Military Ready To Implement Obama's Plans

Joint Chiefs Chairman Says Forces Are Ready To Shift From Iraq To Afghanistan

(CBS/AP)  The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday the Defense Department is developing plans to get troops quickly out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to battle a more confident and successful Taliban.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Associated Press in an interview that the military can make the changes President-elect Barack Obama wants in both wars.

"I've been listening to the campaign, and I understand," Mullen said. "And he has certainly reinforced that since the election, so from a planning standpoint, we are looking at that as well."

Mullen, once a critic of Obama's plan to pull combat forces from Iraq in 16 months, said the Pentagon has already identified and practiced travel routes out of Iraq along exit routes through Turkey and Jordan.

The governments in those two bordering countries are U.S. allies, and Mullen said they support the withdrawal planning effort.

Mullen, who is halfway through a two-year term, said he expects to stay on next year as the new administration takes office, adding, "We all serve at the pleasure of the president. I'll serve as long as he wants me to."

Obama has said he wants to assemble a national security team quickly. He has not yet named a candidate for defense secretary - the top civilian leader at the Pentagon.

The current defense secretary, Robert Gates, is often mentioned as an option for Obama. If Gates stayed it would provide the continuity and stability Obama has said he wants in his national security operations, but neither man has discussed the possibility publicly.

Pentagon officials, including Mullen, have consistently rejected timelines for pulling troops out of Iraq, saying that any withdrawal must be based on security conditions in Iraq. At the same time, military leaders have said they need 15,000 to 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan - including four more combat brigades.

Obama, who has called Afghanistan an "urgent crisis," said in a speech Oct. 22 that "it's time to heed the call" from U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, for more U.S. troops. Obama said he would send at least two or three additional combat brigades. One combat brigade typically has 3,500-4,000 soldiers.

In his first television interview after winning the presidency, Obama told 60 Minutes Steve Croft, "as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops (in Iraq). Particularly in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, which has continued to worsen. We've got to shore up those efforts." (Watch the interview.)

Obama also has called for more training of Afghan security forces as well as more nonmilitary assistance.

Mullen said he is working to get as many troops into Afghanistan as quickly as possible and noted he is not surprised that Taliban leaders said this week that they would not entertain settlement talks with the Afghan government as long as foreign forces remained in the country.

"It's my belief that you negotiate from a position of strength and right now the Taliban is doing pretty well," said Mullen. "I think that's important as we discuss how we negotiate, and with whom we negotiate, that we do so from a position of strength."

Mullen would not disclose how many combat brigades and additional support forces he will be able to get to Afghanistan by next spring, when the military expects to face another offensive by militants.

While Mullen acknowledged that troops in the northern city of Mosul are still in a tough fight, he said commanders are confident that they will be able to turn the city over to the Iraqis by next June.

Under the security agreement now before the Iraqi Parliament, U.S. troops must be out of the cities by June 2009, and leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

Giving the Iraqis control of Baghdad will also be doable, but challenging, he said.

While violence has plunged in the capital city, there are still frequent, dramatic attacks, more often targeted at Iraqi citizens.

He also has to address logistical challenges in removing forces from Iraq. Noting the huge amount of equipment and infrastructure under the U.S. flag in Iraq, Mullen said planners are looking at what would move and when.

Mullen indicated that some infrastructure, along with residual forces responsible for counterterrorism operations and continuing training of Iraqi forces, could remain beyond Obama's 16-month timeline.

"In the last several months, he said, military officials have looked at "the totality of what we have there and what would it take to move it out. Generally the answer is two to three years."

There are currently 151,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and 32,000 in Afghanistan, including 14,500 with the NATO-led coalition, and 17,500 who are fighting insurgents and training Afghan forces.

[rational_1]

Sounds like Obama is now jumping on the surge bandwagon (the Afghanistan surge bandwagon).

[gramto8]

You haven''t been listening very well for the past several months, have you? Obama has been saying for a long time that more troops were needed in Afghanistan and that he would pull troops from Iraq and move them to there. That is where the war should have stayed to start with. There was no good reason for attacking Iraq and there is no good reason to remain in Iraq.

Obama hasn''t changed his mind, or altered anything he promised. He is merely following what he has said for a long time.

