White House Denies BBC Afghan Surge Report

By: Tucker Reals
Topics: Afghanistan

(White House )

The White House has dismissed a report by the British Broadcasting Corporation that President Obama might announce an additional surge of troops — likely between 40,000 and 45,000 as early as next week.

The BBC's "Newsnight" program reported Wednesday night that Mr. Obama has already made his decision, informed the British government that a significant troop increase was coming, and that he may seek to make the announcement publically ahead of a NATO defense ministers' meeting in Slovakia next week.

Newsnight, a well-regarded hard-news magazine show, did not name sources for its report.

The White House was quick to tell the BBC that the claim was incorrect, and that the Mr. Obama was still in the highly publicized decision-making process about how to alter the American war strategy in Afghanistan.

Above: President Obama and his national security team listen to a presentation from Karl W. Eikenberry (onscreen in middle), U.S. Ambassdor to Afghanistan, during a briefing on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Situation Room of the White House on Oct. 14, 2009.

Speaking to the British network, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs added, "I think that you can assume that the BBC will not be the first outlet for such a decision."

Mark Knoller: Obama's Decision Not Made Yet
CBS News' Special Report: Afghanistan, The Road Ahead

Afghan Ambassador to the United States, Said Jawad, declined to confirm the report when he spoke to Newsnight on Wednesday, saying confirmation should come from the U.S. government, but he added that "all indications are that President Obama is honoring the request by Gen. McChrystal."

Jawad was referring to the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has put his request for additional troops to Mr. Obama in the form of three options; a massive influx of 80,000 troops, a middle option of about 40,000, or a minimalist addition of about 10,000 "boots on the ground". It has been widely reported that McChrystal favors the 40,000 option himself.

Related: McChrystal on "60 Minutes"

Newsnight asked Jawad if his "all indications" remark meant the 40,000 to 45,000 extra troops sought by McChrystal had been agreed to by the White House. "This is part of the request, yes," he said.

U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Wednesday that his government would send as many as 500 additional troops to Afghanistan — if other countries involved bolstered their forces. Britain currently has about 9,000 service members in Afghanistan, the second largest contingent behind the United States, which has about 68,000 forces in the country.

Tucker Reals
Tucker Reals is a senior news editor and overnight site editor for CBSNews.com, based at CBS News' London bureau.

21 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 21 Comments


by nomealaska October 15, 2009 3:13 PM EDT: We armed and supplied the Taliban, and we created the environment the spawned Al Qaida. We continue to pay the Taliban and regional warlords to take it easy on us, but they use these payments to build themselves stronger - ultimately defeating the purpose of fighting them. Just pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let that part of the world get back to "normal". The US can never win these wars, as our goal was never to win, but to occupy and influence. Instead, we will end up with more dead troops, more dead civilians, lots of highly-trained mercenary "civilian contractors" with no allegiances or wars to fight, disturbed US troops returning to cause trouble here at home, a broke US economy, loss of world economy, a record-setting opium problems, and a worsening of the US security problem. Apparently, waging war and occupying two countries that didn't attack us while ignoring the countries that actually supported that attack is undermining confidence in the US and ends up supporting the terrorists in Pakistan.

It's time to ignore all the raving religious fanatics (all faiths), including the "wingnuts" here in the USA. One common sense, humanity, and fairness will triumph over reactionary fearmongering.; Reply to this comment


by Kristi08854 October 15, 2009 2:33 PM EDT: www.Dearpolitician.org - Automated - Write your letters and they will deliver them to all the politicians you choose the same day. Quick way to be heard. Try it out!; Reply to this comment

by dnatech October 15, 2009 12:10 PM EDT

Looks like the neocon cowards are spitting filth again. The always want to make sure there is unending war while they sit back and smear other humans. The gave these terrorists money and guns from the American taxpayer so they could cause 9/11. Then they brag how they are going to create unending wars that they can't win and dig this country deeper and deeper into debt while they fraudulently suck money off the American taxpayers by creating dummy companies or using crooked companies like Haliburton pay off their cronies and themselves. Yes, neocons, UNAMERICAN COWARDS!

Reply to this comment


by JBARON79 October 15, 2009 2:13 PM EDT: ???
BBC, a neocon network...

by bubbadubba October 15, 2009 11:03 AM EDT

Mr. President, please rush this decision and do whatever the chickenhawks say because as GW Bush said " it's not me that will be getting killed, send as many troops as you want to".

Reply to this comment


by JBARON79 October 15, 2009 2:11 PM EDT: When did he say that???

by sjc_1 October 15, 2009 10:37 AM EDT

Let us hope that the BBC does not go the way of CNN and FOX in their reporting. We need as many credible news sources as possible, so the rush to have a scoop is not helping.

