Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

[rdowns]

Well, if this is true, I'm not happy. It's his war now.

Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml)


(CBS) Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops. A senior officer says "that's close to what [McChrystal] asked for." All the president's military advisers have recommended sending more troops.

But they also have warned that troops alone will not win the war unless Afghan President Hamid Karzai cleans up his government.

"He's got to take concrete steps to eliminate corruption," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said last week. "That means you have to rid yourself of those who are corrupt. You have to actually arrest and prosecute them."

The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.

Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute says a slow motion surge will produce slow motion results.

"If they're going to be sort of trickled in very slowly over the course of a year than it's unlikely to have a very decisive impact in the course of 2010," he said.

The buildup would be expected to last about four years, until McChrystal completes his plan for doubling the size of the Afghan army and police force.

With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.

The president is not expected to announce his decision until after he returns from China the week before Thanksgiving.

[leekohler]

Sigh- I just don't know anymore. I have always been for the Afghanistan effort, but now it seems like a better strategy would be to try to partner with Pakistan to help them secure their borders with Afghanistan. This is so sad to me. That the Taliban will most likely take over again really upsets the hell out of me. I hate to see that happen. But at this point, I don't know what other option there is. I overheard a soldier at my gym talking about the same thing.

[Zombie Acorn]

Well at least the dems can't say the repubs are the only ones for war mongering/policing the world. We can't even get half of our own **** straight in this country, yet we decide we know better for others. :rolleyes:

[rdowns]

Update (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml)

(CBS) Editor's note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

[takao]

as long as Karzai etc. still run the country into their pockets it's not going to work.. also the tolerating of drug smuggeling has to stop and the US and Afghanistan has now to work together with neighbouring countries to control all it's border to stabilze the country

the time where more troops would have been a solution was right at the beginning of the conflict ... back should the US have moved in fully focused but isntead they got sidetracked with another middle east adventure which simply took away all the resources the afghanistan scene needed

[Ugg]

as long as Karzai etc. still run the country into their pockets it's not going to work.. also the tolerating of drug smuggeling has to stop and the US and Afghanistan has now to work together with neighbouring countries to control all it's border to stabilze the country

the time where more troops would have been a solution was right at the beginning of the conflict ... back should the US have moved in fully focused but isntead they got sidetracked with another middle east adventure which simply took away all the resources the afghanistan scene needed

You're right, Karzai and his gang are there only to milk all they can from the country. His only goal in life is to die a billionaire.

I honestly don't know what will help Afghanistan the most. Sometimes I think the American presence only makes everything worse. But, as long as funds are being given to islamists to wage war on the infidel...

[leekohler]

Update (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml)

(CBS) Editor's note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Shivetya]

Update (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml)

(CBS) Editor's note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

I really hope were are not back in the era of "floating trial balloons" ... in other words, gauging public opinion before making policy decisions

[leekohler]

I really hope were are not back in the era of "floating trial balloons" ... in other words, gauging public opinion before making policy decisions

In this case, I hope we are. Bush certainly made a mess of things by not listening, didn't he?

[MacNut]

I really hope were are not back in the era of "floating trial balloons" ... in other words, gauging public opinion before making policy decisions

In this case, I hope we are. Bush certainly made a mess of things by not listening, didn't he?The President's job is doing what is best for the country not what the people of the country think is best. We don't know nearly what the president does so how can public opinion really help matters. We can't have a "American Idol" run system to tell the president what to do. Just because the public doesn't like something doesn't mean it is the right chose.

[IntheNet]

Well, if this is true, I'm not happy. It's his war now.

Actually it was "his" war on January 20 last. So far he's loosing it.

[leekohler]

The President's job is doing what is best for the country not what the people of the country think is best. We don't know nearly what the president does so how can public opinion really help matters. We can't have a "American Idol" run system to tell the president what to do. Just because the public doesn't like something doesn't mean it is the right chose.

The President's job is not to be an idiot and drag us into illegal wars. The government is "by the people, for the people". We don't elect kings, we elect Presidents. And we do have an "American Idol" run system. It's called elections. To a certain extent, the President does have to consider public opinion, or he gets the boot.

[Blue Velvet]

McClatchy is reporting that plans have been finalised:

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 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.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79380.html


Reports elsewhere suggest the announcement on the 1st of December will be probably be a televised address to the nation.