[kansas1946]

soon enough the liberals would realize that they were had...again.


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

Posted by obamasNUTZ at 09:51 PM : Nov 18, 2008
+ report abuse
***********************************

Hardly. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan from day one instead of engaging in the Iraq fiasco. After all, that is where the folks were who attacked us, not Iraq. Because of Bush''s failed policies, we have lost many, if not most, of the gains we made in Afghaistan in the first place. If you voted for Bush, it is your judgement that should be in question, not those who voted for Obama.

[legacyabq]

what are you guys talking about?

Everyone, on both "sides" of govt has been saying for months that we need to shift focus to afghanistan.

Trying to criticize obama is just making you look silly..
Honestly, situations change, and we must change with them to fight this war on terror.
What''s the big deal?
You should give up your immature obama bashing.
We have work to do, dont you see?

[ubrew12]

"Forces Are Ready To Shift From Iraq To Afghanistan"

Are they ready to shift from half a trillion dollars a year back to $300 billion (which is where Clinton left them)? Cuz, that''s where we''re going. We just can''t afford them anymore.

[nearl4511]

The military was ready for this move long ago. That is one reason why Obama got rave ratings among military personnel he met with on his trip to Iraq.


Psst. They were ready for Rumsfeld to leave about 4 years earlier than he actually did, as well.

[lemonskink]

One last time I am going to tell all of you who fear the government taking your guns. They won''t. You have the right. However, you do not have the right to have the bullets, and they''d simply control the sale, the amount you can have, and they could order them not to be sold at all if they choose. You my friends would then have nice wooden, and metal clubs.

[evian_ycnan]

The US military is the antithesis of the ideals under which this country was founded. The have a strict cast system (officers and enlisted with ranks), their own legal system (outside the Constitution and common law), and their own investigative and prison system. A "jury" is alway comprised of "high ranking" officers.

Why would we ever expect these people to defend the Constitution and not the UCMJ?

This is a dangerous group.

[evian_ycnan]

Shifting troops? I thought we were bringing them home! What happened to change, change, change? That was all a bunch of BS, wasn''''t it? Who could have guessed?

Posted by DeckardBR at 08:56 PM : Nov 18, 2008

The reality is the country is run by the military. This announcement is a backhanded command from the Pentagon.

[zietzke-2009]

I agree with the President elect.....Out of Iraq !

Post a few brigades in Afghanistan for a short while to get Bin Laden......Then, get the hell out of the whole area. They don''t like us and they don''t appreciate that U.S. troops are dying for them. Enough is enough !

For too long, we as a country have been the Worlds policeman. It is time we spend our money on our children, schools, new energy, global warming, roads, space exploration...instead of killing other peoples children in futile conflicts that only result in our country and our people being further hated and despised.

[evian_ycnan]

Time for the military to stand down. It is time to disassemble the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about. We are NOT a democracy any longer, we are inches shy of a military dictatorship.

Adm Mullens isn`t anticipating Obama`s orders, he`s crafting the command from behind the screen.

[ramos937]

This confirms it. The treaty now being debated in Iraq''s parliment is null and void. Obama will not honor it. Good for him and God Bless America.

[ajaxtheleast]

It''s plain that no president that we could
have elected was going to deviate from Bush''s
protection of our future oil pipe lines in
Afghanistan no matter the pretend "war"
they would have to invent to
carry it out.

If a country cant defend themselves from
terrorists let the terrorists take over the
country.

Would people rather live under a government
not unlike many now existing governments,
of which there are many, or be dead
from bombings, drone missiles and
50-caliber machine gun bullits,,??

Many here have tried to inform of the
reality of our planned oil pipelines
through Afghanistan but they still think
that America is merely trying to keep a
terrorist group from taking over
another country.

That being the case we''d be all over the
world battling terrorists trying to take
over countries.

But what a coincedence!!

In Afghanistan here we got us a war right
in the same country where we also got
big plans to pipeline the black gold
directly to our friends and neighbors.

Will random happenstance ever
cease to astound !!!

