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.

[chief_king]

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....................................

He wants to add an additional two Brigades in Afghanistan (8,000 Troops)we currently have over 151,000 in Iraq. Do the math hero

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL, I have always been a registered democrat, but never let that both me in the choice of a candidate going for the platform and character rather than party.

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL, Obama hasn''t settled on an Iraq policy yet.

[cheteunice]

That you could flip flop from Bush to Obama--oh, now I get it. You both flip flop all the time!

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL, Online, where no one knows you, it is simple to maintain any untruth.

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL,I doubt that you voted twice for Bush--no way!

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL,By the way, adults learn to communicate without using offensive terms like you are so fond of using!

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL, You don''t like it--stop responding. You didn''t like Bush--I don''t like what I see and hear from and about out future President. As long as we have freedom of expression I will use it. You don''t want people to use their rights move to Russia or China!

[cheteunice]

DJ_IL, Certainly would--100%--and would be better for America, just wait and see!

[tigerrram9]

Exactly, the only reason we went to Iraq was to line *** Chenney''s (Haliburton) pockets with money. The reasons Americans are dying in Iraq are for Haliburton and the oil companies (shame on Bush & Chenney). Let''s go to Afghanistan, that is the place where the war on terror should be focused on. Let''s kick some Bin Laden butt.

[cheteunice]

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

So Obama''s stepping down! Great news.

[cheteunice]

Olivia4441, Obama made many different comments about when he wanted the troops out--depended on which day you heard him.

[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"?

[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]

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]

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.

[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....

[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.

[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".

[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.