[leekohler]

McClatchy is reporting that plans have been finalised:




Reports elsewhere suggest the announcement on the 1st of December will be probably be a televised address to the nation.

S***! Bad move. I was hoping we'd be backing out and shoring up Pakistan's borders instead. :(

[IntheNet]

Well, if this is true, I'm not happy. It's his war now.

It was "his war" in January; too bad he took four months to comply with his designated General's resource requirement.

[leekohler]

It was "his war" in January; too bad he took four months to comply with his designated General's resource requirement.

Too bad you never have anything substantial to say. How about your opinion of the Afghanistan conflict? I've been very supportive of it from the beginning, but think that a different approach is needed now.

[Blue Velvet]

It was "his war" in January; too bad he took four months to comply with his designated General's resource requirement.


Comply? The chain of command starts at the top. Note that McChrystal isn't getting exactly what he wants, nor does the Pentagon have to sell the strategy to Congress or allies and interested parties.

[rdowns]

It was "his war" in January; too bad he took four months to comply with his designated General's resource requirement.

Do you ever post anything factual?

Perhaps you forgot that Obama authorized 21,000 additional troops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html) in March. This was after Bush refused to increase the troop count despite saying he would.

That said, I am disappointed in this decision. He better have an exit strategy. We can't keep pouring money into this black hole.

[abijnk]

Actually it was "his" war on January 20 last. So far he's loosing it.

Well, at least he can take solace in not being the only one... I hate the Bush back and forth that goes on here, but seriously, you can put this completely on Obama. Less than a year in control of an 8 year war that has been mismanaged from the beginning?

I want to hear more about this "exit strategy" before I form my final opinion of the matter.

[Blue Velvet]

He better have an exit strategy.

From the same article:

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.


Mind you, what they call an exit, is not what you might call an exit:


The building and fortifying of bases in Afghanistan isn’t the only sign that the U.S. military is digging in for an even longer haul. Another key indicator can be found in a Pentagon contract awarded in late September to SOS International, Ltd., a privately owned "operations support company" that provides everything from "cultural advisory services" to "intelligence and counterintelligence analysis and training" to numerous federal agencies. That contract, primarily for linguistic services in support of military operations in Afghanistan, has an estimated completion date of September 2014.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2009/11/05/2014-or-bust-the-pentagons-afghan-building-boom/

[jb1280]

It was "his war" in January; too bad he took four months to comply with his designated General's resource requirement.

Comply? Seriously?

Hypothetical for you:

What would be your reaction if Obama decided to order a withdrawal from Afghanistan?

What would be your reaction if McChrystal stated that he thought the US should withdraw, but Obama wanted to stay in?

On a more serious note. He's going to have to go pretty "big" in how he explains this further explanation to the polity.

[mactastic]

I really hope were are not back in the era of "floating trial balloons" ... in other words, gauging public opinion before making policy decisions
Did we ever leave the era of "floating trial balloons"? :confused:

It was "his war" in January; too bad he took four months to comply with his designated General's resource requirement.
Wow... you honestly think the POTUS has a requirement to take orders from his generals? That's simply astounding. Do you long for a military dictatorship? Unclear what the chain of command is in the USA?

This level of ignorance about basic American tenets is truly frightening...

[IntheNet]

Wow... you honestly think the POTUS has a requirement to take orders from his generals?

A "requirement" for orders? No. But...

Since Barack selected General McCrystal to head up the Afghanistan theater of operations and be his military advisor, I would think - yes - that the General's opinion would carry some weight in his decision; more so than say his EPA Cabinet choice. But since Barack has absolutely no military experience, if he ignored the General in this decision we citizens would have to ask who's advising him?

[mactastic]

A "requirement" for orders? No. But...
Well, that's not what you wrote. But we'll chalk that one up to poor writing, rather than poor thinking.

Since Barack selected General McCrystal to head up the Afghanistan theater of operations and be his military advisor, I would think - yes - that the General's opinion would carry some weight in his decision; more so than say his EPA Cabinet choice. But since Barack has absolutely no military experience, if he ignored the General in this decision we citizens would have to ask who's advising him?
And Obama would have every right to tell you to go **** yourself when you asked who's advising him.