[guadalcanal3]

We are not in Afghanistan because of oil people...If it were not for 9/11 we would have never sent troops to that "Godforsaken" place...That why Al Qaeda had it''s training bases there to begin with...Al Qaeda thought they were basically safe from any major U.S. involvement there...If we had to go to war over oil...Venezuela would be the logical choice..it''s close to home and far easier logistically...This war has never been about oil...this war is about defeating terrorism...so 9/11 does not happen again...anybody who thinks otherwise just doesn''t get it.

[woodjd42]

anybody who thinks otherwise just doesn''''t get it.


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

Posted by guadalcanal3

It is you that just don''t get it. Go back and review the facts and history and you may discover that all this started many many years ago and 9-11 was only a means to this whole mess.

[violist47]

Obama also wants NATO to do a lot more in Afghanistan, especially those NATO countries like Germany which are trying to stay out of combat and do more rebuilding. This does not sit well with Germany. Obama came right out and said this in Berlin. He''s not shifting. He''s doing what he has always said he would do.

[FHMullane]

Holder may want gun control but they are NOT going to take law abiding persons guns. Maybe a bit more accountability. So, if you are honest and have nothing to hide this should not bother you. If you are bothered I question your character at the very least. If the shoe fits.... Don''t show your stupidity with this gun scare ***. The gun dealers have done a rousing business out of promoting this kind of fear.

[u-r-right]

And why are we in Afghanistan again? Because of the way they treat their women? Taliban? Other?

How about we drum up some coalition troops first to help foot the bill and provide support if this problem indeed affects the whole world? We can''t afford to be the world police force anymore.

[earache4]

CUT&RUN
Posted by Hackerpc at 07:00 AM

You''re right. We should stay until we find those pesky WMD''s.....

[wardoglrs]

Welcome to Obama hell And he aint my prez

[tincup356]

who''s afraid of some third world terrorists,attacking America when we have our own government destroying this country faster than any attack could, Congress and Paulson are just the icing on the cake after 5 years of the lie war, that caused a ripple effect in everything we do ultimately causing the downfall of economics.

[soul_guider]

Anyone interested should check this info, http://infowars.com/articles/terror/russert_why_bush_keep_referring_to_al_qaeda_in_iraq.htm and I''m sure there will be a lot of people with broken hearts an a sudden change of how they feel about america once they find out 9/11 was a joke, a means to start these wars that eventually leads to ww3. WW3 hmmm oh yea if you keep up with the news you''ll realize we are in ww3 now and pretty far though it. I do have a good question though, what good is the UN if it can''t act under it''s own ability? I mean isn''t the UN supposed to be a body that protects international law? Or is it something thats there for the U.S. to be able to make war with? What is Al Qaeda really you ask? here is a small sample of it''s true meaning and a link with more info if it doesn''t get taken off by cbs, "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I''m going to the toilet". http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.html?q=fakealqaeda.html Enjoy the info!

[tincup356]

After taking the American citizens to the cleaners for the last 8 years, I don''t think anyone is so stupid as to even think about trying to take away gun rights at this time.Many citizens are aware of how liberties and rights have been taken in the name of the war on terror....And after watching wall st and congress rob the people so bad.......I don''t think they ought to be pushing their luck too much, they are about out of free space when it comes to what the people will allow now.

[olivia4441]

In the last several months, he said, military officials have looked at "the totality of what we have there and what would it take to move it out. Generally the answer is two to three years."


NO, Obama wanted them out immediately..why do people lie so much?

[babooph]

A strong commander in chief will feel odd for the generals after 8 years of incompetence.

[impeach___w]

There Will be an attack NOV 26-28.

Isreal may be attacking Iran.

Someone will be attacked. This is not an Obama Idea.

Just Circle those dates.

[evian_ycnan]

If you took the time to study US military history you would (MAYBE) see that colonial militias and military men were HOW THIS COUNTRY GOT ITS START AND BROKE AWAY FROM THE BRITISH YOU IMBECILE! I guess you were sleeping when that kindergarten class was given. Of course you are too dumb to have comprehended anyway.

Posted by Moron at 07:17 AM : Nov 19, 2008

And these militias bore a resemblance to today''s military in which respects? The UCMJ? That they were HUGE in times of peace?

The US military denies *** the right to serve. I missed where that is excepted in the "equal protection clause".

