Oct. 1, 2009
On Afghan War, Obama Could Turn to GOP
Washington Post: With Many Dems Opposing Troop Increase, Obama May Seek Republican Support in Congress
-
-
U.S. Army Sgt. German Gomez, 23, from Houston, Texas, of the 118th Military Police Co., based at Fort Bragg, N.C., stands guard during a training session for Afghanistan National Police at their combat outpost in the Jalrez Valley in Afghanistan's Wardak Province, Sept. 19, 2009. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
-
President Obama is weighing several options for the next steps in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
-
President Barack Obama holds a strategy review on Afghanistan in the Situation Room of the White House, Sept. 30, 2009. (White House Photo/Pete Souza)
-
U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, center, commander of U.S. and Nato forces in Afghanistan, German colonel Georg Klein, left, commander of the German base in Kunduz, and U.S. Rear Admiral Gregory J. Smith, right, NATO's director of communications in Kabul, are surrounded by Afghan and German soldiers as they visit the site where villagers reportedly died when American jets bombed fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban, outside Kunduz, Afghanistan, Sept. 5, 2009. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
-
From Our Partner:
With much of his party largely opposed to expanding military operations in Afghanistan, President Obama could be forced into the awkward political position of turning to congressional Republicans for support if he follows the recommendations of the commanding U.S. general there.
Congressional Democrats have begun promoting a compromise package of additional resources for Afghanistan that would emphasize training for Afghan security forces but deny Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal the additional combat troops he has indicated he needs to regain the initiative against the Taliban insurgency. The emerging Democratic consensus is likely to constrain the president as he considers how best to proceed with an increasingly unpopular war.
On Wednesday, Obama chaired a three-hour discussion on Afghanistan with Cabinet members and senior officials at the White House. The meeting was largely a reassessment of the past eight years of American involvement in the region, with the president repeatedly probing his military and civilian advisers to justify their assumptions, according to one participant. This source said there was a recognition that the decision facing Obama is one of the most critical of his presidency.
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan
In interviews over the past week, Democratic leaders have endorsed the change in military focus and the expedited training of Afghan forces that McChrystal outlined in his stark initial assessment of the war. But they expressed deep misgivings over McChrystal's impending request for as many as 40,000 new U.S. troops. Some argue that any increase in the U.S. military presence would help the Taliban whip up public anger toward an expanding foreign occupation that already comprises more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO soldiers and Marines.
"We basically need a much larger Afghan army much quicker -- that's the bottom line, that's the winning strategy," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Before we commit to additional combat forces, which has a distinct negative, not only for our overstretched troops but also the footprint argument, I believe we must do these other things that are the best way to succeed."
Levin's argument is echoed by many Democrats in the Senate, which is set to vote this week on a $636 billion defense appropriations bill, including $128 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress would be called on to approve additional funds if Obama decides to expand the war effort in Afghanistan.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said history demands that the administration and Congress vet the mission before committing more forces. "In Vietnam, we heard the commanding general on the ground saying we need more troops. We heard the president of the United States say if we just put in more troops, we're going to see the light at the end of the tunnel," he said in an interview for The Washington Post's "Voices of Power" series. "And the fact is that they were wrong because they never examined the underlying assumptions on which our involvement was based."
Recent opinion polls have shown that only a minority of Americans believe the war is worth fighting, and the flawed presidential election in August has eroded the Obama administration's confidence in the Afghan government. Much of the opposition to the war is rooted in Obama's political base, which is angry that he is ending one war in Iraq only to expand another in Afghanistan, even though he pledged in his campaign to do just that.
Obama and his senior advisers, including McChrystal, who participated by video link, on Wednesday concluded two days of initial discussions on the general's assessment. The talks marked the first formal internal White House debate over the report's recommendations, which, if carried out in full, would greatly expand the U.S. commitment to the war in Afghanistan, in terms of both military presence and civilian assistance to build a more stable government from the provinces to Kabul.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made clear in a meeting with Post editors this week that he supports the counterinsurgency strategy that Obama endorsed in March and that is the basis of McChrystal's plan.
"Basically I share [McChrystal's] view," Rasmussen said. The right policy, he added, "is definitely not an exit strategy. It's of crucial importance to stress that we will stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country."
A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the administration is asking questions about the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan "that frankly have not been asked over the last eight years."
The official said the discussions are focusing on how best to pursue "our core national security goals," which the official defined as defeating al-Qaeda and its allies. But the official indicated that an array of alternatives are under review.
"I don't know if there is such a thing as middle option, because I know there are more than two options," the official said.
In his 66-page report, first published by The Post, McChrystal warned that "a failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" in the next 12 months "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible." He stated that "resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it."
In the administration, there are divisions on whether to send more resources to Afghanistan or adopt a more narrow counterterrorism campaign that would avoid some of the long-term nation-building tasks that McChrystal considers necessary.
Advisers Divided on Afghan Troop Increase
Obama Officials Mull Future in Afghanistan
60 Minutes: McChrystal's Frank Talk on Afghanistan
McCain: U.S. Cannot Give Up in Afghanistan
Read McChrystal's report
In the past, Vice President Biden has advocated a strategy of shrinking the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and concentrating on disrupting al-Qaeda and its allies through drone strikes and Special Forces operations. Now anti-war Democrats on the Hill are pushing for that option.
"We should use the same approach that we take in parts of the world that we have not invaded," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, citing U.S. operations in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere.
The emerging Democratic position could compel Obama, whose domestic agenda is facing stiff Republican criticism in Congress, to rely on those same opposition lawmakers for support if he decides to send more combat troops to Afghanistan.
Doing so would give Obama far less flexibility in devising his own plan, given that Republicans have strongly favored giving McChrystal what he asks for. As Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said last week: "I'm against a half-measure. That's the worst scenario. . . . If you do what the commanders recommend, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of the president."
