Obama: Afghanistan decision in 'coming weeks'

[Jolie Rouge]

Petraeus: Decision near on troops to Afghanistan
50 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The commander of the U.S. Central Command says a decision is near on sending more American forces to Afghanistan.

Gen. David Petraeus spoke to CNN on Wednesday shortly before heading into a meeting with President Barack Obama and his war council about a new strategy in the 8-year-old Afghan conflict.

Petraeus said the question of an increase in troops would be discussed at the meeting. He said, "I think we are indeed nearing a decision on this very important topic."

The White House says that Obama, who leaves Thursday for an extended trip to Asia, has not made up his mind and is unlikely to announce a decision for several weeks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/...JhZXVzZGVjaQ--




White House: Obama weighs 4 options in Afghanistan
By Anne Gearan And Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writers
Tue Nov 10, 9:41 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is considering four options for realigning U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, his spokesman said Tuesday, while military officials said the choices involve several ways the president could employ additional U.S. forces next year.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will discuss the four scenarios with his national security team on Wednesday. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Fort Hood, Texas, Gibbs would not offer details about those options. He insisted that Obama has not made a decision about troop deployments.

Gibbs said that anybody who says Obama has made a decision "doesn't have in all honesty the slightest idea what they're talking about. The president's yet to make a decision" about troop levels or other aspects of the revised U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama traveled to Killeen, Texas, Tuesday, where the president spoke at a memorial service for those killed in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the decision is pending, said the military services are developing presentations to explain how various force levels could be used in Afghanistan and how various deployment schedules could work, given recent promises to give soldiers more rest time at home.

Military officials have said Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though probably not quite the 40,000 sought by his top general there.

Republican senators planned to send a letter to Obama Wednesday urging him to move quickly to fully answer Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops and resources. Officials have told The Associated Press that McChrystal prefers an addition of about 40,000 troops next year.

In their letter, the Republican senators reminded Obama that they have supported his moves on Afghanistan so far but are concerned about the stress on the current U.S. force of 68,000.

"We urge you to move now to fully support Gen. McChrystal's call for resources and troops," the letter reads.

A copy of the letter was provided to the AP.

Gibbs said Tuesday that a decision still is weeks away. He had earlier said no announcement is expected until late this month, when the president returns from an extended diplomatic trip to Asia.

An Army brigade that had been training for deployment to Iraq that month may be at or near the vanguard. The brigade, based at Fort Drum in upstate New York, has been told it will not go to Iraq as planned but has been given no new mission yet.

Military officials said Obama will have choices that include a phased addition of up to 40,000 forces over some six months or more next year, based on security conditions and the decisions of NATO allies.

The Army would contribute the vast bulk of any new commitment, along with a large Marine Corps infusion. Both services are counting on plans for a large withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq to take place as scheduled next spring.

Even so, it is not clear that large numbers of new forces could go to Afghanistan before March. Administration officials have told the AP that some of the expected deployment would probably begin in January with a mission to stiffen the defense of 10 key cities and towns.

Several officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been made also said Obama's announcement will be much broader than the mathematics of troop numbers, which have dominated the U.S. debate.

It soon will be three months since Afghan commander McChrystal reported to Obama that the U.S. mission was headed for failure without the addition of about 40,000 troops.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because final plans have not been disclosed, dubbed the likely troop increase as "McChrystal Light" because it would fall short of his request. They also said additional small infusions of troops could be dispatched next spring and summer.

The more gradual buildup, the officials said, would allow time to construct needed housing and add equipment needed for transporting the expanded force.

Besides being sent to cities and towns, the new forces would be stationed to protect important roads and other key infrastructure.

As he makes his decision, Obama told ABC News that he wanted to make sure "that if we are sending additional troops that the prospects of a functioning Afghan government are enhanced, that the prospects of al-Qaida being able to attack the U.S. homeland are reduced."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afg...RlaG91c2Vmbw--

[Advertisement]

[Jolie Rouge]

Gates 'appalled' at leaks on Afghanistan, shooting case
24 mins ago

OSHKOSH, Wisconsin (AFP) – Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday angrily denounced leaks of sensitive details to the media about Afghan war deliberations and the probe into last week's army base shooting.

"I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on," Gates told reporters on route to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, where he was to tour an armored vehicle factory.

Responding to a flurry of media reports about troop numbers in Afghanistan and the killing of 13 people at a Texas military base, the normally reserved Gates said in an unusually feisty tone that it "doesn't serve the country" and was not in the military's interest.

He said the leaks were coming from different government sources but some were coming from his own department, adding that if someone was found leaking from the Pentagon "that would probably be a career ender."