The modern US military (post-1950) with its own laws and courts outside the purview of the DoJ has nothing in common with the military that stood down between wars, and when in times of peace came under civil rule.

The current military, thanks to Truman, is at constant war and maintains that stature. We will eventually be a military dictatorship.

Get USED to it!

[babooph]

How can they leave so soon -the mass destruction arms have not yet been located !

[hitoyou1]

Just what we need a no bodsy that knows nothing, Obama, telling the Military what to do. We are in TROUBLE. He is worst than BUSH.

[bailthisout]

demswin08, Soul_Guider - And here ladies and gentlemen are the two biggest morons in America.
-----------------------------------
Posted by guyfrompa49

So true, so true. I believe these mentally imbalanced individuals should be ordered into mental institutions and the keys thrown away.

[omnibus66]

The generals sing the song that the POTUS plays. If they don''t, they don''t last long.

[perk235]

Losing ground in Afghanistan and no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. $1 trillion dollars later.

I only hope the oil companies and privatized war companies got all the money they wanted out of this so we can concentrate on our domestic infrastructure and growth soon.

[armydog2]

Good, bush wasted all these lives and money and time in Iraq now it is time to focus on the real enemy, bin laden, you folks remember him the guy bush said wasn''t important, you know the one who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks that killed so many civilians in our Country.
The Military won''t know how to act with a competent Commander in Chief after 8 years of a complete moron!

[sunbum33919]

Take your gun and stick it in your A--------------. People don''''t need GUNS.
***************
People may not "need" guns but the Constitution of the U.S. gives us the right to own them. It''s not a matter of need - it''s a matter of our rights.

[aldon61]

Welcome to Obama hell And he aint my prez


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

Posted by WarDogLRS at 07:28 AM : Nov 19, 2008

If you''re an american, YES he is! I hate the Bush policies and despise his legacy. But while he''s in office, he''s MY president, as he is yours. Both were elected by the american people to serve as president and therefore they''re everyone''s president, you can''t just elect to "opt out". Don''t like him? campaign against his re-election, that''s the american way....IF you''re an american!

[aldon61]

People may not "need" guns but the Constitution of the U.S. gives us the right to own them. It''''s not a matter of need - it''''s a matter of our rights.


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

Posted by sunbum33919 at 10:16 AM : Nov 19, 2008

I totally agree with your post!

[aldon61]

There Will be an attack NOV 26-28.

Isreal may be attacking Iran.

Someone will be attacked.

Just Circle those dates.


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

Posted by impeach___w at 11:43 AM : Nov 19, 2008

Curiousity impels me to ask why these dates? I know there has been speculation about Iran and Israel going to war, but is there a specific clue that you have? Please share.

[cheteunice]

Which one? The plan? The flip flop of the plan? Or the flip flop to the flip flop of the plan?

[cheteunice]

aldon61, The Democrats opted out for most of the last 8 years and when they got control of the COngress, Pelosi and all couldn''t get anything done!

[zykracosmos]

People may not "need" guns but the Constitution of the U.S. gives us the right to own them. It''''''''s not a matter of need - it''''''''s a matter of our rights.


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

Posted by sunbum33919 at 10:16 AM : Nov 19, 2008

I totally agree with your post!
--------------------------

You know what... most people don''t really care if you own guns or not. But it is a signed of paranoid insecurity to always be worried that someone is going to come runnin in your house and take your toys away from you. I mean really now. Don''t you have anything else to worry about? But as long as you''re reading the Constitution (good sign- you can read), let me know when you join that state militia referred to in the same exact sentence that provides the right to bear arms, so I can congratulate you. We need another organized armed service division like the National Guard for the next Republican president to send overseas to defend Exxon''s oil supply.

[benobana]

I read these posts about who should do what, who should have guns, exxon''s oil, not America needs this oil. If any of you ever sat down and learned what these Terrorists are figfhting for and dieing for, you would not believe your ears, or eyes. They have almost the same thoughts in life and death that the American Indian had a few hundred years ago.

[earthmomjs]

Welcome to Obama hell And he aint my prez


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

Posted by WarDogLRS at 07:28 AM : Nov 19, 2008

If you''''re an american, YES he is! I hate the Bush policies and despise his legacy. But while he''''s in office, he''''s MY president, as he is yours. Both were elected by the american people to serve as president and therefore they''''re everyone''''s president, you can''''t just elect to "opt out". Don''''t like him? campaign against his re-election, that''''s the american way....IF you''''re an american!

