Unplugged: Obama Adviser's Afghanistan Comment "Stunning"

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Washington Unplugged

On "Face the Nation" on Sunday, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said it was "hypothetical" that al Qaeda would return to Afghanistan if the Taliban were to regain control. Today on Washington Unplugged, CBS News' Washington Bureau Chief Chris Isham called that a "stunning comment" from Jones.

"To say it's hypothetical is wishful thinking," Isham told Washington Unplugged host John Dickerson. "It certainly was not hypothetical in 2001 when we went into Afghanistan initially to expel al Qaeda."

The administration may argue that al Qaeda is interested in exerting global influence while the Taliban is focused on Afghanistan, Isham said; however, the two groups are interconnected and dependent upon one another in many ways.

CBS News' Chief Political Consultant Marc Ambinder said Jones' comments reflect an attempt from the White House to neutralize both sides of the debate over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. President Obama has yet to say whether he agrees with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's military commander in Afghanistan, that troops should be increased, even though he promised during his presidential campaign to listen to his generals.

"Right now, quite frankly, Gen. McChrystal pretty much has all the cards," Ambinder said. Administration officials are "trying to give the White House a little bit of leverage in public opinion."

Washington Unplugged airs live every weekday at 12:30 p.m. ET. Watch today's episode, above, to hear Isham and Ambinder discuss Afghanistan, Iran and health care, and to catch a clip on Sen. Chuck Schumer's health care messaging.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

9 Comments +

Add a Comment


by Aldymac October 6, 2009 5:42 AM EDT: Stopping the bombing and making the troops not fire back or even have a round in the chamber until after you've been fired at is an old trick used by LBJ during the Viet Nam war. All we have to hear now is "Ma fellow Americans", and we can say; "yep, we've got a democrat in the WH, all they know how to do is get more Americans killed while they try to figure out how to make more money from it without making it look like it was planned."
If you are not going to try to win the people and win the war, then get out of the way and let the warriors be warriors. When the enemy puts the innocent between you and them, do you think the enemy is concerned about the innocent? Not in the least are they concerned. When they learn that the old trick is not usefull to them they will quit doing that, but as long as they have bleeding hearts sitting in their arm chairs, telling all who will listen that they have a better idea of how to win the war when they have no clue as to what those who are in harms way having to make a life or death decision in a split second are going through. Even the people who live there and have to make that decision daily 'because' of the taliban and al quida, have said to go ahead and shoot, WHY? because thats the only way you can beat that kind of enemy, and the Afgan people know it.
But don't expect Obama and his political cronies to make a decision to actually fight the war, all they are really interested in is passing legislation that will make the American people bow down to the government, and place all power into the hands of the politicians in the white house.
Give the warriors all they need to fight the battles, then get out of their way and let them fight, thats how you win wars. It will not be the military who is losing face, it is Obama who is losing face, not only at home, but abroad as well.; Reply to this comment


by verycold October 6, 2009 12:10 AM EDT: Obama fired the other commander because he relied too much on drone strikes. So he picked McCrystal and told us they had a new plan which I am assuming meant less drone strikes. The men getting killed there now are working the outposts with little protection. That would be changed with the new plan by McCrystal. I agree history looks bad with regards to winning in that country. But then Obama knew that when he ordered the 20,000 plus soldiers. The Karzi government is now deemed corrupt, but then we knew that a long time ago also. Pakistan is possibly doing more now, which is a good thing. I fail to see how the US can expect a positive outcome unless civilians are protected and brought into the mix. I am not saying it is easy.

I keep coming back to Obama's words that he repeated over and over again. Afghanistan is the "good"war, the "necessary" war. Why is it shocking that plan A didn't work. Don't wars typically have to remain fluid and adapt to the enemy?

One thing is for sure. This waiting around to decide is sending a terrible message to the troops and equally a positive message to the enemy.; Reply to this comment


by velma179 October 5, 2009 6:49 PM EDT: One reason I am against troop build up is history -- Afghanistan has long been a very difficult place for conventional armed forces to prevail in winning battles, much less wars.

But, the main reason is that I don't think it is reasonable to assume Al Qaeda is in only ONE place. Being that it is not a country, nor does it have allegiance to any one country -- it seems unreasonable to confine resources to stop it, to one country or region.

The people that were responsible for the 9-11 attacks had been in Germany as well as other European countries and in various US States. Yes, they must have been taking orders from a "central command"... but does anyone in this technological day and age think those orders were sent out on camels...?

I don't want more American lives lost nor any more Afghans turned against America when a "battle" turns their lives upside down. That is "recruitment 101" for the likes of Bin Laden and his ilk.

But, since I don't have all the facts (duh?) -- I will hope our leaders, both military and political make the best decisions based on definable results, not personalities or egos.

*********

Making America strong from within is, however, the FIRST imperative.; Reply to this comment

by sjc_1 October 5, 2009 6:34 PM EDT

I think the President might go for more troops in a redefined mission. Get bin Laden, eliminate the Al Qaeda and get as many Taliban as you can in the process. Get the Afghans to step up to defend their country and get the heck out ASAP.

Reply to this comment


by pleiku1 October 5, 2009 7:19 PM EDT: You won't get Afghans to step up if there aren't survivor and medical benefits for killed or wounded Afghan soldiers. I suspect the corruption level is so high that any assistance money if it exists is siphoned off by Karzai and the gang.

by velma179 October 5, 2009 5:35 PM EDT

Wow!

This is sad.

CBS News was once a place where the likes of Murrow, Cronkite and Russert were the voices.

Sheesh ...

"Right now, quite frankly, Gen. McChrystal pretty much has all the cards," Ambinder said. Administration officials are "trying to give the White House a little bit of leverage in public opinion."

That totally off base comment alone -- considering how public opinion is CLEARLY not in support of MORE military involvement in Afghanistan -- will be keeping me away from broadcasts featuring THIS guy.

CBS -- please step up... you WERE once the best.

Thanks

Reply to this comment


by velma179 October 5, 2009 5:39 PM EDT: Yikes... Russert was NBC -- but he was in the mold of the other great broadcast newsmen cited.


by velma179 October 5, 2009 8:23 PM EDT: MacMcKenzie

You assume much? I'm not a Democrat.

My comment referenced a statement made in the above article by a CBS pundit and my feelings about CBS' choice of voices over the years. I have no idea what ideology the man I quoted espouses... I simply disagree with his statement emphatically. I do believe that is my right as an American.

I certainly have to wonder if you actually read comments before you go off on a rant?

I guess not, and -- by the way -- anyone who calls the president "Obozo" doesn't matter in the scope of reasonable debate anyway.