[Blue Velvet]

But since Barack has absolutely no military experience, if he ignored the General in this decision we citizens would have to ask who's advising him?


I'm guessing it's ACORN.

[jb1280]

A "requirement" for orders? No. But...

Since Barack selected General McCrystal to head up the Afghanistan theater of operations and be his military advisor, I would think - yes - that the General's opinion would carry some weight in his decision; more so than say his EPA Cabinet choice. But since Barack has absolutely no military experience, if he ignored the General in this decision we citizens would have to ask who's advising him?

The National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, Office of Budget and Management, Vice President, Special Envoy to the Region, Ambassador on the ground, CENTCOM

All of these individuals were handpicked by the POTUS to serve in some sort of capacity in the formation of foreign policy.

The job of McChrystal is to handle the military component of Afghanistan. The job of the whole of the national security team is to put that perspective into the global strategic requirements of the United States.

In simpleton terms that you might understand, you own a house. Your dishwasher is broke. Someone comes over and gives you an estimate on how to fix it, how long it will take, and how much it will cost.

That guy only cares about the dishwasher - not whether your roof is leaking, your basement is flooding, and your air conditioning is broke. Your job, as owner of the house is to prioritize such things.

This has absolutely nothing to do about not having military experience.

[IntheNet]

The job of McChrystal is to handle the military component of Afghanistan.

You answered your own question; who but General McCrystal to determine military assets appropriate to Afghanistan? You really want military assets determined by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Office of Budget and Management if you are at all interested in winning?

This has absolutely nothing to do about not having military experience.

The decision to add more troops to a theater of war is in fact one requiring military experience; what do you think Ground Commanders do?

[nbs2]

I'm disappointed. A phased buildup does not seem like the right answer for Afghanistan. At this point, much of the military infrastructure is already built. When you toss in the terrain and operational difficulties, it just makes more sense to bring troops in as quickly as you can.

If he doesn't think we can come out of Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, begin a phased withdrawal based on meeting certain milestones (sound familiar?). Demand that the Karzai government stand up while we stand down.

This half-hearted measure seems like an effort to placate some reluctant Congress-types at the cost of lives.

[jb1280]

You answered your own question; who but General McCrystal to determine military assets appropriate to Afghanistan? You really want military assets determined by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Office of Budget and Management if you are at all interested in winning?



The decision to add more troops to a theater of war is in fact one requiring military experience; what do you think Ground Commanders do?

Hypothetical, but realistic chain of events.

1. Things in Afghanistan are going poorly.
2. Commander in chief asks commander on the ground to put together a plan that said commander on the ground thinks would work to help the military situation on the ground.
3. Commander on the ground gives recommendation.
4. Commander in Chief asks question as to whether there is strictly a military solution to Afghanistan absent a political settlement.
5. Consensus is a resounding "No."
6. Question is asked "what is important about Afghanistan to American foreign policy?"
7. State, Defense, special envoy, and NSC come in and makes cases for or against escalation in Afghanistan.
8. More questions arise, such as "If Afghanistan is as stable and democratic as Denmark, is international terrorism gone?" or "What does 5 more years in Afghanistan mean for American foreign policy in other parts of the world?"
9. Question of "how do we leave?" comes up.
10. More deliberating on what would be best case scenario in leaving or worse case scenario in leaving.
11. Decision is made towards leaning towards an increase in troops, pending 2 things: allied commitments and can we actually afford this adventure?
12. You work towards getting NATO commitment and you bring the money guys in to pay for the escalation.
13. You make your decision.

MCCHRYSTAL PLAYS BUT A RELATIVELY SMALL ROLE!

[Ugg]

MCCHRYSTAL PLAYS BUT A RELATIVELY SMALL ROLE!

Not to right wing demagogues.

[IntheNet]

Hypothetical

To be sure...

MCCHRYSTAL PLAYS BUT A RELATIVELY SMALL ROLE!

The decision has not yet been made... networks are saying it will be on December 1, 2009 though that is an assumption by the media. If General McCrystal's resource request has the slightest degree of politics added by the Commander in Chief or it has been made irrespective of military needs and requirements, the General has no expectation to implement it and promise to win; he could and should resign his post as I expect he will if politics played a part. Nonetheless, there are many unknowns here and it is not altogether certain what decision the White House will make.

