WASHINGTON, Nov. 11, 2008
Obama To Rethink Afghan War Policy
New Administration May Open Talks With Iran, Plans To Reinvigorate Hunt For Bin Laden
-
Photo
Afghan men look at a vehicle which was damaged in a gunfight in Khoni Khowar in Khost province in eastern Afghanistan, Nov. 10, 2008. (AP Photo/Nashanuddin Khan)
-
Fast Facts
Afghanistan
Learn about the people, economy and history.
-
Special Report
War On Terror
Complete coverage of the military's battle against terrorism.
The incoming Obama administration plans to explore a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan -- including possible talks with Iran -- and looks favorably on the nascent dialogue between the Afghan government and "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban, according to Obama national security advisers.
President-elect Barack Obama also intends to renew the U.S. commitment to the hunt for Osama bin Laden, a priority the president-elect believes President Bush has played down after years of failing to apprehend the al-Qaeda leader. Critical of Bush during the campaign for what he said was the president's extreme focus on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan, Obama also intends to move ahead with a planned deployment of thousands of additional U.S. troops there.
The emerging broad strokes of Obama's approach are likely to be welcomed by a number of senior U.S. military officials who advocate a more aggressive and creative course for the deteriorating conflict. Taliban attacks and U.S. casualties this year are the highest since the war began in 2001.
Some military leaders remain wary of Obama's pledge to order a steady withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, to be completed within 16 months -- an order advisers say Obama is likely to give in his first weeks in office. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called a withdrawal timeline "dangerous." Others are distrustful of a new administration they see as unschooled in the counterinsurgency wars that have consumed the military for the past seven years.
But conversations with several Obama advisers and a number of senior military strategists both before and since last Tuesday's election reveal a shared sense that the Afghan effort under the Bush administration has been hampered by ideological and diplomatic constraints and an unrealistic commitment to the goal of building a modern democracy -- rather than a stable nation that rejects al-Qaeda and Islamist extremism and does not threaten U.S. interests. None of those who discussed the subject would speak on the record, citing sensitivities surrounding the presidential transition and the war itself.
As Obama begins to formulate his Afghan war policy, some senior military strategists have begun to question the U.S. commitment to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is expected to run for reelection next year but is widely considered weak and ineffective. Some European and NATO officials have suggested that an assembly of tribal elders should select the country's next leader, an idea the State Department has rejected.
Obama advisers have emphasized that a sharper focus on al-Qaeda does not mean pulling back on the Afghan ground war. Obama called early in the campaign for deploying two or three additional U.S. combat brigades to Afghanistan. Bush has already approved such an increase, although the timing of the deployments, likely to begin next spring, depends on the drawdown of forces from Iraq.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mullen, frustrated by the performance of NATO allies whose troops make up more than half the total foreign force in Afghanistan, have already planned for a more overt and forceful U.S. leadership role in the war, as well as more direct involvement by U.S. forces in fighting the Taliban in southern and western Afghanistan.
Some NATO military officials said enhanced U.S. leadership would be welcome, as long as it was not seen as a "takeover bid," said one senior European officer whose country has troops fighting as part of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. While the U.S. military has long criticized some NATO members for lacking combat zeal and expertise in Afghanistan, many European officers resent what they see as U.S. arrogance.
The NATO officer suggested that Obama, whose election was greeted with wide approval in Europe, may have more success than Bush in persuading other alliance members to increase their fighting forces in Afghanistan. "I think you'll find the new president would then be able to persuade a number of European nations who have not liked this administration's way of doing business to come in behind them," he said.
At Mullen's direction, the map of the Afghanistan battle space is being redrawn to include the tribal regions of western Pakistan. U.S. military and intelligence leaders have delivered forceful messages to Pakistani officials on the need to step up attacks against Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in their territory.
Obama, advisers said, plans to intensify the U.S. military and intelligence focus on al-Qaeda and bin Laden. Intelligence officials say the search is already as intensive as ever, even as they emphasize that the decentralized al-Qaeda network would remain a threat without him. Bush administration officials have publicly played down the importance of a single individual in the broad sweep of their anti-terrorism offensive.
By Karen DeYoung
© 2008 The Washington Post Company





- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 162 CommentsI suggest he try something the Bush administration didn''t try......winning it.....
taken from gov site off Google moments ago.....and that probably does not include the millions of illegals here.
Now what did the Afghan people do to us? Do they grow poppies and ship their product to the USA? Seems like all our leaders and military folk think that they must have some country to invade and use their war toys so they can build bigger and better ones. Maybe some intellectual conversations with other leaders would make a difference.
