SENATE BILL: End to Imperialism Act (Law'd)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I want to make the Administration's view on this clear...

I want our troops out of harms way, where we disagree, is how to go about it.

Personally, I believe the Afghanistan conflict was handled abominably, largely due to unnecessary war in Iraq - but as President, and even moreso as Commander-in-Chief, I have a deep responsibility that goes beyond what I want to do. As an Atlasian, I want all of them home and out of harm's way yesterday, but as president and a world leader who believes in responsible government, I do not have that luxury.

As a country with forces on the ground we do have a responsibility to make sure the transition to local forces is a smooth as possible, while many claim this is lost cause already, I cannot image what it will make us look like if we just up and leave, and a massive power vacuum ensues.

Support or opposition to the War is not the issue now, it's about the right way to leave.

I'm prepared fully to work with the Senate to bring this joint goal about and believe me, I understand the frustration, I am prepared to work with you as long as you are equally prepared to work with me.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If this Bill passes as is proposed - it will not receive White House support.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I object on the grounds that combat troops in Libya were never authorized by the Senate in the first place, so "no longer authorized" is inaccurate.

I tried searching on the wiki and could not find it. Last night I asked the Presidential about this but he hasn't yet responses.

I did say that I was unavailable over the weekend... I would like some advice on this matter.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You misread what I said - I said that I changed the mission from a military combat one to one of civilian protection and military intelligence and logistical support.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I have offered Napoleon what I think is a fair compromise - but he has not made those details public yet.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As I said - I respect the right of the Senate to make these determinations - but I believe anything too precipitous would be a mistake.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My new proposal is to have more than 50% of all combat troops home by April

60% home from Iraq by 31 December - all troops (including support troops) out by June
40% back from Afghanistan by 31 December - up to 65% by April

As for Libya - people really have missed that I ordered that Atlasian forces were to act ONLY to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure in rebel-held areas. So troop numbers have dropped already - 60% will be home by 1 November - my expectation is that our forces for civilian defense as well as intelligence and logistical support would be roughly 25% of our original deployment and we can get that done by 1 November also.

In spite of my personal feelings on these conflicts, I think this is a reasonable compromise.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well... we are protecting civilians in rebel-held areas.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm disappointed by the lack of engagement with the White House on this matter over the last fortnight - I have offered considerable concessions.

If it passes in it's current form, I will be vetoing it - but I will offer a new proposal with combines strict withdrawal dates and funding deadlines.

If the Senate wishes to override my veto without even entering into functional negotiations with the White House, they're of course within their rights, but I don't think it really helps anyone's cause

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Iraq: All combat troops home by 31 January 2012  - all remaining support troops out by 1 April 2012
40% back from Afghanistan by 31 December - up to 65% by April and all combat troops out by 30 June 2012.

As for Libya - people really have missed that I ordered that Atlasian forces were to act ONLY to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure in rebel-held areas. So troop numbers have dropped already - 60% will be home by 1 November - my expectation is that our forces for civilian defense as well as intelligence and logistical support would be roughly 25% of our original deployment and we can get that done by 1 November also.

In spite of my personal feelings on these conflicts, I think this is a reasonable compromise.

Attached to funding cessations
Libya: 1 November (combat) -> 1 January 2012 (peacekeeping)
Iraq: 1 December (combat) -> 15 April 2012 (all remaining forces)
Afghanistan: 1 June 2012 (all forces)

I understand that there are many who have long-held views about these conflicts that are now able to be expressed and acted on - but whether I think these conflicts are good/bad just/unjust etc etc is not important. My responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and a coalition leader is to do what I must do.

I believe I have given a lot of ground here but I cannot do more without acting irresponsibly.

Libya: I have already scaled back our involvement, and the further draw-down will be logistically the easiest - which is why we can withdraw here with the most speed.

Iraq: the process of exchanging the authority to the Iraq forces is proceeding well - there remains some pockets which will remain in coalition hands. 31 January is the earliest we can withdraw without causing any destabilisation.

Afghanistan: this is a messy military and political situation. Our transfer to local forces will take longer here, this is a cold hard reality that I really hope the Senate will appreciate.


 
My administration has outlined a withdrawal policy from the very early days of my Presidency, I have been prepared to work with the Senate to develop a workable compromise. I am willing to use my veto because I believe the current proposal is militarily reckless, which we are not.

This gets virtually all of our combat troops out of these conflicts in less than 9 months, this is by modern standards, a very rapid draw-down.

