Obama To Rethink Afghan War Policy

New Administration May Open Talks With Iran, Plans To Reinvigorate Hunt For Bin Laden

(Washington Post)  One week after the election, the Obama team is far from fleshing out how it will bring bin Laden closer to the forefront of the U.S. counterterrorism agenda, both rhetorically and substantively. Although Obama last week received his first high-level intelligence briefing as president-elect, members of his national security transition teams are still studying briefing materials the Bush administration has prepared for them. They have yet to fully examine available military and intelligence resources and how they are currently being used, and have not yet plotted their diplomatic approach to Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence officials believe bin Laden is hiding.

While emphasizing the importance of continuing U.S. operations against Pakistan-based Taliban fighters who attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the incoming administration intends to remind Americans how the fight against Islamist extremists began -- on Sept. 11, 2001, before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars -- and to underscore that al-Qaeda remains the nation's highest priority. "This is our enemy," one adviser said of bin Laden, "and he should be our principal target."

Obama said during the campaign that his administration would explore talks with countries such as Iran and Syria, rejecting bedrock Bush policy and rhetoric that some U.S. military officials believe may have outlived their usefulness.

Iran, on Afghanistan's western border, has played a mixed role over the years, at times indirectly cooperating with U.S. objectives and at times assisting the extremists. The Bush administration has kept Tehran at arm's length, but "as we look to the future, it would be helpful to have an interlocutor" to explore shared objectives, said one senior U.S. military official. The Iranians "don't want Sunni extremists in charge of Afghanistan any more than we do," he said.

Advisers also said Obama is open to supporting discussions between the Afghan government and "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban, a nascent effort of which the State Department has been fairly dismissive. Although it supports the terms the Afghan government has laid down -- abandoning violence and accepting the Afghan constitution -- the Bush administration sees "no serious indication from anybody on the Taliban side that they're interested," Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher said. "They keep hijacking buses, killing people and chopping their heads off. These are not people who have shown any serious desire to negotiate."

But the Pentagon, at least rhetorically, has left the door open wider. Senior officers describe a substantial portion of Taliban foot soldiers as more opportunistic than ideologically committed. Gates has spoken openly about the possibility of reconciliation, saying, "at the end of the day, that's how most wars end. . . . That's ultimately the exit strategy for all of us." Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said during a recent visit to Washington that the idea of "reconciliation, I think, is appropriate, and we'll be there to provide support within our mandate."

At the White House, presidential adviser Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute is leading an interagency assessment of the Afghanistan war, scheduled to be finished this month, that administration officials said will focus on enhancing support for provincial and local governments and building the Afghan police. Lute plans to travel to Brussels to summarize the review for NATO.

At the Pentagon, Mullen is overseeing an Afghanistan and Pakistan transition strategy and force-structure review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former Iraq commander sworn in last month as head of the U.S. Central Command, is drawing up plans for his wider new responsibilities, which include Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mullen and Petraeus will remain in place when the Bush administration's civilian policymakers leave office in January. Petraeus, a senior Defense official said, has indicated he agrees with Obama's more regional approach to Afghanistan and welcomes "a debate about goals and how much is enough" in terms of nation-building there. "We are not going to seize the flag there and go home to a victory parade," this official said.

[veteranx-2009]

ajaxtheleast: you got that right. Who in their right mind would deploy UNPROVEN missiles into a country in which we have no strategic interest? Oh, that''s right, Bush would do it. Get those missiles OUT. The Russians have every right to be concerned about them. Deployment of ABM missiles only increase instability.

[popstom12]

Blacks are just as racest as whites if not more

[daffy64]

Obama''''s campaign was well managed and using psychological tactics, stage training, etc. convinced people that he was the "One."

Now, that he is in, he is already changing his promises but I will give him a chance to actually govern a bit before I claim that he is one big mistake that we will all live to regret (except for the fact that we did vote for a mixed race President).

When is grandma''''s funeral?

--

So what in the world will you do if this "mixed race" person governs wisely and effectively? Give up racism?

I doubt it.

Obama''''s campaign was well managed and using psychological tactics, stage training, etc. convinced people that he was the "One."

Now, that he is in, he is already changing his promises but I will give him a chance to actually govern a bit before I claim that he is one big mistake that we will all live to regret (except for the fact that we did vote for a mixed race President).

When is grandma''''s funeral?

Posted by Joule18
---
How absolutely big of you. I bet you are the kind of person who would insist upon a fair trial before the hanging. And what possible use is it to you to know when grandma''s funeral is? You have no intention of attending, it''s being a little too late to put her on trial. Unless you have a whole lot more influence after death than I credit you with. Who knows, you do seem preoccupied with the elements of judgment and death. Are you sure you want to mess with someone we all believe to be The One?

[kevnkar]

If Americans didn''''t buy the Hummers, the SUV''''s and the other gas guzzlers, GM wouldn''''t build them
Posted by Joule18

I think that the main problem is that all cars are way overpriced. No mass produced vehicle should ever cost 50 to 60 thousand like all of these SUVs do.

