Obama to send 34,000 more troops to this "war of necessity"
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79380.html
Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan
By Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers
November 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.
The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.
They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.
As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to brief America's NATO allies after next week's announcement, and the allies are to meet again on Dec. 7 in Belgium to discuss whether some other nations might contribute additional troops.
The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month. This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach.
A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening's meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.
The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.
It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won't keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said.
As McClatchy reported last month, the Obama administration has been quietly working with U.S. allies and Afghan officials on an "Afghanistan Compact," a package of political reforms and anti-corruption measures that it hopes will boost popular support for Karzai and erase the doubts about his legitimacy raised by his fraud-tainted re-election.
The British government is offering to host a conference early next year to win international support for the compact.
Last week, Clinton suddenly adopted a more conciliatory tone toward Karzai, whom she and other administration officials had been pressing to clean up the rampant corruption and cut his ties to local warlords, some of whom traffic in opium.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, she said that Karzai had demonstrated "good faith" and added: "Well, there are warlords and there are warlords."
As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.
The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.
It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.
There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.
The administration's plan is expected to encounter opposition on Capitol Hill, where some senior Democrats have suggested that the administration may need to raise taxes in order to pay for the additional troops.
Obama campaigned saying that he'd fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from the defense budget, but Mullen has said that the Afghan war — which some administration officials privately concede could cost $700 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years — might require a supplemental funding bill next year.
The administration's protracted deliberations have escalated into open warfare between McChrystal and his supporters and advocates of a more limited strategy led by Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that often played out in dueling leaks to news organizations.
Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan
By Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers
November 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.
The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.
They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.
As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to brief America's NATO allies after next week's announcement, and the allies are to meet again on Dec. 7 in Belgium to discuss whether some other nations might contribute additional troops.
The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month. This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach.
A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening's meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.
The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.
"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.
It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won't keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said.
As McClatchy reported last month, the Obama administration has been quietly working with U.S. allies and Afghan officials on an "Afghanistan Compact," a package of political reforms and anti-corruption measures that it hopes will boost popular support for Karzai and erase the doubts about his legitimacy raised by his fraud-tainted re-election.
The British government is offering to host a conference early next year to win international support for the compact.
Last week, Clinton suddenly adopted a more conciliatory tone toward Karzai, whom she and other administration officials had been pressing to clean up the rampant corruption and cut his ties to local warlords, some of whom traffic in opium.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, she said that Karzai had demonstrated "good faith" and added: "Well, there are warlords and there are warlords."
As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.
The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.
It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.
There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.
The administration's plan is expected to encounter opposition on Capitol Hill, where some senior Democrats have suggested that the administration may need to raise taxes in order to pay for the additional troops.
Obama campaigned saying that he'd fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from the defense budget, but Mullen has said that the Afghan war — which some administration officials privately concede could cost $700 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years — might require a supplemental funding bill next year.
The administration's protracted deliberations have escalated into open warfare between McChrystal and his supporters and advocates of a more limited strategy led by Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that often played out in dueling leaks to news organizations.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And what do we gain by 'winning'? We are NEVER going to change the culture... steeped in religious conviction... and a rightly proud heritage that has turned away some of the greatest military powers of history. Anyone who believes Afghanistan will turn into a Wal-Mart shopping, McDonalds eating Western style culture is dellusional.
We need to admit that we blew it. We had a small window of opportunity to create change over there... but, we blew it. That window closed a long time ago and it may never open again.
Support Our Troops by bringing them home to their familes and loved ones.
Hail, Hail!!!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
not since WWII has there been a war of necessity.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
to be fair, FDR had a bit more real and identifiable threat to confront. nobody really knows the best way to do what bush and obama have been trying to do, so i much prefer proceeding with caution to dubya's cowboy approach.
Paaalease! Bush was trying nothing more than to get his friends and family richER (sure worked). Obama is trying to undue his messes. Don't link the two.
So... in other words... you are supporting President Obama regarding Afghanistan... while I oppose him, right?
Imagine that... PerfectLefts supports President Obama.
Hail, Hail!!!
more hypothetical history revision. i could go on all month debating hypotheticals. your statement is like saying "if george hw bush had pulled out, george w would have never been born and we would not be in this mess..." but he did not pull out, and the situation is what it is.....
are you aware of what it would have taken for japan to take over the west coast and germany the east?
logistically it was impossible. it would have required the following:
1. not one, but the TWO largest amphibious landings in the history of the world, one on either coast.