Details of President Barack Obama's deliberations with top commanders about the deployment of as many as 40,000 troops to Afghanistan have regularly appeared in newspapers in recent weeks.

Gates said the administration was now trying to balance the need to show a commitment to Afghanistan at the same time as conveying to the Kabul government that the American presence was not indefinite.

"How do you signal resolve and at the same time signal you are not going to be there forever?" he asked, adding it was a challenge to "get that balance right."

Obama has been presented with a series of options for troop levels and shifting the focus of US efforts in Afghanistan.

Gates said that the administration was looking at combining the best features of several of the options and was nearing the end of that process.

The former CIA chief also said he was also annoyed with leaks in the wake of the shootings last week at Fort Hood, warning that officials could "jeopardize the investigation" into the rampage.

"Everybody ought to shut up" he said.

He landed in Oshkosh on Thursday to tour a factory producing vehicles that can better withstand Afghanistan's rugged terrain and bomb blasts.

To coincide with the trip, Gates said he was setting up a special task force focused on the threat posed by homemade bombs in Afghanistan.

Roadside bombs are the main cause of US and NATO casualties. Gates said he was concerned whether the effort to counter so-called improvised explosive devices was being properly coordinated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091112...shooting/print

[Jolie Rouge]

POTUS rejects Afghanistan war options
Obama said to want revised options
By Ben Feller And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers
2 hrs 49 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama rejected the Afghanistan war options before him and asked for revisions, his defense secretary said Thursday, after the U.S. ambassador in Kabul argued that a significant U.S. troop increase would only prop up a weak, corruption-tainted government.

Obama's ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, who is also a former commander in Afghanistan, twice in the last week voiced strong dissent against sending large numbers of new forces, according to an administration official. That puts him at odds with the current war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is seeking thousands more troops.

Eikenberry's misgivings, expressed in classified cables to Washington, highlight administration concerns that bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan could make the country more reliant on the U.S., not less. He expressed his objections just ahead of Obama's latest war meeting Wednesday.

At the war council meeting, Obama asked for changes in the four options he was given that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and their timeline in the war zone.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the discussion turned on "how can we combine some of the best features of several of the options to maximum good effect." He added: "There is a little more work to do. I do think that we're getting toward the end of this process."

One issue in the discussions, Gates said, has been "How do we signal resolve and at the same time signal to the Afghans and the American people that this isn't an open-ended commitment."

The president wants to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, said another official, who spoke on condition of anonymity discuss administration deliberations.

Meanwhile, Richard C. Holbrooke, Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, left late Wednesday for consultations with allies in Berlin, Paris and Moscow. British officials also are expected at some point to join the talks, part of a continuing effort to coordinate with allies, brief them on Obama's strategy review and discuss what more they might contribute in Afghanistan.

The developments underscore U.S. skepticism about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government has been dogged by corruption. The emerging administration message is that Obama will not do anything to lock in an open-ended U.S. commitment.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday voiced a list of concerns about Afghanistan: "corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance, absence of the rule of law."

"We're looking to President Karzai as he forms a new government to take action that will demonstrate — not just to the international community but first and foremost to his own people — that his second term will respond the needs that are so manifest," Clinton said during a news conference in Manila with Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo.

Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort.

He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy — troops are just one component — and probably will do so shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends Nov. 19.

Yet in Wednesday's pivotal war council meeting, Obama wasn't satisfied with any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, one official said.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward commander McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's inadequate and ill-equipped fighting forces to prepare to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that McChrystal prefers, according to military and other officials.

The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

Ambassador Eikenberry, who was the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan for two years ending in 2007, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation.

The options given to Obama will now be altered, although not overhauled.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

"The government of Afghanistan has to accept greater responsibility for its own defense," Clinton said Thursday. She had no comment on the Eikenberry memos.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and troop levels by U.S. allies there.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/...NvYmFtYXJlag--

[Jolie Rouge]

Surrender, he whispered
By Greyhawk


If you haven't read this http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/?p=4664 and this http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2...nder-in-afgha/ and this http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/22189.htm yet, now would be a good time to do so.



The story defies logic and belief, but unfortunately if the US State Department (or the White House) hasn't responded clearly and forcefully to unequivocally deny the allegations yet, now would be a good time to do that, too.

The current administration has elected to conduct its Afghanistan business via leaks and rumors. Presidential decrees that they're "not appropriate" are correct - but insufficient. http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032929.html Among other complications the practice lends credence to stories like this one. Because of that, regardless of source, and no matter how foolish or self-destructive a rumored course of action might appear, the sliver of doubt that it's a complete fabrication exists.

And in this case that "sliver" can grow to damaging size; the interpretation of described events as "whispers of surrender" http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/88880/ unfortunately doesn't seem at all far-fetched, and that thought has probably crossed the minds of allies and potential allies alike.