[nbs2]

In simpleton terms that you might understand, you own a house. Your dishwasher is broke. Someone comes over and gives you an estimate on how to fix it, how long it will take, and how much it will cost.

That guy only cares about the dishwasher - not whether your roof is leaking, your basement is flooding, and your air conditioning is broke. Your job, as owner of the house is to prioritize such things.

This is a wonderful analogy, but it doesn't express the problem well enough. from what the two reports say, the dishwasher repairman said that there was a low, medium, and high risk solution to fixing the problem. The lower the risk, the more it costs, but a failure means more money later. After all, if it turns out that a new gasket is cheaper than a new dishwasher, but if it doesn't solve the problem, you've wasted money.

But, when you bring in the repairman, you bring him in because he knows dishwashers. Asking him what the problem is, he is going to have a better understanding of what to do than you will. If he says, new motor, and you tell him, "no, it's the gasket," why'd you bring him in?

Now, you as the homeowner has to decide how to prioritize. And that means looking at budget, etc. You make the decision. But, if you do act contrary to what the repairman suggests, you are probably going to get burnt.

That's the problem. The Gen is working on fixing the problem, and the question is where do we prioritize it. This decision suggests it's not the top priority. At the very least, someone else with the POTUS's ear has convinced him that this is the ideal solution. That's fine. But, it will get questioned. Just as you would be if you ignored the need for a new dishwasher because your accountant said to - either might be right, and that's the chance you take.

[Blue Velvet]

promise to win

Define victory in Afghanistan.

[IntheNet]

Define victory in Afghanistan.

Not being in-country nor privy to ground commanders situation assessments provided to Gen. McCrystal on the conditions in Afghanistan, it would hard to define "victory" in a fluid war zone where circumstances change daily, with both Taliban and Al Qaeda. As you know we entered the nation under different circumstances that we are there today and situation has changed. While Obama can determine what constitutes a "victory" in Afghanistan, I am quite sure that General McCrystal is best able to determine what he needs in resources just to stay even so existing troop forces in Afghanistan stay safe and I believe the General did precisely that four months ago. Nonetheless, before you ascribe too much gravitas to defining "victory," in Afghanistan or elsewhere, I would put more emphasis on defining safety for troops in country and give them the resources they need.

[fivepoint]

Maybe you'll vote for the real anti-war president next time... Ron Paul 2012 ;)

[mactastic]

Not being in-country nor privy to ground commanders situation assessments provided to Gen. McCrystal on the conditions in Afghanistan, it would hard to define "victory" in a fluid war zone where circumstances change daily, with both Taliban and Al Qaeda. As you know we entered the nation under different circumstances that we are there today and situation has changed. While Obama can determine what constitutes a "victory" in Afghanistan, I am quite sure that General McCrystal is best able to determine what he needs in resources just to stay even so existing troop forces in Afghanistan stay safe and I believe the General did precisely that four months ago. Nonetheless, before you ascribe too much gravitas to defining "victory," in Afghanistan or elsewhere, I would put more emphasis on defining safety for troops in country and give them the resources they need.
So you're totally cool with an open-ended commitment, and mission creep?

See, back about 10 years ago, conservatives were castigating Clinton for what they portrayed as an open-ended military commitment fraught with potential for mission creep.

I guess some folks will say anything to denigrate a POTUS that they clearly despise...

[jb1280]

Define victory in Afghanistan.

If I had to guess what a best case scenario would resemble given what we know it would be the following.

The additional troops would serve two major functions. Primarily, it would give enough space for local warlords to exert power over the greater population clusters in the country that would create a high-level of local stability with modest contacts with Kabul. The second function would be to buy time with the Pakistanis for themselves to fight their own local informal civil war and supply necessary "moral" support by the US of the region.

From 2011-2013 a gradual withdrawal of American forces will take place and there will be a moderately stable Pakistan with a highly-decentralized but locally authoritative Afghanistan that might resemble a medieval society.

It's a terribly complicated situation with a myriad of realpolitik issues and domestic politics at play. That said, I do think we can be cautiously optimistic if we have relatively low expectations for centralizing democratic power in Afghanistan and use this as leverage with the Pakistanis.

[Blue Velvet]

President Obama said on Tuesday that he will announce his decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan next week, and that it is his intention to “finish the job” that began with the overthrow of the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.

