Report: President Obama Is Resisting Troop Increases for Afghanistan
By Susie Madrak Thursday Nov 12, 2009 11:00amIf this is real resistance, and not a choreographed dance to make himself look "strong," we might possibly (it's a long shot, I know) avoid sinking deeper into this Afghanistan quagmire:
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.
But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.
Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley 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.
Login or Register to post comments.
I can clearly see from right wing bloggers that they only shout about victory and giving the generals what they want, and being strong and stuff. The bloggers have no freaking clue what victory is, in this case, never mind how to get there. Now I'm starting to suspect no one in the government or military knows what victory looks like, and some of them don't even realize they don't know what victory is, or any step to take towards it.
I would say confirmation that Osama is dead or captured.
And even then booshco was flip-flopping between he's an active terrorist or merely a financier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot4jFZ_owhs&fe...
The generals only gave tactical options, (troop increases) not strategical option.
Obama is wise to resist.
then it's a safe bet to end it.
apply that to everything.
friggin brilliant!
I want to know how The Very Hungry Caterpillar come out.
And My Pet Goat!
The decreases are already happening
A few men at a time.
I fear the crass formula on that is . . .
If we can kill more civilians than they kill our troops eventually we will be in the majority and own the effin place.
(perish the thought)
What does Zion want from Karzai?
Obama is netting all the hostility for the two wars started by George the Lesser. The Reichwing media is 'all in' and only NOW is deciding it's perfectly all right to crap on the Commander-in-Chief, while tools like Tom Coburn work behind the scenes to burn vets out of health care.
For someone (anyone) to ask these military planners:
What does victory mean?
What is the plan to get out and when? (hand over security)
Only after those two questions are answered can the number of troops be considered.
You mean the Mission is supposed to have a Goal?
And when that Goal is Achieved, we pack up and go home?
huh?
Answer that question, please. If its not to capture and/or kill obl, then its time to go. If its not to burn every f-ing poppy that grows, then its time to go. All we're doing at this point is stickin' our collective noses in other people's business. The Afghan government has had eight years to get its military in shape and they frittered that time away. bush and cheney and rumsfeld didn't care to do what needed to be done. The right wing jackasses of this country still want to see Americans fighting and die in an Afghan civil war, then let's bring back the draft. Let's see how that plays in Peoria!
It was bush who ran the country and its his war. Shoot, give him a six-shooter, bring all the troops home and let bush fight 'em.
On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."
NOTE: this was BEFORE the events of September 11th. Shortly after that date, the U.S started its war in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and bring down Al Queda in the name of the "War on Terror." Nation building was not mentioned at this time, even though "single Afghan government" was mentioned in 1998 three years prior to 9/11 AND now one of the main arguments being made for not sending more troops is due to the fact the Afghani government is unstable.
Bottom line is - the United States has very little to bargain with if it does not have a stable Afghani government. Building a pipeline takes huge investments which are unlikely without stability.
Still think we are in Afghanistan for any other reason than Oil and other resources such as the Poppy Fields of Heroin?
you know the one.......
*Obama has decided not to send any more U.S. troops, but he has decided to send 40k more "independent contractors" instead....
I could not put my finger on why Obama refused the options provided to him. Given the fact that all four called for a troop increase of some kind. Not a single plan for reducing troop levels?
Thanks AngryGus for opening my eyes. What a great PR game the Obama administration is playing!
A Commander in Chief who is actually in command? I thought a good Commander in Chief was supposed to follow the orders of his subordinates. Who knew?
But, seriously:
Until you have answers for those questions, Mr. President, you should probably just keep on thinking.
"Information is not knowledge."
"Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them."
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."
What is the problem?
When I go to visit relatives.
"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."
rash limpballs fought any wars?
trying to button his pants!
If Obama changes his mind, I say we hit 'em with poison oak first.
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War
Barack Obama continued to say he was opposed to "A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
Later in his speech candidate Obama said,
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
Replace Iraq with Afghanistan - President Obama, do you still continue this rash war for which you have so defined yourself?
...correlating factor/relationship/preponderancy amidst the two wars? What is not?
to get into a war than get out.
Maybe we could spend the $$$ we save by NOT nation-building over there, by doing a little nation-building over here:
UN investigator accuses US of shameful neglect of homeless
.. so I'm a bleeding heart liberal .. thinking people should have the option of sleeping indoors ..
Since it would be something Jesus would do.
Nicolas Kristof - America’s Defining Choice: Endless War or Healthcare?
Please just go away bad dream!
The soviets had almost 10 times the troops levels the US has at the moment and could not get the job done. Also, they had none of the "human rights" constrictions that the US has and they could not subdue the Taliban. Any right thinking person would use this information and know Afghanistan is not winnable so get the f*&^ out; that is the only answer. Anything else is just propping up the MIC.