[joule18]

Obama''s campaign was well managed and using psychological tactics, stage training, etc. convinced people that he was the "One."

Now, that he is in, he is already changing his promises but I will give him a chance to actually govern a bit before I claim that he is one big mistake that we will all live to regret (except for the fact that we did vote for a mixed race President).

When is grandma''s funeral?

[kevnkar]

erich_1,

He certainly does have a hard job ahead. I hope that he is half of what his supporters believe he is but I just don''t see anything more than a cult of personality. This country is indeed in a mess and it didn''t just get this way in 8 years either. Tbings have been piling up for a long time and the list of the things that got us here is long indeed. We all had a hand in it.

[joule18]

If Americans didn''t buy the Hummers, the SUV''s and the other gas guzzlers, GM wouldn''t build them.


Wake up Posted by IwasHungry68 at 04:00 PM : Nov 11, 2008. The unions are descimating our businesses by blackmailing them into submission. A long walk-out by trained assembly line employees that would keep their product off the market for an extended period of time, or raises in pay and benefits that will allow them to continue for awhile.

It''s all caught up with the auto mfgs now and they can no longer borrow to pay everything that they agreed to.

It would have cost less to hire new people who would have appreciated having a job to support their family instead of union backed employees who never think they have enough.

[erich_1-2009]

Kevnkar,

I didn''t vote for President Elect Obama. Though, I will certainly pray for him. He is going to have a very difficult job! We don''t need to throw stones at each other.

[joule18]

At least on Fox News we get to hear both sides of an argument rather than the one side some people feel is acceptable.

[erich_1-2009]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80003

This was sent to me that goes along with that subject.
It says that the U.S. Treasury is teaching Sharia Law.

[kevnkar]

We should not act as hateful as the Left acts.

It does really make one wonder what they are smoking stating stuff like this in one breath and saying that we need to be more partisan in the other. It really shows them to be a pack of liars.


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

Posted by erich_1

I agree with you. All lefties are not idiots just as not all conservatives are. It is easy to talk about bipartisanship when you are basically unopposed isn''t it? Did you ever notice that when you post something intelligent of factual, the room goes silent. You can almost hear the hatefullo name callers scratching their collective heads.

[joule18]

November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that "it will purchase $40 billion of newly issued AIG preferred shares," which, as AP reports, will give "taxpayers an ownership stake in the company."

The Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department apparently believe that American taxpayers owning part of company with a business that promotes an Islamic supremacist ideology that is against equality, against liberty, and in support of discrimination, is a good thing for the American taxpayer.

[joule18]

On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department decided that they were going to use American taxpayer money to buy ownership in something against America''s values of equality and liberty -- by purchasing ownership in a company with a Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) based business.

As an American taxpayer, you are now a part owner in a business that promotes the Islamic supremacist Sharia ideology - whether you like it or not. Your tax dollars today are now being used for own part of a company with a Sharia-based business. This is the same Sharia ideology that was used by the Taliban in Pakistan today to murder a woman for adultery, the same Sharia ideology that was used to murder a 13 year old girl last week who was raped in Somalia, and the same Sharia ideology supported by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists around the world. It is an ideology that is against the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. It is an ideology that even the British courts have called "discriminatory."

[joule18]

This is potentially the greatest threat our country is now facing. There is over one trillion dollars a year generated in profits in Islamic Shariah Law governed countries from oil. Much has been coming to Wall Street and now that our country is in desperate need of cash this can become the 21st century "Trojan Horse." Jihad with money. This must be stopped. Please take the time to view this urgent video. The present economic challenges our country face elevate the importance of addressing this now before it is too late. The United States can not be allowed to become another Denmark. Please circulate this link widely.

http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/home/18-headline-item/518-shariah-compliant-finance-jihad-with-money

[erich_1-2009]

We should not act as hateful as the Left acts.

It does really make one wonder what they are smoking stating stuff like this in one breath and saying that we need to be more partisan in the other. It really shows them to be a pack of liars.

[kevnkar]

Strange, a whole bunch of posts just disappeared.

[kevnkar]

) what is an "equestion"?
Posted by slownewsdaze

A question posted on the internet?
Actually, in defense of tex, my keyboard gets stupid sometimes too!

[triplet-man]

HOW freakin'' Conveinient. Let the "CHANGE" begin. He''s already backing up on one of his campaign promises? Did anyone keep track of all the "rambling" promises he made so that we can check up on them over the next 2 yrs.
Does anyone want to bet against me? That he is a crooked politician just like all the rest? CHange? Huh? Change his mind whenever he wants... that kind of change?

[kevnkar]

Too much of any one groups ideas is not good. That is why the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances. They would work better if the politicians weren''t carrying around a bunch of lobbies and corporate interests in their back pockets.