed to get in the first question and some follow-ups:
Good work, J-Dawg! You're set to become the next Helen Thomas!
Good questions, though. From the guy's answers you would think he was a holdover from Bush. Those are pretty lame answers, in my opinion.
Herein lies the key distinction between this administration and the last:
Bush: "We are committed to stay there until the situation on the ground warrants that we can pull out."
Obama: "We are committed to stay there until the President's approval ratings drop below 50%."
Now which option do you think our friends, neighbors and allies have more respect for?
"friends....and enemies," I should add.
Comments are Closed