*****

Last week:

Kabul--U.S. President Barack Obama aims to bring the Afghan war to an end before he leaves office, he said on Wednesday.
<...>
"The American people will have a lot of clarity about what we're doing, how we're going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost, what kind of burden does this place on our young men and women in uniform and, most importantly, what's the end game on this thing," he said.

Along with leaks from others, remarks by the president that are "open to interpretation" have been the hallmark of the administration's cloudy national security 'policy'. So clarity would certainly be a welcome change, too.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032953.html


Pakistan to US: Don't surge in Afghanistan, talk to Taliban
[Christian Science Monitor]

The Pakistani government has some advice the Obama administration may not want to hear as it contemplates sending additional US troops to neighboring Afghanistan: Negotiate with Taliban leaders and restrain India.

Pakistan embraces US efforts to stabilize the region and worries that a hasty US withdrawal would create chaos. But Pakistani officials worry that thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines would send Taliban forces retreating into Pakistan, where they're not welcome.

Afghan Source: The U.S. Has Offered the Taliban Control in Return for Quiet
[MEMRI]

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

[b]Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?
[Threats Watch Steve Schippert]

I have tried to come up with scenarios of why someone would lie about it in a leak. What would be to gain? Who would gain, and what would they gain? Without sleeping on it, the options for such appear narrow at best.

What does seem logical is that an Afghan privy to the negotiations could have become (rightly) spooked that they might just pull it off, and leaked word in hopes that it might so anger American public opinion that the entire endeavor might be scrapped. That's the most logical explanation for motivation I see at the moment.

It would also fit in consistently with Ambassador Eikenberry's leaked cables recently railing against a 'surge' in forces in Afghanistan. He wouldn't voice such without thinking he has his hands on something else. Could this be it? The surrender of 25% of Afghan territory in exchange for some form of ceasefire?

[Jolie Rouge]

War costs money (2)
By Greyhawk
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032954.html

Last week:

Kabul--U.S. President Barack Obama aims to bring the Afghan war to an end before he leaves office, he said on Wednesday.
<...>
"The American people will have a lot of clarity about what we're doing, how we're going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost, what kind of burden does this place on our young men and women in uniform and, most importantly, what's the end game on this thing," he said.

Along with leaks from others, remarks by the president that are "open to interpretation" have been the hallmark of the administration's cloudy national security 'policy'. So clarity would certainly be a welcome change, too.

We just used that quote in another post, but here's an example about how many agendas a vague statement can serve.

The LA Times has picked up the "how much this thing is going to cost" angle and reported back: "Pricing an Afghanistan troop buildup is no simple calculation". http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,3233273.story

But don't worry - Democrats Propose Surtax to Cover War Costs.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...y-000003252935

But still don't worry -

Discussing the idea earlier this month, Murtha said he knew the bill would not be enacted and that advocates of a surtax were simply trying to send a message about the moral obligation to pay for the wars.

You see, Murtha & company are really only concerned for the troops :

"The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families," Murtha, Obey and Larson said in a joint statement. "We believe that if this war is to be fought, it's only fair that everyone share the burden."

And there's that "what kind of burden does this place on our young men and women in uniform" part of the president's statement, too.


Now, it's too hard to figure out in advance what the war might cost - even Jack Murtha (who's certainly brought home more money off the war on terror than any other congressman) can't figure it out - so the amount of the new tax that Murtha says he knows won't be enacted to cover the cost that can't be calculated will only be determined after the money is spent. And Obey says everyone will give their fair share: "the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy."

And if LA Times reporters and congressmen can't calculate how many bazillion dollars X infinity the war will cost, then certainly the average American can't do all the hard maths required to figure it out either. And really, after all, the only thing Americans need to understand is that they could get a lot of free stuff from the government if it wasn't for the war that's killing our children.

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview.
For example, health care, which would cost exactly as much as the war:
"For the last year, as we've struggled to pass health care reform, we've been told that we have to pay for the bill -- and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars," the three lawmakers said in a joint statement. "Now the president is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars."

So the answer to the question "how much will the war in Afghanistan cost" is officially "nobody knows - but it's exactly as much as free health care for all Americans."


*****

From our History is Fun department: after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Obey earmarked http://www.mudvillegazette.com/008108.html his share of the warbucks in the first defense budget developed under his Party's control for his home district's dairy farmers: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/008236.html

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million.

But at the time, Obey was caught on camera http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19392 berating a military mom who used his support for war funding to question the intensity of his anti-Iraq war stance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030901504.html

"We're trying to use the supplemental to end the war," said Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and sponsor of the legislation that would end any combat role for U.S. troops by Aug. 31, 2008. "You can't end the war if you're going against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understood that!"