It is not just Obama that is being tested, but the Democratic Party as well. The next election will not go to either Repub or Dems if we cannot resolve these war issues for civilized people are fed up with senseless killing.
out of Poland.
Second, forget Osama.
Third, stop listening to the military.
Fourth, then respond to EXACTLY what
happens in REALITY,,,NOT to what those
in the military who, even after six
years of their "expertise", cant leave Iraq
without Iraq going up like your favorite
ballpark fireworks show SAY will happen.
The generals are owned by the war profiteering
companies just as Bush is.
And what''s Obama going to do about our
Blackwater thugs???
I''ll tell you what!,,,He''ll never even
mention them!!
We''ve turned into a warring nation and
Obama is showing first signs that
he''s about to be caught up in it.
Just get out of Iraq and SEE what happens!!
Reality would prove lottsa people wrong!
Posted by mr22587 at 08:13 AM
Oh now, I wouldn''t misunderestimate him if I were you....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by mr22587 at 08:13 AM : Nov 11, 2008
---------------------
Obama is over whose head?
Posted by mr22587
Hell hath no wrath like a Republican who has been scorned!
Posted by ray999999
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
I wonder how many of us think he needs to get our troops out and still make sure Iraq is secure. Because if Iraq is taken over by the taliban then 4000 troops lives would have been wasted and yes i am sure the left will find a way to blame Bush but it will be on Obama''s head far as I am concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by demswin08 at 08:51 AM : Nov 11, 2008
--------------------------------
demswin08 - sorry for your loss. My wife and I lost our''s 2.5 years ago to an illness and the pain remains strong. You are correct - we had no business in Iraq. A preemptive strike on a country that was no threat to us is not only unethical, but unforgivable. That doesn''t take away the good your son did or his bravery for volunteering to go overseas.
Posted by demswin08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You and the left are so narrow minded all you think is 9/11. I don''t claim to know reason be hind every thing but we are there we have lost 4000 troops it is a tragedy but it would be even more of a tragedy to spit on the graves of those 4000 soldiers and say they died for nothing and not keep Iraq free.
You may beleive they already died for nothing in your eyes but make a trip to Iraq on your own and talk to the iraqi''s and see if they beleive this was a useless war. They lived under a dictator for years that would slaughter them for opposing the governmen, you do realize if our government was that way the left would be eliminated for the treasonist statements they make about our president. But instead we have the freedom to be an absolute idiot.
As for Afghanistan, he''s already proven he''s a sexist, so what does it matter if his "solution" plunges women back into slavery, deprivation and death. So basically, he''s willing to let the Taliban rise again and women can start being shot in the head for leaving their houses without a male relative escorting them.
As for Afghanistan, he''''s already proven he''''s a sexist, so what does it matter if his "solution" plunges women back into slavery, deprivation and death. So basically, he''''s willing to let the Taliban rise again and women can start being shot in the head for leaving their houses without a male relative escorting them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by differnet at 09:18 AM : Nov 11, 2008
---------------------------------------------
gw is responsible for the fiasco in Iraq. It is hard to imagine Iraq being any worse with us out of there.
I think Obama has indicate putting more troops in Afghanistan so I don''t know what you mean by his solution will put them in darkness bunk. Do you make this up as you go? Kinda like gw?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by demswin08
Vietnam Veteran and we would have wished we had it so good (Iraq)try being a tunnel rat in a jungle. It wasn''t about the troops it was about our fearing leader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by
its amazing how libs expect and demand iraqi citizens to be self responsible but think american citizens should be taken care of by the government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jamesm12341 at 10:05 AM : Nov 11, 2008
-----------------------------------------
Not only do you use "libs" as if it is a derogatory term, you catagorize anyone not agreeing with you as a lib and know what they think. I admit, I too make generalizations, such as anyone that voted for gwb twice must place their own personal agendas above the USA''s good, but I''m trying. I have seen some very gracious and patriotic repubs talk highly of obama even though they voted for mccain. They seem to want the country to be what it was before gw came into play. Of course, when they lost the election they did not lose to someone of gwb''s questionable character!
I really don''t care what happens in Iraq after we leave - we should have never been there in the first place. I also think the goverment is responsible for the well being of its citizens just as the citizens are responsible for the well being of the government. We have not had a good relationship between the government and the citizens for the past 8 years. That is hopefully going to change - it can''t get any worse!
You are Crazy. He is not talking about pulling out of Afghanistan,only Iraq.
And who are we to tell people how to live. Afghani''''s have lived this way since the times of Christ who are we to challenge their religious beliefs and tell them they are wrong.