..we might have been able to get the Mission Accomplished had we NOT gone into Afghanistan on the cheap and with help from all of the countries surrounding Afghanistan including Iran. It didn't help that w had no real thought about capturing or killing obl in spite of the promises on the graves of the dead at Ground Zero.
Although his choice to go to war with Afghanistan is not a crime per se, his prosecution of it was folly. He did plenty of other bad things, like enabling torture, that he can be thrown in jail for and not soon enough for me!
I always thought the whole rethoric of Obama having to listen to the Generals and follow their biding was nonsense, just another canard by the right to put "Obama in his place" by framing him as not being a "real" president, and thus have to follow orders/policy of his surrogates and not the other way around. (I dunno if this makes sense, but I was very weary of the framing coming from the media/right that generals were always right, since such attitude struck me as overly militaristic and contrary to the civilian/democratic setting of our country.)
We live in a god damned democracy,and Generals follow the president's orders, not the other way around.
Hopefully, Obama is willing to do the right thing. And he is a bright fellow, I am not too impressed by the team he has surrounded himself, but I find these news as a very positive development.
Youtube video is not working, anyone have another link? Really wanna see this. Thanks!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33871560
... for your time and effort. ♥
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/12/taliban
Maybe a troop increase for the Taliban will be in the cards, paid for by US!
then why not act like a President and begin the withdrawal?
And like a republican husband, withdraw early.
The earlier the better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
the regional problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan but none of them are particularly palatable. People forget it seems how readily the Taliban were driven from power by a combination of limited ground troops and massive air power made easy by the intense local dislike of a very repressive regime. The window of opportunity to capitalize on that has long passed but that doesn't mean it is easy to disengage. Having made commitments to allies one cannot simply walk away and call it somebody else's problem. I hope Obaman takes his time. He'll have to smart his way out of this one.
Like Karzai? Or did you mean Unocal?
Canada and Great Britain and other NATO allies and, yes, local allies too. Karzai is hardly the only Afghan to whom commitments have been made.
I'm not sure what commitments we could possibly have made to the Brits or NATO and I'd be very interested in hearing about them. Seems to me that they're the ones who made the commitment to US by agreeing to send in troops. This was our deal remember - going in and gettin' Osama and all. Beyond memories of historic empires and puttin' tiny screws to Russian oil interests, they don't get much from the deal but dead soldiers.
As for any "commitments" we made to Karzai, he should take note of our other assets that outlived their usefulness. Besides, he's grown rich on the tax dollars of regular Americans, eff him and his whole corrupt family.
an awful lot of political arm twisting to get Canada and NATO committed to Bush's Follies.
And not all of NATO. Inform yourself.
I know you're thinking about Iraq but the fact is there was arm-twisting involved with the Afghanistan debacle too. I'd have to say I'm probably much more informed then yourself since you foolishly support the wars now as you did back then.
Ironic thing is you yellow elephants never back up you warmongering with putting your life on the line for your country. But then you know these wars aren't about our nations security don't you?
have been killing our soldiers. Corruption is rampant. Nobody can be trusted.
Canada still plans to leave Afghanistan in mid-2011. It's not soon enough for me, but I'll take it.
Jack Granatstein raises some good questions here:
http://www.thespec.com/article/645241
1. To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
2. To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage. v. intr. 1. To enter into an alliance: Several tribes allied to fend off the invaders. n. pl.
al·lies 1. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France. 2. One in helpful association with another: legislators who are allies on most issues. See note at partner.
3. Allies a. The nations allied against the Central Powers of Europe during World War I. They were Russia, France, Great Britain, and later many others, including the United States. b. The nations, primarily Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, allied against the Axis during World War II. [Middle English allien from Old French alier from Latin alligāre to bind to; See alloy]
But I'm well aware what the fucking word allies means!!! What an asshat!! Wanna comapre IQs and English comprehension? Any day asshat!
Frigging damn concern troll!
he will send troops
to look tough
he then will promise to bring them back during the summer of 2012
he is a politican first
another vietnam in the making
he is listening to his generals like LBJ did
maybe he has no choice but to listen
Hope he listens to the Ambassador , since when is a General going to say nope , it's useless , a no win situation , we need to cut our losses , give it up and get out as a realistic and practical matter ? NEVER .
Maybe if he would only listen to the Daily Show we could save ourselves a lot of pain and expense. Nah that would be too easy.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-septemb...
it kinda sounds like Obama really has only one option given the thinking here. Either he pulls out (the right move) or he's 'dancing to make himself look good'.
I say this because it seems that Obama is either a great man or a fool based on whether he does EXACTLY what we each want.
How freakin' unreasonable and unrealistic is that?
Login or Register to post comments.