By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options - AP

by AP

President won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead to clarify when responsibility would be turned over to the Afghan government.

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.

The president was 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 small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table Wednesday were ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

The key sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.

Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. 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.

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry's cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with them who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified documents. Other administration officials raised the same misgivings in describing Obama's hesitancy to accept any of the options before him in their current form.

The options presented to Obama by his war council will now be amended.

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 White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.

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 in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

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.

Another official stressed that Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion and that his eventual decision will cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.

With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama's tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/official-obama-rejects-afghan-war-options/

------------

Carter 2.0  Maybe he will decide on the 20th.  Maybe by December, etc. 



Around the Network

I chose neither. I chose the impossible- Andrew Ryan/Obama



That's about as likely as me playing by somebody elses rules, which I would never do. I only play by my own rules, nobody elses...not even my own.

I think we'd need a stable government in Afghanistan before we turned things over too that government.

Right now the government is really kinda illegitimate.

It would be... well pointless to win a war for an illegitimate government.

The people won't be any better off and may turn against us more and decide to support the Taliban they once hated.



I'm a little bit unhappy about Obama's approach to Afghanistan so far. He has made little or no progress in achieving his original aims and objectives. What these military leaders have proposed is more or less a compromise to eventually set up a stable government and leave, a stepping stone to his aim, but Obama has rejected it. Then why does he have these people around? They are the experts.

I hope he starts an open dialog towards a compromise with an aim to end the war within his tenure.



highwaystar101 said:
I'm a little bit unhappy about Obama's approach to Afghanistan so far. He has made little or no progress in achieving his original aims and objectives. What these military leaders have proposed is more or less a compromise to eventually set up a stable government and leave, a stepping stone to his aim, but Obama has rejected it. Then why does he have these people around? They are the experts.

I hope he starts an open dialog towards a compromise with an aim to end the war within his tenure.

Do we really want any Stable government in there though? 

I'm not sure if your aware....

but Karazi rigged the elections so he would be reelected.

He may be setting himself up as dictator.  Obama understandably doesn't want to send a bunch of extra troops to help out and train an army that may be led by the next dictator of Afghanistan.  Such a move would only end up badly for us long term.  Removing one dictator to install another?  What would Afghanistan see as our legacy to them? 

Not to mention Karazi is pretty incompetant.  The minute we left Afghanistan would probably fall apart like a house of cards.

Karazi is a crook, incompetant leader and likely a would be dictator.

Obama doesn't need to put more troops in.  He has to threaten to pull them out.

So that Karazi will straighten up.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I'm a little bit unhappy about Obama's approach to Afghanistan so far. He has made little or no progress in achieving his original aims and objectives. What these military leaders have proposed is more or less a compromise to eventually set up a stable government and leave, a stepping stone to his aim, but Obama has rejected it. Then why does he have these people around? They are the experts.

I hope he starts an open dialog towards a compromise with an aim to end the war within his tenure.

Do we really want any Stable government in there though? 

I'm not sure if your aware....

but Karazi rigged the elections so he would be reelected.

He may be setting himself up as dictator.  Obama understandably doesn't want to send a bunch of extra troops to help out and train an army that may be led by the next dictator of Afghanistan.  Such a move would only end up badly for us long term.  Removing one dictator to install another?  What would Afghanistan see as our legacy to them? 

Not to mention Karazi is pretty incompetant.  The minute we left Afghanistan would probably fall apart like a house of cards.

Karazi is a crook, incompetant leader and likely a would be dictator.

Obama doesn't need to put more troops in.  He has to threaten to pull them out.

So that Karazi will straighten up.

But the compromise is threatening to pull troops out in a way. Even though you send a few thousand more in, only half of your troops will ever actually be active, effectively reducing the amount that are serving. It is pulling them out, more or less. It's like pulling them out of the war, but not letting them leave the battlefield. It is at the very least a stepping stone to reduce the number of troops, and then eventually leave.

As for the government, I know Karazi has rigged elections and is an incompetent buffoon, I think resolving that is what I meant by installing a stable government.



highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I'm a little bit unhappy about Obama's approach to Afghanistan so far. He has made little or no progress in achieving his original aims and objectives. What these military leaders have proposed is more or less a compromise to eventually set up a stable government and leave, a stepping stone to his aim, but Obama has rejected it. Then why does he have these people around? They are the experts.

I hope he starts an open dialog towards a compromise with an aim to end the war within his tenure.

Do we really want any Stable government in there though? 

I'm not sure if your aware....

but Karazi rigged the elections so he would be reelected.

He may be setting himself up as dictator.  Obama understandably doesn't want to send a bunch of extra troops to help out and train an army that may be led by the next dictator of Afghanistan.  Such a move would only end up badly for us long term.  Removing one dictator to install another?  What would Afghanistan see as our legacy to them? 

Not to mention Karazi is pretty incompetant.  The minute we left Afghanistan would probably fall apart like a house of cards.

Karazi is a crook, incompetant leader and likely a would be dictator.

Obama doesn't need to put more troops in.  He has to threaten to pull them out.

So that Karazi will straighten up.

But the compromise is threatening to pull troops out in a way. Even though you send a few thousand more in, only half of your troops will ever actually be active, effectively reducing the amount that are serving. It is pulling them out, more or less. It's like pulling them out of the war, but not letting them leave the battlefield. It is at the very least a stepping stone to reduce the number of troops, and then eventually leave.

As for the government, I know Karazi has rigged elections and is an incompetent buffoon, I think resolving that is what I meant by installing a stable government.

Well it's half activly fighting, half holding and training.

The main "threat" of leaving is to make Karazi feel unsafe.

As long as we'd have troops training, he'd have areas he'd be safe no matter what happened... and if we're training he may get enough troops to where he does feel safe.

By stalling, Obama comes off as aloof, Karazi doesn't know what's going to happen.  Republicans are hammering him for not doing anything... some even call for withdrawl.   While liberals on the other aisle also call for withdrawl... while American News networks talk about how without Karazi backign down, we may as well pull out.

Basically, this is an info ploy.  It makes him scared... Obama shows he won't put in more troops and may even stop funding... and may even pull out.  In which case Karazi and his Warlords are doomed.

 



His indecisiveness is not good for our troops, nor their people.

Its like leaving food on a table - you do it too long, then everything spoils. Pick an option, and go with it. Save the taxpayers some money and get the heck out of dodge, why don't 'cha. But at least do something.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

I could be wrong but I suspect that Obama is taking this action for political reasons. Support for the war in Afghanistan has faltered as it has drawn the attention of the media after the surge effectively reduced the conflict in the war in Iraq; and because the war in Afghanistan has been mishandled in the transition from Bush’s presidency to Obama’s presidency. Personally, I think a timeline for leaving Afghanistan before the country is stable and can self govern will only result in a power vacuum and will (likely) ensure that anti-western fanatics take control of the country and could (potentially) destabilize the region; including nuclear powers like Pakistan.

Right now what is needed is leadership in order to do what is right even though it is unpopular ... Unfortunately, that is not the strong suit of Obama.



Personally, I think the U.S. should just stop occupying countries altogether (unless they're an ally and it's a mutual protection thing), and just leave the rest of the world to its chaos. There are terrible dictators all over the world, and we lose trillions taking out a randomly picked assortment of them. Globalization is the most powerful tool in spreading democracy, so the United States should just focus on keeping its economy stable and paying off debt, so it can hold well in the global market.