As another protester joined Richards, Obey continued: "That bill ends the war! If that isn't good enough for you, you're smoking something illegal. You've got your facts screwed up. We can't get the votes! Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up. We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war, that's the same as de-funding it."

In the video Obey also claimed responsibility for ending funding for the war in Vietnam.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19420

PP: (who had been standing back, listening, now approaches TR and DO).. What about the Church amendment that helped end the Vietnam war back in '72, '73?

DO: (Emphatically, voice raised) It took us 31 different efforts to get there, I was here for that.

PP: ok. (started to say something... PP and DO start talking over each other)

DO: I know what the hell I'm talking about.

PP: Did that end the ground war in Vietnam?

DO: No it didn't. The political pressure on the administration ended the war.
The amendment that finally ended the funding was the [undecipherable] amendment, I was the sponsor of that amendment..."

But he later said he was sorry for yelling at the mother of a Marine suffering from PTSD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030901504.html

Ancient history, all that. But now that the US economy is markedly worse than it was when he first took control of the purse in 2007 the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee might feel his task is simplified - especially since he, like his colleague Jack Murtha, supports the troops.

And maybe this time those "idiot liberals" will keep their mouths shut.


*****

And for those who might be a little slow on the uptake, here's a friendly little warning message from history - sent directly to the Obama administration (and any other "idiot liberals" out there) from Jack Murtha's web page: http://www.murtha.house.gov/index.ph...d=832&Itemid=1

"As presidential historian Robert Dallek reminds us, 'war kills off great reform movements'," the Members said, noting that World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman's Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Previously: War costs money. http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032920.html


Small wonder the PTB choose to stifle discusiion and debate ....

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama to address nation on Afghanistan Tuesday
55 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will address the nation on his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

The president is expected to lay out his plans for expanding the Afghan conflict and, ultimately, ending America's military role.

The president and his top military and national security advisers have held 10 meetings to discuss America's future steps in Afghanistan. Though the top general in Afghanistan has asked the president for about 40,000 troops, military officials expect the president will deploy about 35,000, starting next year.

The president says the American people will support his strategy once they understand the perils of losing the war.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama expects Americans to support sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, and he is preparing to make his case to the nation next week.

Eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Obama said it is still in America's vital national interest to "dismantle and destroy" al-Qaida terrorists and extremist allies. "I intend to finish the job," he said.

Military officials expect an infusion of approximately 32,000 to 35,000 troops to begin in February or March, the largest expansion since the beginning of the war and one that could bring the cost above $75 billion annually.

Obama said he would announce after Thanksgiving his decision on additional troops, and military, congressional and other sources said the occasion would be a Tuesday night televised speech laying out his plans for expanding the Afghan conflict — and then ultimately ending America's military role.

Republican critics have been pressing Obama for months to decide on a next step in Afghanistan, but Obama has said repeatedly he was more concerned with making a decision that was right rather than quick.

Neither he nor his advisers has detailed an exit plan, but the strategy he is expected to describe next week would include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not final.

With U.S. combat deaths climbing on Obama's watch and more than half the American public opposed to escalation, the president seemed to acknowledge Tuesday that he has a lot to explain.

"I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said, speaking at a White House news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"I can tell you, as I've said before, that it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively" in the area, he said. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. And Afghanistan's stability is important to that process."

Returning to a campaign theme, Obama said the Afghan effort had been starved for resources and attention during the Bush administration and he intended to finish the war.

To that end, much of the White House discussion during months of deliberations has centered on how the U.S. would end its military role.

Obama held his 10th war council meeting Monday evening, and officials said it was his last. Military officials have said Obama is choosing one of the least risky options he was presented, but one still expected to lead to increased U.S. casualties without guarantee of success.

War commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has warned that the war risks failure without a large troop infusion. Although he preferred a higher figure — about 40,000 — McChrystal is expected to tell Congress next week that this lesser addition still gives him the tools to better combat insurgents in the south and east of Afghanistan.

The expected increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent, officials said.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress has been miffed that the administration blocked McChrystal from testifying during what many Republicans considered an inordinately long decision-making period. His testimony has not been scheduled, but would probably come late next week or early in the week after.

Among others likely to take part in congressional hearings are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All were among about 20 officials and advisers participating in the president's final deliberations Monday night — one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions.

The administration figures will have a tough sell among some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has questioned the value of adding forces and pointed to the war's rising cost.

The Afghan war bill hit $43 billion annually this summer, with the addition of 21,000 forces Obama has already added to the fight this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091125/...1hdG9hZGRyZQ--

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama expects support for more Afghanistan troops
By Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer
4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will announce his plan to bolster the war in Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, his spokesman said, a surge that military officials say could top 30,000 troops.