I really hope that the Senate will look again at the proposals before you, and makes a determination of what is actually achievable and will not result in massive power vacuums.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sadly, you've completely misjudged my intentions.

I had a timetable in place before the Senator's Bill was before the Senate - I tried to negotiate with the Sponsor to find a compromise position, unfortunately the Senator has not made the results of those negotiations part of these discussions.

I'm not interested in taking risks with our troops, the time lines I have offered are based on the situations in each of the theatres and military advice.

You are entitled to vote to override my veto should I have to use it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Unfortunately Senator, you've yet again misjudged this Administration's priorities.

On Libya, I had the same general thoughts as you. It was not our job to fight their war for them, a point I made during the speech in which I first brought up a withdrawal from all of these conflicts, again, before this Bill appeared. We had a small contingent who were not part of the command structure. I ordered the combat troops to withdraw and to serve only as a peacekeeping force in the Benghazi itself. Our force is small in number, and it will be the first to be fully withdrawn, because it can be easily withdrawn.

On Iraq, yet again, the point is missed, but we will have almost 70% of our troops out by November, with a slow trickle as training is increased and command handed over to the Iraqi forces until January - this is not a slow withdrawal - this is a very rapid withdrawal.

On Afghanistan, this is the one over which we seem to have the greatest disagreement. But it is the one where the situation is the most precarious, so yes, we do have to take longer to extricate ourselves - I won't apologise for doing what I feel is the right thing to do.

I do understand the Senator's points, I have been prepared to give a lot more ground than my advisers have wanted me to, but because I hoped that the Senate was interested in a constructive dialogue - I pushed the military to give me the most swift but militarily responsible dates for exits.

The problem now is that some Senators are just repeating the same points over and over about how 10years in Afghanistan is too long - I completely agree, which is why I highlighted withdrawal in my first foreign policy speech as president  - which is why I have been prepared to work with the Senate to get this done... but get it done properly. Which is why I have proposed a time line for both withdrawal AND for the cessation of funding.

I want our troops out, but I don't want to create situation that could necessitate them being sent back at some point in the future.


In that end, I think the Senate should just vote on it let what will be, be.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I want to stress that this is NOT personal, this is a policy difference - although I do reject the suggestions that my decision is being manipulated by arms manufacturers et al.

I know that there are Senators for whom my withdrawal plan will never be swift enough, I really have made efforts to do the right thing across the board. It's a very difficult balance to strike, and those considerations include the political situation on the ground... whether or not I agree with the War, I do believe in responsible government, so I believe we do have a responsibility to not leave a vacuum in our wake.

I don't like War, I consider it one of the greatest evils we can inflict on one another, but sometimes it is a necessary evil - but this is not a debate about the pros and cons of war... it's about how and when we get our troops out.

I came into office with a promise to have a plan in train to get all of our troops out, I have stretched our Commands to get the earliest date possible for all three theatres. I presented, what I believe is a very fair compromise position, I went into discussions in good faith, and I was prepared to work with the Senate, but I'm not sure those same considerations have been reciprocated.  

Those dates were not picked arbitrarily, they are carefully considered to account for all reasonable eventualities.

I think we are doing ourselves more damage by shouting over what in essence are details - our aims are the same, but the methods by which we do are slightly different.

Again, I think there needs to be a final vote on this and just let what will be, be.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To my mind immediate withdrawal form Libya is crucial so we do not get dragged into another long occupation. For me, that's non-negotiable. Iraq and Afghanistan on the other hand, we have already made such an impact and entangled in relationships there, I recognize leaving is a bit more tricky. Iraq is mostly stabilized though so I think we can leave there very soon as well. At this point, I don't see the need for retaining combat troops in Iraq any more than a couple months.
Yes, Afghanistan is the tricky one, though even there it seems like our combat troops have done all they can. I understand the need for an orderly withdrawal and transfer of power, but I don't understand exactly what it is to be accomplished by staying in Afghanistan through next spring. Is there something particular about June?

Really behind all this timetable talk is a question of strategy. If we had a credible strategy for winning the peace, I'd consider allowing our armed service heroes to stay a bit longer to achieve it. But it seems more and more that our best strategy is not going to be mainly a military one. If there's something we can accomplish there in the next year with our combat troops that we haven't already, I'm not sure what it is.

Those are some constructive issues, thank you.

Firstly, we are now operating in Libya as a peacekeeping mission - not combat. I have said many times that our exit from Libya will be the fastest, because we are not entrenched nor is stability or fundamental security dependent on us.