2. two of the largest paratrooper drops in the history of the world, one from the east and one fromthe west.
3. the use of super duper long range bombers to hit our main land and soften our defenses, which did not exist at the beginning of the war.
4. hitler would have had to fight and conquer to the most western point of europe to even Consider thinking of a land assault here. he would have never invaded russia if this is what he wanted to do. he may have had to conquer part of south america and come north from there, but how would he supply and arm those armies??
5. the US would have had to roll over like poland and czecheslovakia and had woeful defenses. do you think that if we got invaded that we would not pull together and push those japanese or germans back to the sea?
6. have you looked at a globe recently?? where on earth would these attacks have been based from? you can't base these attacks from carriers out in the middle of the ocean, no country had enough carriers or fleets big enough to bring the hundreds of thousands of troops needed for a land based assault on the east or west coast of the US. why do you think we have not been victims of military invasions on our homeland in the last 100 years?
i love it when people say we would be speaking german or japanese, because there was no way that was even possible during world war II.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree... the assessment of Japan and Germany 'taking over America' is simply ridiculous. Based on the FACT that Germany was unable to secure Great Britian... 26 miles across the channel, let alone a fleet crossing of the Atlantic. Same thing with Japan having to crosss the Pacific to the West Coast.
And that whole, "Speaking German in Nebraska..." bullshit must mean that person has no faith in the resolve of the American people.
Hail, Hail!!!
that reverts back to my prior post, the US, the most powerful military in the world could only invade afghanistan and iraq from using the land and airspace of their neighbors who are sympathetic to our cause, or on our payroll. if we did not have these friendly nations over there, it would have been logistically impossible for us to invade and occupy those countries.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm not sure while you guys even acknowledge these losers. You must realize this is another talking point from Fox? Dick Cheney has been saying this garbage all week. Ya, like he really gave a shit about any troops.
People like perfect left and aerial don't have any critical thought of their own, so they spew the talking points heard on fox. So it gets boring and mind numbing debating them. Simply because like the right wing loons on those shows, they have no solutions, just talking points and critisisms. And their talking points make no sense because they are fucking stupid!
Back on topic....I think Obama basically had a choice between a bunch of bad decions. Do I think he made the right one? Not sure about that. I do like that it sounds like he's willing to assess the situation as it's happening and reverse his decision should the situation not improve. Imagine that perfectlft??? Not going in without thinking about strategy and exit plans?????....fucking idiots
I agree the President Obama has a huge mess on his hands. I am glad he assessed the situation, talked to the military commanders and strategists and considered the political landscape that exists in Afghanistan. This is a huge decision and the lives of American soldiers hang in the balance. I want critical analysis, battlefield assessments and information from the field factored in... rather than just pouring more lives on the fire. It's a tough call.
I hope that the increase in U.S. troops will secure the place, but Afghanistan requires a political solution... that must come from the Afghani people. If political stability cannot be achieved while our guys hold the lid down on this powderkeg in a reasonable amount of time... then, fuck it... that place is never going to change.
Hail, Hail!!!
Thank God that the brave men and women of America's armed forces are willing to kill and die for this natural resource. I mean, isn't that what they signed up for? If anything the ongoing conflict will distract us from having to confront the fact that we need to develop a more eco-friendly and long-term sustainable means of energy and power.
Maybe that's the 'Necessity' of this war. The 'Necessity' to be able to idle our Suburbans in the drive thru line at the McDonalds because we're too fucking fat and lazy to get out of our goddamn cars.
Hail, Hail!!!
This is a fair assessment. But what will you say if in a year from now no progress has been made and Obama calls for a withdrawal?(and I realize the likelihood of that before an election is doubtful)
he isn't sitting on his ass, he' escalating a war against a third world country. and more people will die and he'll kill the terrists and everyone will think its been all very productive. meanwhile an oil pipeline will be built through kandahar and iran will quietly be cut of the european oil market.
the usual suspects still win yeah? innocent people will die, the voiceless will go silent, a country will be conquered and you can pretend you're winning an impossible war.
He doesn't mean anything by it. He heard it on Fox and rightwing radio. He does not think for himself.
It's pretty funny how bad of an argument it is actually!!
And yes, Obama is continuing what I like to call his chickenshit policies. He should realize by now that he can't appease the right. Time for some real change, time to implement the plans of true Americans for change. True patriots like Dennis Kucinich
Hillary would have been no different. Not even remotely different.