The president promised this week to "finish the job" begun eight years ago, and press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday the announcement would include an exit strategy. But the surge in troops would be Obama's second since taking office, and liberal Democrats already are lining up against it, in part because of the also-surging cost — up to $75 billion a year.

Gibbs said Obama's recent meetings with military advisers have often focused on how to train Afghanistan's police and army to secure and hold areas taken from the Taliban so that U.S. forces can leave. "We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," he said.

Incompetence and corruption in the Afghan government have aided a rise in the Taliban's strength. The military strategy is expected to include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not final.

Obama will be speaking to a war-weary American public. Polls show support for the war has dropped significantly since Obama took office, with a majority now saying both that they oppose the war and that it is not worth fighting.

The president and his top military and national security advisers have held 10 meetings to discuss America's future steps in Afghanistan. The top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, has asked the president for about 40,000 troops, arguing that a robust but temporary surge was the best way to end the war.

Administration officials said Obama has not made a final decision about the number of troops he would approve. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the president's plans, said they expected the total to be between 32,000 and 35,000.

On Tuesday, Obama predicted the American people will support his strategy once they understand the stakes.

"I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said, speaking at a White House news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

McChrystal has warned that the war effort could fail without a large troop infusion. Although he preferred a higher figure — about 40,000 — McChrystal is expected to testify before Congress next week that this lesser number still gives him enough.

The expected increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent, the officials said.

Among others likely to take part in congressional hearings are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All were among about 20 officials and advisers participating in the president's final deliberations Monday night — one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions.

The administration plan will have a tough sell among some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has questioned the value of adding forces and pointed to the war's rising cost.

The Afghan war bill hit $43 billion annually this summer, with the addition of 21,000 forces Obama has already added to the fight this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091125/...1hZXhwZWN0cw--

[Jolie Rouge]

US soldiers: Afghan war more challenging than Iraq
By Denis D. Gray, Associated Press Writer
50 mins ago

FORWARD OPERATING BASE SHANK, Afghanistan – Veterans of Iraq recall rolling to war along asphalted highways, sweltering in flat scrublands and chatting with city-wise university graduates connected to the wider world.

Now fighting in Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers invariably encounter illiterate farmers who may never have talked to an American as they slog into remote villages on dirt tracks through bitterly cold, snow-streaked mountains.

"Before deploying here we were given training on language, culture, everything. I thought that since I was an Iraq combat veteran, I didn't need any of that stuff. I was wrong. Both countries may be Muslim but this is a totally different place," says Sgt. Michael McCann, returning from a patrol in the east-central province of Logar.

While their experiences in the two war zones vary, for many soldiers in the field — if not policy makers — the conflict in Afghanistan is one they think may prove harder and longer to win.

Soldiers and officers involved in combat operations all cite the more punishing geography and climate, those focused on development the bare-bones infrastructure, and intelligence specialists the even greater difficulties in identifying the insurgents as among the many sharp contrasts between Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The sheer terrain of Afghanistan is much more challenging: the mountains, the altitudes, severity of weather, the distances. That wears on an army," says Maj. Joseph Matthews, a battalion operations officer in the 10th Mountain Division. "You can flood Baghdad with soldiers but if you want to flood the mountains you are going to need huge numbers and logistics."

McCann, a military policeman from Enterprise, Ala., says that the highest he ever got during his Iraq tour was a five-story building. In Afghanistan, troops routinely cross passes 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) and higher, descending into valleys where they say villagers "hibernate like bears" for up to five winter months, cut off from the outside world by the snows.

This almost medieval isolation makes it far more difficult for the Afghan government and coalition forces to spread the aid and information needed to counter the Taliban push while the villagers — mostly illiterate and with little access to radios, never mind television — rely on religious leaders at Friday mosque prayers, or the insurgents, to shape their world view.

"When you have a society that can't read for itself and religious leaders are trusted, they can say whatever they like and people will believe them. It's hard for the U.S. to penetrate and influence this. In Iraq there are other ways to get the message across," says Chief Warrant Officer Daniel Weiermann, Jr., an intelligence specialist.

The U.S. effort in Logar has stressed bridging the chasms between villages, districts, the provincial capital and a central government in Kabul which has had little control over the country for the past 30 years of warfare. It hasn't been easy.

"This is not an interconnected society. There is a complete separation of ideas from Pul-i-Alam and Kharwar," notes Matthews, of Vero Beach, Fla., of the provincial capital and a district just 23 miles (37 kilometers) away. "The difference between a village and a city in this country is about 200 years," says the officer, who served for more than three years in Iraq and is on his second Afghanistan tour.