Reply to this comment


by stn_sage October 15, 2009 12:42 PM EDT: It wouldn't surprise me if this report is accurate!

Think about it...how do you tell a 'war weary' population...one that you promised to get OUT of the war...that you NOW want to EXPAND it by sending an additional 40,000 soldiers?!

Well...for one thing...you probably don't want to tell them, right away!

You want to make it look like you spent some time in deciding!

Maybe, the White House is just 'sore' at the BBC because they are correct! We'll find out, won't we?!


by JBARON79 October 15, 2009 2:14 PM EDT: Think about it...how do you tell a 'war weary' population...one that you promised to get OUT of the war...that you NOW want to EXPAND it by sending an additional 40,000 soldiers?!

When did Obama say he was ending the Afghan war???

by edgy44 October 15, 2009 10:12 AM EDT

It shouldn't take more than 8 hours to come to a decision on the war against savages. The war should go like this: we bring in a million troops (America and Europe), and we fan out of Kabul to disarm the people and move out in a front until they get to the Iran and Indian borders. Kill everything in sight that resists. Then train the remaining men to be soldiers and police in their new countries. When General Custer went out onto the plains, he killed everything in sight. That's why we call them states now, and not savages telling us how things are going to be. Get the troops out of Korea and move them to the front.

Reply to this comment


by JBARON79 October 15, 2009 2:20 PM EDT: Wow!

If there is a rascist on this site edgy is the model...

Native Americans are savages???

Where do you get your info?
Custer wound up scalped on the plains...

8 hours to determine a strategy???
There are plenty of jackasses on this site but you may take the prize...

by hungry1968-16 October 15, 2009 9:12 AM EDT

by G-I_Jesus October 15, 2009 9:09 AM EDT
People's Voice!

Why doesn't the U.S. conduct a survey of the woes and solutions in every region from the Afghan population themselves? These are the people who know best what is good for them and their country.

And let their voices be heard around the world!

And if the majority of the people WANT the Taliban and Al Qaeda back in power, then what?

Reply to this comment


by AOCGUY October 15, 2009 10:07 AM EDT: Al Qaida was never "in power" in Afghanistan. The Taliban was in power and during that time they allowed Al Qaida refuge in Afghanistan. Should or when we leave I have no doubt that the Taliban will attempt to retake power and probably will be successful. It remains to be seen whether Al Qaida will restabish its camps back in Afghanistan.

I suspect that a honest survey would reflect that the average Afghan would prefer that we would leave along with the remaining remenants of the Taliban. I seriously doubt most Afghans would like having teh Tailban back in power.


by hungry1968-16 October 15, 2009 9:10 AM EDT: by democracy1 October 15, 2009 7:07 AM EDT
Great! Then let those countries experience their OWN 9/11. Then they can get back to us.

We got attacked on 9/11 BECAUSE of our involvement in the middle east. Bin Laden himself said it's because we had troops in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia and because we support Israel in their campaign against the Palestinians.

Germany is now under the threat of attack because they have troops in Afghanistan, and they weren't threatened before.

The other nation's are doing the right thing - they're worrying about THEIR OWN safety and security, not everyone else's. I wish our government would do the same.; Reply to this comment


by G-I_Jesus October 15, 2009 9:09 AM EDT: People's Voice!

Why doesn't the U.S. conduct a survey of the woes and solutions in every region from the Afghan population themselves? These are the people who know best what is good for them and their country.

And let their voices be heard around the world!; Reply to this comment

by hungry1968-16 October 15, 2009 8:54 AM EDT

by democracy1 October 15, 2009 7:07 AM EDT
Great! Then let those countries experience their OWN 9/11. Then they can get back to us.

We got attacked on 9/11 BECAUSE of our involvement in the middle east. Bin Laden himself said it's because we had troops in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia and because we support Israel in their campaign against the Palestinians.

Germany is now under the threat of attack because they have troops in Afghanistan, and they weren't threatened before.

The other nation's are doing the right thing - they're worrying about THEIR OWN safety and security, not everyone else's. I wish our government would do the same.

Reply to this comment


by sjc_1 October 15, 2009 12:08 PM EDT: hungry,

Good post, some lose sight of why we are there and the root causes of the problem. Knowing why al Qaeda does things is NOT condoning their actions, but it can explain a few things. The U.S. has a blind spot as to cause and effect relationships, we seldom see that we may have contributed to the cause of the situation.


by JBARON79 October 15, 2009 2:26 PM EDT: Shame on us for supporting Saudi Arabia when THEY ASKED US TOO.
Shame on us for supporting Israel agianst numerous threats.
Shame on us for fighting in self defense.

We should all cower before these righteous freedom fighters!!!

They love freedom so much that they enslave their women & kill anyone who has a different view.

Now that's freedom...