This war has nothing to do with terrorism. Never did, and never will.
Take a look at the historical record. It's perfectly clear. The U.S government had planned to attack Afghanistan about 2 years prior to 9/11.
communism, drugs, terrorism, protection....and on and on and on
And in fact, Bush's top adviser's predicted that attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 would have the result of increasing terrorism in the world, not preventing it. Kind of makes it pretty clear what their priorities were, and still are.
And no I didnt hear it on Fox or right wing radio and Brandon10 I don't appreciate you calling me Fing stupid. What's the point in doing so ? It just shows that you have no respect for others opinions. What you don't realize is when you attack people personally you automatically loose the debate. Why do you think it's necessary to act like that. Grow up or go post somewhere else.http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Gen McChrystal asked for more troops over 3 months ago. IMO thats way to long. It shows that Obama is weak,indecisive and not fit to lead this country.So rather than sending more troops so that we can win this war and get our boys home, he's more concerned about throwing parties at the white house, or making sure KSM and his goons are geting constitutional rights. Obama was against the surge in Iraq. Just think for a minute how bad of a decision that would have been if Bush would have listned to Obama and not Gen. Patreus
"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry Administration as there would have been a year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. ‘There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute"
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Why does it take you two paragraphs of hate to post your point?
I don’t understand all the hatred you and others have inside you just because someone MAY watch a show you despise . . . Are you that guy that is only a BIG MAN on the net because its so easy to cross boundaries when your not face to face?....No one really cares what your opinion is about me so why don’t you stop posting opinions on someone you don’t even know....
Why do you group all people on the right together? I am not even on the right!......you don’t see me posting how stupid and uncivil all left-wingers are, going only by your ugly, raging, post that articulates no ideas at all do you?....should I judge all left-wingers by the hatred you post? ...... NO!.......We should all judge people on there own merits and not by what TV program they watch. Could you try and be a little civil? Please?
:?
from the 24th
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE-gVfQZ ... r_embedded
from today
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Pull out of Iraq over the next 18 months, and then we should be able to pull out of Afghanistan. If we can't help the Afghani's help themselves in that time, don't see more time helping unless we commit to forever.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Does anyone realize that this war is really about Pakistan and India? Pakistan tactically supports the Taliban. Why? Because Pakistan’s rival India supports the Afghan government. Then you have Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia meddling in Afghanistan. And China is contributing billions to relief aid and has a vested financial interest in Afghanistan. I am staunchly anti-war, however an immediate withdraw from Afghanistan is simply not feasible because of how increasingly complicated this area would become if we left before brokering a deal between all of the regional players that are involved.
"In a recent report by General Stanley A McChrystal, parts of which were leaked to the press, the top US commander in Afghanistan said that India’s political and economic influence in Afghanistan was increasing, including significant development projects and financial investment.
The report said the Afghan government was perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. “While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
A diplomat involved in the backchannel negotiations told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity, “The US mediation is aimed to settle Pakistan grievances over Indian interests in Afghanistan so that both countries can work together for the mutual cause of defeating terrorism in the region.”
The groundwork is already being laid for the talks, which will include scholars, journalists and academics from Pakistan, India and the US to support diplomats from those countries, as well as from Afghanistan.
The initial model for reconciliation between India and Pakistan has been drawn from that of post-World War II United States and Soviet relations, in which those two countries agreed not to meddle in Finland and Yugoslavia.
Under a similar model, India would reduce its presence in the southern Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan. In return, India could consolidate its activities around Mazar-e-Sharif, the capital of the northern province of Balkh, where Pakistan would not interfere.
However, in this process, which is expected to begin after Afghan President Hamid Karzai is confirmed for a second term in the coming months, the problem remains the Taliban.
Players involved in the backchannel process told Asia Times Online that if the US withdrew from Afghanistan and handed over power to the Taliban, regional politics would return to square one. The old alliance of Russia, Tajikistan, Iran and India would form against Pakistan and its Taliban allies, and the elimination of militancy in areas like Kashmir would remain a dream.
“This is the big challenge in the backchannel talks, to find a force in the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan that would be acceptable to the Western powers, as well as to forces like India, Russia and Pakistan,” said a diplomatic source.
The administration of US President Barack Obama places much stock in Pakistan’s undivided support in the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. By facilitating better relations between Islamabad and Delhi, it is helping make this happen."