Posted by aldon61 at 11:36 AM : Nov 19, 2008

....Well said, aldon61! And might I add to all those in the "he aint my prez" denial, your American freedom allows you the option to up and leave. Here in the USA, President elect Barack Obama will be the nation''s leader, even if you are as disappointed as I have been calling George Bush my president for eight years.

[sly_64]

People may not "need" guns but the Constitution of the U.S. gives us the right to own them. It''''''''''''''''s not a matter of need - it''''''''''''''''s a matter of our rights.


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

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

Posted by sunbum33919 at 10:16 AM : Nov 19, 2008

There are no such things as rights !!! There are only privaledges. The government will take away your rights as quick as you can say the word "rights".

[ord6591]

The US military is the antithesis of the ideals under which this country was founded. The have a strict cast system (officers and enlisted with ranks), their own legal system (outside the Constitution and common law), and their own investigative and prison system. A "jury" is alway comprised of "high ranking" officers.

Why would we ever expect these people to defend the Constitution and not the UCMJ?

This is a dangerous group.


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

Posted by Evian_Ycnan at 02:08 AM : Nov 19, 2008

With all due respect, you are (at best) grossly misinformed, or (at worst) intentionally misrepresenting the facts. The uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) which you seem to be particularly fixated on is to provide a ''uniform'' legal structure that all military personnel answer to wherever they are - as opposed to a hodgepodge of differing state laws which widely vary and whose application on foreign soil would be impossible. A caste system? As opposed to a more freedom loving system comprised of managers/supervisors/workers? You speak from outside the picture and apprently do not understand the elements of the picture. Juries comprised only of high ranking officers? I served on several court martials and I didn''t see ''all high ranking officers;....again you are misinformed.

[earache4]

"Joint Chiefs Chairman Says Forces Are Ready To Shift From Iraq To Afghanistan"

But won''t that **** off Haliburton? Their oil war isn''t over yet....

[sly_64]

sly_64, As long as you have guns, you have rights.


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

Posted by impeach___w

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That''s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind.

[evian_ycnan]

The UCMJ exists outside the law of the land.

If I commit a crime at work, I am subject to a trial by a jury of peers and the constitutional protections. My supervisor does not convene a court and send me to jail.

What the UCMJ (post-1950) did was place the military under the military justice system 24-7 even in times of peace.

PERIOD. Prior to Truman`s EO, the UCMJ was not the criminal law for those in uniform unless there was a declartion of war. During peacetime there would have been a civilian court for crimes. None of this, the Marines get that rapist first.

[sly_64]

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren''t rights if someone can take em away. They''re priveledges. That''s all we''ve ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges and you know the list get''s shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

[evian_ycnan]

Who is ADM Mullins telegraphing with this totally unnecessary declartion of loyalty to the President of the United States?

The Iraqis?
Al Qaeda?
The Afghanis?

Or Obama?

Whatever happened to "loose lips sink ships"?

[alphaa10000]

FINALLY-- FOCUS ON AFGHANISTAN
Had Bush kept his response to 911 targeted on Afghanistan, where it should have been all along, it might have prevented problems with Musharaff regarding his priorities and proper attention to Pakistan''s tribal (frontier) areas.

Some seven years later, we are bogged down in the same remote area of Afghanistan where Bush lost track of bin Laden. The current contentious cross-border intrusions by US drones to hit resurgent al Qaeda activity might never have been required, had we continued to hunt bin Laden after 2001.

As it turned out, Bush still has no idea where bin Laden is. At one point, he publicly stated bin Laden had not been a lot on his mind, of late.

Experts now point out the Bush failure to destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban in late 2001 doomed the American effort to destroy al Qaeda worldwide, as well. Currently, al Qaeda is thoroughly distributed around the MidEast and at various points.

People tend to forget the 911 attack was not launched from the MidEast directly, but from a Hamburg-based cell, with its forward base in America.

Iraq-- as Greenspan likes to point out now-- is all about oil.