Secondly, Iraq. I understand that the general view is that all is going well and we should just be able to walk out with little consequence. However, there are pockets where our troops are a significant part of the security structure. Part of the withdrawal - especially post-November will be to increase the training for those replacing the Atlasian security forces. Those training will still require security and support. I feel very strongly, that in this theatre we do owe the Iraqi people some stability.

Thirdly, Afghanistan. I thank you for acknowledging that this is a difficult situation. The security situation is not stable, especially with the announcement that President Karzai will not be seeking a third term. We are now at the end of the fighting season, which will give Commanders the ability to take stock of where we are, and the formal withdrawal and handover strategy. Considering our position in the security structure of entire provinces of Afghanistan - we do need to fast-track the recruitment and training of new soldiers for the Afghan Army - the Autumn and Winter period is the peak time for training and recruitment - it's as simple as that. And until we have done that job, it will be necessary for troops to be on the ground.

In relation to your question about the strategy - I believe I've outlined our reasoning - and I don't want to sound glib here, but I believe considering that we now have a policy of withdrawal, the goal to winning the peace is to leave those nations prepared to win their own peace and not to create a de-stabilisation by our exit.

Again, we could go in circles in this - I am currently in a period of final negotiations - while I hope something constructive will come out of it... I'm not expecting it and I think this situation is not helping us at all - and Senate needs to vote as soon as is practicable so our forces have some idea of what they'll be doing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay.

I know.. shoot me later.  Since I made the motion, I've decided we need more time to debate this.

You really are a tease, lol

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The other thing I am considering is that, I believe, we really ought to leave before the end of the training/recruitment season. We need to be handing those duties off to the Afghani forces too before we leave, and once the more active combat season begins again the Afghani forces will already be responsible for all security. If we are still operating there in the Spring the security vacuum when we leave could actually be more severe than if we leave earlier.

I know I said I would stay out of it... but I wanted to make a comment on the Senator's reasonable points.

The military reason for staying on until the end of the training/recruitment season is to make sure that the Afghan forces are as strong as they can be before we leave. This has been a particularly difficult year and as we are deciding to leave, I believe we do have a responsibility to make that transition as balanced and effective as possible.

The coalition forces, as part of the restructuring agreement are the ones responsible for training - and therefore we do need to have some continuing presence.

I should stress that I'm not talking about all of our troops being there until May and then they all leave the next day. It will be a measured draw-down from the moment the order is given, the areas where troops can leave, they will leave, but the areas where more effort is required to build the Afghani's military capacity we will focus more attention to ensure the deadline is met.

Just thought I should make that point.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't at all like the idea of our troops serving as personal bodyguards to foreign officials. That just furthers the impression that it is we, not the Afghans themselves, who are running their country. But other than that, I think Snowguy's timeframe makes sense.

We aren't serving as body guards in the true sense of the word, once our combat/training mission has been concluded - as we are there to help ensure stability and we have our own diplomatic presence to consider the protection of.

I really do understand all of these points, but I think there are serious practical considerations beyond what we "should" or "shouldn't" be doing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Guys, considering what is going on in Libya right now, it might be a good idea to take a breath for now.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've been engaging with Senators in some further negotiations - I'm not sure this can wait until the new Senate sits....

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Are these behind the scenes negotiations going anywhere?

I'm waiting to see what the final outcome is, and whether a Senator will be making an amendment.

I probably would have expected something by now, but I'm sure there's a reason.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This was is a considered Bill which may not be ideal for all does reflect both the realities on the ground and our place as a responsible global citizen.

I thank those Senators with whom I negotiated this agreement for their willingness to work together toward the common goal of getting our troops home and doing so in a sensible and thoughtful manner.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Apologies Senators,

The original time-frame proposed was based on preliminary information that wasn't accurate plus,  President Karazi's decision to not seek re-election had not been taken into account.

It was determined that Kabul would require more effort to both stabilise the city and provide training.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Once combat forces formally leave in May, the intended role for the stabilisation force will not be to engage in traditional combat but to act in two specific roles.

1. To provide a peace-keeping presence in Kabul, their rules of engagement will allow for the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as guarding the Atlasian embassy and the training forces; whose

2. Sole purpose will be to provide training for the Afghan Army.

In relation to raw numbers, the scope of the project is still being assessed, but after 1 May - the number of troops will be 5-10% of current forces (closer to 5%)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]