Mr. Obama, offering a tantalizing preview of what looms as one of the momentous decisions of his presidency, said he would tell the American people about “a comprehensive strategy” embracing civilian and diplomatic efforts as well as the continuing military campaign.

While he avoided any hints of the new troop levels he foresees in Afghanistan, the president signaled that he will not be talking about a short-term commitment but rather an effort muscular enough to “dismantle and degrade” the enemy and ensure that “Al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate” in the region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html



Finish the job.

Clever but disingenuous phrase, sounds muscular while hinting at a later drawdown. Possible hostage to later fortune, though.

[hulugu]

...The job of McChrystal is to handle the military component of Afghanistan. The job of the whole of the national security team is to put that perspective into the global strategic requirements of the United States....

... If General McCrystal's resource request has the slightest degree of politics added by the Commander in Chief or it has been made irrespective of military needs and requirements, the General has no expectation to implement it and promise to win; he could and should resign his post as I expect he will if politics played a part. Nonetheless, there are many unknowns here and it is not altogether certain what decision the White House will make.

First, General McCrystal has been around long enough to know that politics will play a role in troop recommendations, and he's probably smart enough to have gamed the system slightly. Furthermore, we live in a Democracy, not a military dictatorship and thus I'd expect that McCrystal will do the best he can with the men he gets and not resign in a snit.

It's worth noting that Petreaus also dealt with similar instances and served honorably despite the Bush administration's refusal to authorize the men or equipment necessary to blunt Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Finish the job.

Clever but disingenuous phrase, sounds muscular while hinting at a later drawdown. Possible hostage to later fortune, though.

I agree, I get the distinct feeling that we went in to fix a leaky roof and going to wind up rebuilding the entire house.

[IntheNet]

It's worth noting that Petreaus also dealt with similar instances and served honorably despite the Bush administration's refusal to authorize the men or equipment necessary to blunt Al Qaeda in Afghanistan...

I don't recall General Petreaus demanding resources that President Bush didn't support. Perhaps you can remind me. And which Illinois Senator was against the surge that the military wanted to win in Iraq (that President Bush advocated) and eventually succeeded in Iraq?

[Eraserhead]

I don't recall General Petreaus demanding resources that President Bush didn't support.

Agreed, I had a quick Google and couldn't find anything about this :o.

[hulugu]

I don't recall General Petreaus demanding resources that President Bush didn't support. Perhaps you can remind me. And which Illinois Senator was against the surge that the military wanted to win in Iraq (that President Bush advocated) and eventually succeeded in Iraq?

Agreed, I had a quick Google and couldn't find anything about this :o.

I'm having trouble finding a link, but the episode was covered in Thomas Ricks' book "The Gamble (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/books/10kaku.html)." Petreaus' original recommendations were nixed by Bush administration officials.

[bobber205]

Actually it was "his" war on January 20 last. So far he's loosing it.

Snap!

I guess he should have ordered troops out the first minute he was president?

You're such a tool sometimes. You obviously just hate the President as this comment proves. No logic or thought put into it, just a gut reaction.

[Eraserhead]

I'm having trouble finding a link, but the episode was covered in Thomas Ricks' book "The Gamble (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/books/10kaku.html)." Petreaus' original recommendations were nixed by Bush administration officials.

From the article above:

But the dominant impression left by “The Gamble” and “Fiasco” is one of the devastating consequences of an ill-conceived and ill-planned war — an unnecessary war of choice, waged with too few troops and no overarching strategic plan

So fair enough.

Additionally it does look like McKeiren who was General in Afghanistan did have troop numbers increases turned down by Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602304_pf.html).

[Dont Hurt Me]

Im still wondering what there is to win? heck even Iraq would fall right back into its 1,000 yr religious war the day we walk out. This region of the world is ran by its crazy religions.

[IntheNet]

I'm having trouble finding a link, but the episode was covered in Thomas Ricks' book "The Gamble (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/books/10kaku.html)." Petreaus' original recommendations were nixed by Bush administration officials.

Naw... you don't get off this easy... if what you said earlier is true at all - which I strongly doubt due to Petreaus' own words of Bush support - you'll be able to document it far better than a reference to a book I never heard of! Moreover, it was you liberals that labeled Gen. Petreaus with smear (the whole MoveOn.org smear: General Betray Us?) that Democrats largely supported...