Although tribalism plays a major role in Iraq, U.S. troops find it even stronger in the predominantly rural Afghan society, making the forging of vital bonds between people and government harder. Loyalty is given first and foremost to the tribe, the government coming at best a distant second.

While counterinsurgency in Iraq had its unique complexities, Weiermann said that in Iraq — about 70 percent urbanized as opposed to 25 percent in Afghanistan — "you can meet and hopefully influence a lot of people in one day. In Afghanistan with its great distances, sparsely populated areas and rugged terrain you can do far less in the same amount of time." Hence, one reason for the prognosis that Afghanistan will be a longer haul.

Development — which absorbs the U.S. military more than combat and is regarded as key to victory — is also far tougher than in Iraq, which already possessed a solid infrastructure and once almost produced the atomic bomb. In Afghanistan at best a quarter of the population can read, compared to more than 75 percent in Iraq, which had functioning banking, medical and other systems, however imperfect, through which aid could be channeled.

"Iraq already had the foundation. They just needed the governance piece that would support not just the elite few. In Afghanistan, you are starting at the very beginning. It's like trying to take the American Indians in their purest form and put them into today's New York City. It's not going to happen," says Weiermann, of Ft. Hood, Texas.

"I worked with folks who had been to Oxford and been on projects in multiple other countries. There were homegrown NGOs and highly qualified women — all lacking in Afghanistan," says Les Garrison, a retired U.S. Marine officer from Arlington, Va., who serves as Logar's U.S. State Department adviser.

Col. David B. Haight, commander of U.S. forces in Logar and neighboring Wardak province, half jokes that some frustrated Afghans come to him and say: "'You can put a man on the moon so can't we get a road here?' and I have to tell them, `You know, it's a lot harder to build a road in Afghanistan than put a man on the moon. That skill is not in abundance here.'"

Pinpointing the insurgents has been devilishly difficult in both countries, the U.S. military says.

"Osama bin Laden could walk right up to me and I wouldn't have a clue to who he was. The enemy cannot be identified at first sight. The enemy blends in easily with the population. That is the same for both places but drastically harder in Afghanistan," Weiermann says.

The Baghdad government has managed polls and censuses, compiling a data base on the populace which includes fingerprints and domiciles down to apartment numbers. In Afghanistan, such information often exists only at the tribal level, tracking the movement of individuals and entire communities like the migratory Kuchi next to impossible, Weiermann says.

Militarily, veterans of both conflicts see both disparities and a mirroring.

Thus far, the level of intense combat and violence has proved lower in Afghanistan. In Iraq, soldiers say it was a 24/7, 365-day war while most insurgents in Afghanistan take a break during the winters and are so far less skilled in mounting complex operations against U.S. and coalition troops.

Roadside bombs are the insurgents' weapons of choice in both countries, and ominously are proving more sophisticated and deadlier in Afghanistan as they did over time in Iraq. U.S. forces in Iraq largely pursued a war of mechanized movement. Afghanistan is a foot soldier's war.

Haight, who served three Iraq tours in Special Forces-type operations, says the core counterinsurgency creed — boiled down to "Going into a village and making friends" — applies squarely to both countries. The devil is in the details.

"We as leaders here have to realize that we cannot simply superimpose some of the things that may have worked in Iraq on Afghanistan," Matthews cautions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/..._different_war

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama facing tough selling job on Afghan policy
By Richard Lardner, Associated Press Writer
18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama has begun one of the toughest sales jobs of his presidency, launching the much-awaited rollout of his new Afghan war strategy by informing top military and civilian advisers in Washington and Kabul and telephoning key allies around the globe.

Obama is outlining his decision to an increasingly skeptical U.S. public on Tuesday night in a nationally broadcast address from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. The strategy will include deploying thousands more American forces to Afghanistan, clarifying why the U.S. is fighting the war and laying out a path toward disengagement.

He first told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton his decision by phone on Sunday afternoon, and then informed other key administration advisers such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates in an early evening Oval Office meeting.

It was at that time, said spokesman Robert Gibbs, that Obama's order for the military to go ahead with the new deployments became official. The goal of the president's revamped approach is to train Afghan security forces to eventually take over from the U.S., and Obama will say Tuesday that he doesn't intend to allow an open-ended U.S. commitment, the spokesman said.

Immediately after the Sunday session, the president called Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top commander in Afghanistan, and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. On Monday, Obama also began a series of calls to foreign leaders, starting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to be followed later in the day by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The leaders were getting an overview of the new policy, but not specific troop numbers, Gibbs said.

The president plans to speak with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari before his speech, most likely Monday night, Gibbs added.