We only went after the Taliban because they refused to help reel in Bin Laden and they Harbored Al-Qaeda and refused to let us come and get them. We didn''''t care about how they treated their women or how they dressed them.That was a non-issue.
As for the being sexist you confuse Obama with Mccain
Posted by demswin08 at 09:29 AM : Nov 11, 2008
Yes, a sexist. When you stand around and say nothing to stop discrimination then you are as guilty as the people who commit the discrimination. Not once did Obama call for his supporters to stop the sexism towards Clinton or Palin. He inculcated the misogyny. Plus one has only to look at the pay rate disparity between McCain''s staff and Obama''s. Moreover, when his campaign was approached about women being on his cabinet and asked for parity, they claimed that they probably wouldn''t be able to find enough qualified women. So, out of 300,000,000 Americans, he can''t find 10 qualified women to serve. Yeah, right. He''s a sexist. Sorry to make you face facts.
Posted by douglas_dunn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I am sure you were watching MSNBC or the other left leaning networks, so you got the true look at what our soldiers have accomplished in Iraq. I have great sadness at every soldiers life that was lost there. But I have even greater saddest at the propaganda the left news spread they are so hell bent on keeping people hating this war they never report the great accomplishments of our soldiers over there.
The left leaning media and Murtha''s of the world show so much disrespect for the soldiers who fight and died in Iraq it is disgraceful. Not once have you seen the left leaning media report about the success of the war they are to determined to keep you on the left hating this war.
Again "demswin08" there is nothing I can say about your loss that will make a difference I have never experienced that kinda loss. But I do know if I did I would not want that loss to go invein because of propaganda by a news media.
Posted by IwasHungry68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right they have acomplished nothing there sorry for arguing the point. The left leaning media''s right it is total chaos there lets just get out of there now.
Oops forgot maybe you should read this article might help you realise there is more going on there than you see on MSNBC.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L960O0&show_article=1
It was not in vein and I don''''t feel it was because he inlisted after the war started in god faith that he was doing the right thing and died thinking the same.
I have a second Son that is there as we speak.
My point has been this bush doctrine of attack before your attacked or pre-emtive war.
Where I come from there needs to be a threat of attack before you strike back. This was just palin bullying on the part of Bush to make the rest of the world FEAR the U.S. and do as we wanted them to do.
Posted by demswin08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See there is the problem you all think I am arguing Bush was right for attacking Iraq I am not saying anyting of the sort. All I am saying is we are they we made the decision to be there now we have an obligation to finish what we started. I understand it is expensive and I dread one more soldier dieing but do we really want to say 4000 died for nothing. Just so we can make Bush look worse than he already does.
Posted by datnewchimp at 10:48 AM : Nov 11, 2008
I believe that you are in serious need of a history lesson, my friendz! It was during George W. Bush''s reign that the stance seems to have been softened toward capturing and/or killing Osama Bin Laden. And most of the intentions were redirected to Iraq! Of course, that is understandable, considering Bush and his daddy, George H. W. Bush, can count among their friends and former/current business associates family members of Bin Laden''s family.
Things that make you go hmmmm-mmm-mm!!
Posted by Mccain08NC at 10:56 AM : Nov 11, 2008
Your thinking on the matter of staying the course regardless is just as faulty today, as it was during the Vietnam war. Because of that reasoning, ie to stay the course even though it was quite evident the war would be lost......we lost 50,000+ of our young men and women! Was that worth it? You are entitled to your own opinion....of course!
God help us when they all PMS at the same time. We will need to place those launch codes in Fort Knox.
Now that was sexist did it make you mad.
Posted by demswin08 at 11:03 AM : Nov 11, 2008
Well, if you want to tell kids that ANYONE can be President, then I suppose you need to include those kids who are female. At this point, I would be happy with a 30% solution to legislation, executive and judicial branches. Seems resonable. Women represent 51% of the population, but effectively have less representation than minority groups in the USA.
I have heard that Clinton and Sebelius are on his list of picks for positions though.
Posted by demswin08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I think what the other person is saying goes in the same lines I have heard said about the NFL.(poor analogy but follow me here). It is said because the NFL has more white head coaches than black they being racist for passing the qualified black coaches. So of course if some one feels there are qualified women or blacks for a position they going to make acusations of racism or sexism. But nobody can say what goes through the decision process.
Has anyone told you the womens lib movement died in the 80''''s.
Posted by demswin08 at 10:58 AM : Nov 11, 2008
Let me guess demswin08. Your divorced and unhappy. You haven''t ever had a successful relationship with a woman.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 162 Comments