President Bush was sensitive to his generals in the field and short of Congressional funds cut-off Bush always managed to resource the troops and give them whatever they requested.

[leekohler]

Naw... you don't get off this easy... if what you said earlier is true at all - which I strongly doubt due to Petreaus' own words of Bush support - you'll be able to document it far better than a reference to a book I never heard of! Moreover, it was you liberals that labeled Gen. Petreaus with smear (the whole MoveOn.org smear: General Betray Us?) that Democrats largely supported...

Doesn't feel good when it happens to you, does it? Aww...:rolleyes:

President Bush was sensitive to his generals in the field and short of Congressional funds cut-off Bush always managed to resource the troops and give them whatever they requested.

BS! Remember Walter Reed? Also- the administration did not listen to the military recommendations on the initial invasion of Iraq.

[Zombie Acorn]

From the reports I have been hearing it will be 2012 before all of these proposed troops would put boots on ground, do we really want to be in a war 2 years from now? Time to scrap this **** and go home.

[Eraserhead]

Naw... you don't get off this easy... if what you said earlier is true at all - which I strongly doubt due to Petreaus' own words of Bush support - you'll be able to document it far better than a reference to a book I never heard of!

There's a Washington Post article I linked to in the next post about General McKeiren not getting the troops he wanted for Afghanistan.

[rdowns]

Naw... you don't get off this easy... if what you said earlier is true at all - which I strongly doubt due to Petreaus' own words of Bush support - you'll be able to document it far better than a reference to a book I never heard of! Moreover, it was you liberals that labeled Gen. Petreaus with smear (the whole MoveOn.org smear: General Betray Us?) that Democrats largely supported...

President Bush was sensitive to his generals in the field and short of Congressional funds cut-off Bush always managed to resource the troops and give them whatever they requested.



http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001867.php

As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.
Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata.

You would have thought he would have learned what a mistake this was after Tora Bora.

[takao]

i suspect msot of that plans are backup-plans for the case if some NATO allies pull out sooner than expected
germany for example gave the government of karzai mroe or less an ultimatum: if they don't improve the fighting against corruption significantly over the next months they will pull out

[hulugu]

Naw... you don't get off this easy... if what you said earlier is true at all - which I strongly doubt due to Petreaus' own words of Bush support - you'll be able to document it far better than a reference to a book I never heard of!

You're right, I just made (http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Petraeus-American-Adventure-2006-2008/dp/1594201978/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259164277&sr=8-1) it (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Gamble/Thomas-E-Ricks/e/9781594201974/?itm=1&USRI=The+Gamble) up (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-et-rutten10-2009feb10,0,2184701.story). Good thing it wasn't on the NY Times Bestseller list either.

But, here's something (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/658dwgrn.asp?pg=2):

In September, Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired general Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and Pace. Keane insisted the "train and leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced. But now, with Bush favoring a strategy nearly identical to Keane's, he didn't object. "Rumsfeld was never a lose guy," a Bush adviser said. "He always wanted to win."

Moreover, it was you liberals that labeled Gen. Petreaus with smear (the whole MoveOn.org smear: General Betray Us?) that Democrats largely supported...

MoveOn.org is but one political group, and in this case I criticized their "Betray Us" campaign, which I thought was stupid and juvenile. But, what does that tell us about the Bush administration's initial support of 'the surge.'

Nothing.

President Bush was sensitive to his generals in the field and short of Congressional funds cut-off Bush always managed to resource the troops and give them whatever they requested.

That's not true either. There were equipment shortages throughout the first days of the Iraq War. Units were short on everything from night-vision goggles to vehicles. There were radio shortages and even clothing.

Rumsfeld was most famously challenged (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5640843) by a US Army officer about these shortages including the problem that many were "up-armoring" HUMMVEEs using scraps of metal and ballistic glass.
Shortages are always a problem in war—see the equipment problems for Airborne units during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII—but there were shortages, equipment problems, and limitations on manpower. Much of this was laid at Rumsfeld's feet, but there were others in the administration who agreed with the Secretary of Defense.