In Congress, Democrats already are setting tough conditions — if not outright opposition to a deeper U.S. involvement — and the American public is increasingly negative about the 8-year-old conflict that has become a serious drain on U.S. resources in a deeply troubled economic period. Casualties have increased sharply and are likely to grow more with the addition of more troops.

Congressional uneasiness or opposition was voiced Sunday by the leading Senate Democrat on military matters, who said any plan to significantly expand U.S. troop levels must show how those reinforcements will help increase the number of Afghan security forces.

Remarks by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, were a preview of the possible roadblocks as the president begins to sell a broader, more expensive battle plan for Afghanistan to an American public weary of the conflict.

Greater numbers of Afghan army and police are central to succeeding in the war, according to Levin, and more U.S. trainers and an infusion of battlefield gear will help meet that goal. But Levin said that it's not clear what role the tens of thousands of additional U.S. combat troops would play in that buildup, and he said Obama has to make a compelling case for it on Tuesday.

"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," Levin said. "We cannot, by ourselves, win (the) war."

Another facet of Obama's plan appears to be an expanded partnership with Pakistan as part of U.S. pressure on that country's shaky government to do more to root out extremists based along Pakistan's borders with Afghanistan.

The Washington Post reported Monday that Obama had sent a letter to Zardari saying the U.S. planned no early withdrawal from Afghanistan and will increase its military and economic cooperation with Pakistan. The Post, quoting unidentified administration officials, also said that Obama called for closer collaboration against extremist groups, including five named in the letter.

The letter, delivered by national security adviser James Jones, reportedly included a blunt warning that the U.S. would not tolerate support within Pakistan's military and intelligence operations of extremists fighting in Afghanistan.

At West Point, Obama was expected to announce an increase of up to 35,000 more U.S. forces to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize a weak Afghan government. The escalation, which would take place over the next year, would put more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion.

Obama is also expected to outline an exit strategy for the war.

Democrats concerned over the price tag have proposed a war tax to pay for operations. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has introduced legislation to impose a war surtax beginning in 2011. The bill would exempt service members and their families.

"If this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it's important enough to pay for," Obey said.

McChrystal wants an overall Afghan security force of 400,000 — 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police officers — by October 2013.

__

On the Net: Senate Foreign Relations Committee: http://foreign.senate.gov/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan/print

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama: More troops for Afghanistan, with exit plan
By Steven R. Hurst And Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writers
1 hr 28 mins ago

WEST POINT, N.Y. – Declaring "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan Tuesday night, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief. He promised an impatient public he would begin bringing units home in 18 months.

The buildup to about 100,000 troops will begin almost immediately — the first Marines will be in place by Christmas — and will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.

In a prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy, the president told the nation his new policy was designed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion," though he made no mention of defeating Taliban insurgents or capturing al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

"We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven," Obama said in spelling out U.S. military goals for a war that has dragged on for eight years. "We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government."

The president said the additional forces would be deployed at "the fastest pace possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers."

Their destination: "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida."

"It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak," the president said.

It marked the second time in his young presidency that Obama has added to the American force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has recently made significant advances. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground; there now are 71,000.

After the speech, cadets in the audience — some of whom could end up in combat because of Obama's decision — climbed over chairs to shake hands with their commander in chief and take his picture.

Obama's announcement drew less-wholehearted support from congressional Democrats. Many of them favor a quick withdrawal, but others have already proposed higher taxes to pay for the fighting.

Republicans reacted warily, as well. Officials said Sen. John McCain, who was Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential campaign, told Obama at an early evening meeting attended by numerous lawmakers that declaring a timetable for a withdrawal would merely send the Taliban underground until the Americans began to leave.

As a candidate, Obama called Afghanistan a war worth fighting, as opposed to Iraq, a conflict he opposed and has since begun easing out of.

A new survey by the Gallup organization, released Tuesday, showed only 35 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's handling of the war; 55 percent disapprove.

He made no direct reference to public opinion Tuesday night, although he seemed to touch on it when he said, "The American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home."

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home," he said flatly.

In eight years of war, 849 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and neighboring Uzbekistan, according to the Pentagon.

In addition to beefing up the U.S. presence, Obama has asked NATO allies to commit between 5,000 and 10,000 additional troops. The war has even less support in Europe than in the United States, and the NATO allies and other countries currently have about 40,000 troops on the ground.

He said he was counting on Afghanistan eventually taking over its own security, and he warned, "The days of providing a blank check are over." He said the United States would support Afghan ministries that combat corruption and "deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."

As for neighboring Pakistan, the president said that country and the United States "share a common enemy" in Islamic terrorists. "We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."

The speech before an audience of cadets at the military academy ended a three-month review of the war, triggered by a request from the commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 more troops. Without them, he warned, the U.S. risked failure.