[takao]

in other news former german defense minister had to step back from his current economy/work minister position because of the german air attack scandal near kundus
which makes him the third head to roll after Generalinspekteur (head of the army) Schneiderhan and secretary of defense

what it will mean for the german Afghanistan mandant will be seen .. sicne it's up for vote next week...


it sure mean that the new defense minsiter guttenberg is very likely the next man to watch in germany with his rather obvious political "head chopping" instinct

[Blue Velvet]

President Obama huddled at 5 pm Sunday with his top military and national security team, issuing orders for the Pentagon to implement his plan for sending more than 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that Obama "issued orders" from the Oval Office to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. David Petraeus, Adm. Mike Mullen, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Gen. James Cartwright and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Before that meeting he spoke via phone with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The president also is calling key allies abroad, holding phone calls with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He will call Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown today. He also is meeting privately with Australia's Kevin Rudd today.

Obama will formally announce the troops decision tomorrow night in a speech from West Point Military Academy.

The White House refuses to offer guidance on the exact number of troops who will be sent to the region, and Gibbs told reporters Obama is not being "overly specific" in his calls with world leaders to keep the circle of people who know tightly secure.

Gibbs said at 6 P.M. last night Obama spoke via secure video teleconference with Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry from the Situation Room to lay out his decision. He will tell 31 members of Congress tomorrow at 4:45 P.M.

Obama is still working with Ben Rhodes of the NSC team on the final version speech.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/obama-orders-30000-more-troops-to-afganistan.php


And also:


Gordon Brown announced today that Britain's total military effort in Afghanistan is to increase to over 10,000 troops.

In a detailed Commons statement, the prime minister confirmed that all the conditions had been met to allow an extra 500 troops to be deployed in December – taking the force level to 9,500.

But he also disclosed that when special forces were included, the "total military effort" in Afghanistan would be in excess of 10,000 troops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/30/britain-500-troops-afghanistan

[toontra]

Brown told Parliament:

"I can confirm that we will move to a new force level of 9,500 - the extra troops will deploy in early December to thicken the UK troop presence in central Helmand."

Is it only me that finds this a pretty pathetic euphemism - if he's prepared to commit extra troops and endanger more lives, how about using the proper terminology like "reinforce" or "boost".

It seems like just the other day when UK Defence Secretary Dr Reid was telling us that he fully expected the extra British forces being sent into Helmand in 2006 to leave again "without a shot being fired". Excuse the snort of derision!

[Zombie Acorn]

Vietnam #2 here we go.

[IntheNet]

Vietnam #2 here we go.

Nah.... BO will undoubtedly call the hole he is digging "unprecedented" just like everything else...

[Zombie Acorn]

Nah.... BO will undoubtedly call the hole he is digging "unprecedented" just like everything else...

We've been digging since 2001, I don't like putting our troops in situations where there is no clear enemy that is going to announce they are part of 'x' group and are trying to kill us. The media crucifies us if we make a mistake and we lose more troops trying to curtail the negative image of civilian casualties.

its hard to fight cowards.

[jb1280]

Nah.... BO will undoubtedly call the hole he is digging "unprecedented" just like everything else...

Wait, I thought you support an escalation in Afghanistan?

[NT1440]

Wait, I thought you support an escalation in Afghanistan?

He will never support any BO does, it doesn't matter if he personally agrees with it or not.

[jb1280]

He will never support any BO does, it doesn't matter if he personally agrees with it or not.

I bet the criticism is that he's not sending all 40,000.

[NT1440]

I bet the criticism is that he's not sending all 40,000.

I'm sure thats how it will be phrased...

[jb1280]

This is a big gut-check for the American people.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in rolling out the new policy, but someone in the administration is going to have to make the following arguments convincingly in the next few days:

1. What Afghanistan is supposed to look like at the end of this.
2. How precisely Pakistan and Afghanistan are intrinsically linked.
3. Successfully shift this from international terrorism to preventing a failed state.

I am, however, quite skeptical.

[IntheNet]

Wait, I thought you support an escalation in Afghanistan?

I actually support giving military commanders what they ask for when they ask for it since we send them to risk their lives in our defense. Gen. McCrystal made this request several months back and it is unclear to me what was gained by waiting so long. The idea of re-evaluating the mission doesn't square well with responding to a ground commander's resource request. By waiting so long, I fear the hole that Obama has dug now will be taken to task by all, not only his detractors but including his supporters, and most of all, the men and women in uniform in harm's way.

[Blue Velvet]

"And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."
—Pat Robertson, 12/07/05 (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512120002)

"You don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale."
—Bill O'Reilly, 04/04 (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/right_hook/2004/04/14/iraq_911comm/)

"I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war..."
—Sean Hannity, 11/05 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/20/rs.01.html)

;)

[VenusianSky]

Not that we expected much different, but it looks to be official. White House officials say 30k more troops in next 6 months.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/index.html

[Dont Hurt Me]

Is there a end game ?

[quagmire]

Is there a end game ?

Obama does want to be out in 3 years.

[Thomas Veil]

Hell of a speech.

Whether you agree or disagree with his decision, there is no question that he answered the concerns of people with opposing viewpoints and demonstrated that he has thought this through thoroughly. I saw a clarity of vision in his plan that we never saw from...the other guy. No open-ended throwing of lives and money at the problem; no grandiose framing (e.g., "global war", "if you're not for us, you're against us"); no ************ justifications like non-existent WMD.

He has put himself into a corner with that 18 month deadline. If something unforeseen happens and it doesn't work out the way he thinks it will, he'll be heading into re-election time having to either cut his losses or extend the war even further. Pretty ballsy move, actually.

[zap2]

I actually support giving military commanders what they ask for when they ask for it since we send them to risk their lives in our defense. Gen. McCrystal made this request several months back and it is unclear to me what was gained by waiting so long. The idea of re-evaluating the mission doesn't square well with responding to a ground commander's resource request. By waiting so long, I fear the hole that Obama has dug now will be taken to task by all, not only his detractors but including his supporters, and most of all, the men and women in uniform in harm's way.

Oh heaven, I'm not sure you actually believe this.

Thing you seemed to have glazed over in, Obama is calling for these troop increases in the next 6 months. The generals asked for these troops with in a 12 month period. Obama seems to have your concerns covered.

(Not to mention, Civilian leaders always giving the military exactly want it wants seems like a terrible idea, but thats for a different thread I think)


I think this plan is a pretty reasonable one, its very middle of the road, as I expect from Obama. He's without a doubt covering people's concerns. Its a pretty reasonable plan. I'm eagerly waiting for 2011 to get out!

[dukebound85]

;)

ok?

I don't know about you but I was hoping withdrawing troops, not sending more in

Wasn't this a stance BO took during the elections? (It was)

Just goes to show that it's unfortunately the same horse, just a different color:(

I actually support giving military commanders what they ask for when they ask for it since we send them to risk their lives in our defense. Gen. McCrystal made this request several months back and it is unclear to me what was gained by waiting so long.

You're kidding right?

[nullx86]

ugh, why must we send more troops out?

on a side note, before there was anything posted on this anywhere, /b/ said that he would send more troops. /b/ was right :p:D:cool::rolleyes::eek:

[zap2]

ugh, why must we send more troops out?



I see your point, but I'd like to at least say either increase or decrease was needed now. Clearly the current situation isn't working on.


I'm hesitant to support an increase, but these time tables are helping me deal with it. Frankly, I think we need out, but leaving now seems like a bad idea(government just doesn't seem strong enough, from what I know)

One idea I'd like to see get a little more support is increase working with local government, so even if the government over the whole nation isn't super strong, the local leaders can keep the Taliban at bay.

[gibbz]

I don't know about you but I was hoping withdrawing troops, not sending more in.

Wasn't this a stance BO took during the elections? (It was)


Actually, he stated (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-President-Considering-Afghanistan-Strategy-78246122.html) he wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq in order to refocus on the Afghan war. He is being generally consistent with his campaign stance.

During the presidential campaign, in July 2008, then Senator Obama visited Afghanistan for the first time. He said he opposes the war in Iraq and favors returning the focus to Afghanistan. He called it the front line in the fight against terrorism.

[rdowns]

I actually support giving military commanders what they ask for when they ask for it since we send them to risk their lives in our defense. Gen. McCrystal made this request several months back and it is unclear to me what was gained by waiting so long. The idea of re-evaluating the mission doesn't square well with responding to a ground commander's resource request. By waiting so long, I fear the hole that Obama has dug now will be taken to task by all, not only his detractors but including his supporters, and most of all, the men and women in uniform in harm's way.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obamas-afghanistan-plan-o_n_374995.html)

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.

Bush was the one who didn't send more troops when requested.