The speech was still under way when the general issued a statement from Kabul. "The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task," it said. McChrystal is expected to testify before congressional committees in the next several days.

Obama referred to a deteriorating military environment, but said, "Afghanistan is not lost."

The length of the presidential review drew mild rebukes from normally amiable NATO allies. There was sharper criticism from Republicans led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said the president was dithering rather than deciding.

Obama rebutted forcefully.

"Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war," he told his audience of more than 4,000 cadets seated in Eisenhower Hall.

Most of the new forces will be combat troops. Military officials said the Army brigades were most likely to be sent from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky; and Marines primarily from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Officials said the additional 30,000 troops included about 5,000 dedicated trainers, underscoring the president's emphasis on preparing Afghans to take over their own security.

These aides said that by announcing a date for beginning a withdrawal, the president was not setting an end date for the war.

But that was a point on which McCain chose to engage the president at a pre-speech meeting with lawmakers before Obama departed for West Point. "The way that you win wars is to break the enemy's will, not to announce dates that you are leaving," McCain said later.

Obama's address represents the beginning of a sales job to restore support for the war effort among an American public grown increasingly pessimistic about success — and among some fellow Democrats in Congress wary of or even opposed to spending billions more dollars and putting tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers and Marines in harm's way.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and liberal House Democrats threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase.

Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs a military oversight panel, said he didn't think Democrats would yank funding for the troops or try to force Obama's hand to pull them out faster. But Democrats will be looking for ways to pay for the additional troops, he said, including a tax increase on the wealthy although that hike is already being eyed to pay for health care costs. Another possibility is imposing a small gasoline tax that would be phased out if gas prices go up, he said.

The United States went to war in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the United States.

Bin Laden and key members of the terrorist organization were headquartered in Afghanistan at the time, taking advantage of sanctuary afforded by the Taliban government that ran the mountainous and isolated country.

Taliban forces were quickly driven from power, while bin Laden and his top deputies were believed to have fled through towering mountains into neighboring Pakistan. While the al-Qaida leadership appears to be bottled up in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal regions, the U.S. military strategy of targeted missile attacks from unmanned drone aircraft has yet to flush bin Laden and his cohorts from hiding.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afg...1hbW9yZXRybw--

[Jolie Rouge]

Analysis: Endgame or escalation? Or both?
By Ron Fournier, Associated Press Writer
56 mins ago

WASHINGTON – With echoes of George W. Bush's post-9/11 call to arms, President Barack Obama worked diligently Tuesday night to make his wartime address sound like an endgame rather than what it was — a striking escalation of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

Even as voters grow impatient with the eight years of war and Democrats fret about their prospects in next year's elections, Obama made the hard decision to increase the U.S. force in Afghanistan to 100,000 — nearly three times as many as when he took office.

Harder still, explaining it.

"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan," Obama said during his prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy. "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."

He did not say how many troops would pull out in July 2011 or how many would be left and for how long. What is the strategy behind his exit strategy? Obama gave scant clues.

He pledged to improve Afghan security forces, help improve Pakistan's ability to fight terrorists and press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to eliminate corruption.

But nothing — not even an intriguing, if vague, promise of an exit date — changes Obama's hard bottom line: A lot more Americans are going to fight and die in a war supported by merely 35 percent of the public.

Fellow Democrats in Congress are threatening to withhold war funding.

Liberal supporters are sounding cries of betrayal.

Republicans are praising the surge but accusing Obama of endangering troops with an exit date.

He took on his critics as deliberately as he reached his decision, literally counting off the concerns over his approach.

"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam," Obama said, raising the sad specter of Democrat Lyndon Johnson, whose presidency was consumed by the unpopular Asian war. Obama said Afghanistan, unlike Vietnam, was home to terrorists who spilled blood on U.S. soil.

"Unlike Vietnam," he added, "we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our actions."

Both arguments echoed President Bush, who invoked 9/11 to buttress his foreign policies and made more of the "coalition of the willing" than was warranted.

Obama's strongest argument for war in Afghanistan also channeled Bush: "So, no — I do not make this decision lightly," he said. "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."

It makes sense that Obama borrowed some rhetoric from Bush; they're following the same path. Obama inherited Bush's wars in two nations that have confounded world powers for generations.

Like Bush, Obama spoke forcefully about defeating al-Qaida. But, in stark contrast, Obama never flatly promised victory at war.

Afghanistan would be brought to a "successful conclusion," Obama said, and Iraq to a "responsible end."

Perhaps those wiggle words, more than any others Obama uttered Tuesday night, underscore the complexity of the commander in chief's decisions as he ends his first year.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan_analysis