Feingold warned that "it would probably not be a good idea for the president to rely on Republicans and a handful of Democrats."
McChrystal, whom Obama sent to Afghanistan in May after firing his predecessor, is expected to soon request thousands of additional combat troops, support forces and military trainers. His timeline for more resources roughly coincides with the U.S. withdrawal schedule from Iraq, which calls for all U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.
At the conclusion of an initial review in March, Obama approved 21,000 additional combat troops for Afghanistan. By the end of the year, 68,000 U.S. troops are scheduled to be on the ground.
Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who has many former aides working on Obama's national security team, said that "everyone likes the training of troops, which is something we've not been very good at." But he said the key question is whether Congress, if it approves the resources for McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy, will continue that level of support for the years it will take to stabilize Afghanistan.
Even the most politically popular aspects of the administration's Afghan strategy are meeting resistance in Congress.
Last week, a Senate panel stripped $900 million from the administration's $6.6 billion request to train and equip Afghan security forces. In a statement opposing the decision, the White House said the "full request reflects his commanders' plan for Afghan forces to assume a greater share of responsibility for security as quickly as possible."
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said: "This is a very complex stew here, and the McChrystal report is only one element of that stew. It's clear we're at a major decision point in Afghanistan, and unfortunately it comes as we're at a major decision point on health care, a major decision point on climate change, a major decision point on financial regulation and the economy," he said.
Staff writers Ben Pershing, Paul Kane, Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut contributed to this report.
By Scott Wilson
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
|
Add a Comment See all 50 Comments
- by stn_sage October 1, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
by stuart-johns1 October 1, 2009 11:42 AM EDT
==============================================
YOU seem to be missing the point(s), Stuart!
1. Change means MORE than just TALKING about it! It means taking ACTION to actually change THINGS! Obama ISN'T doing that enough ON enough ISSUES!
2. Yes, he inherited a mess! But that excuse is not going to account for his lack of positive, forward action! He's been in office approaching a YEAR, now! He said he could handle the job, it's time he did!
3. The FACT that he hasn't kept MANY of his campaign promises, and didn't even bother to try, speaks VOLUMES for this agent of 'change'!
4. I don't expect instant results, but considering the total lack of effort on some things, and not enough on others, and disregard for public sentiment on other issues, and I see a president who ISN'T doing his job!
5. You sound like a partisan, party hack! If the dollar plunges, if martial law is declared, if something else happens that he bungles, will YOU still be defending him so readily?! by stn_sage October 1, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
by stuart-johns1 October 1, 2009 11:42 AM EDT
==============================================
YOU seem to be missing the point(s), Stuart!
1. Change means MORE than just TALKING about it! It means taking ACTION to actually change THINGS! Obama ISN'T doing that enough ON enough ISSUES!
2. Yes, he inherited a mess! But that excuse is not going to account for his lack of positive, forward action! He's been in office approaching a YEAR, now! He said he could handle the job, it's time he did!
3. The FACT that he hasn't kept MANY of his campaign promises, and didn't even bother to try, speaks VOLUMES for this agent of 'change'!
4. I don't expect instant results, but considering the total lack of effort on some things, and not enough on others, and disregard for public sentiment on other issues, and I see a president who ISN'T doing his job!
5. You sound like a partisan, party hack! If the dollar plunges, if martial law is declared, if something else happens that he bungles, will YOU still be defending him so readily?! Not only are YOU naive, but your attitude is dangerous!
Finally, I think ANY president does or does not earn the respect of the public by DOING IT'S BUSINESS or not! It's really that simple!
Finally, I think ANY president does or does not earn the respect of the public by DOING IT'S BUSINESS or not! It's really that simple!
No. I am missing no point and you should cool your jets some. To your points:
1 - This is an idiodic statement. In order to make change, one MUST first talk about it.
2 - Obama has taken positive action on many fronts. Again, it is just immature to think this president is supposed to snap his fingers to please you. You sound like you're too full of yourself. A little arrogant actually.
3 - How do you know what he has and has'nt tried to do? You don't. Another ranring and worthless point.
4 - Again, you don't know what efforts are being carried out as we speak. Obama has a full plate. Your just ranting here too. A moot point. Obamas indifferent attitude to what public sentiments? Obama has done more good for this country in 9 months that Bush did in 8 years.
5 - I have criticized Obama on these boards. So your claim of me being partisan is patently false. You though, do sound like a partisan republican extremist petty hack. When Obama bungles I will call him on it. I did on the bail outs. But of course, you must have missed that or simply smoke to much pot and suffer from short term memory loss. by stn_sage October 1, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
by stuart-johns1 October 1, 2009 11:42 AM EDT
==============================================
YOU seem to be missing the point(s), Stuart!
1. Change means MORE than just TALKING about it! It means taking ACTION to actually change THINGS! Obama ISN'T doing that enough ON enough ISSUES!
2. Yes, he inherited a mess! But that excuse is not going to account for his lack of positive, forward action! He's been in office approaching a YEAR, now! He said he could handle the job, it's time he did!
3. The FACT that he hasn't kept MANY of his campaign promises, and didn't even bother to try, speaks VOLUMES for this agent of 'change'!
4. I don't expect instant results, but considering the total lack of effort on some things, and not enough on others, and disregard for public sentiment on other issues, and I see a president who ISN'T doing his job!
5. You sound like a partisan, party hack! If the dollar plunges, if martial law is declared, if something else happens that he bungles, will YOU still be defending him so readily?! Not only are YOU naive, but your attitude is immature and dangerous!
Your last sentence , well it makes no sense. Poor structure....fragmented. Might want to try a remedial writing course. - Reply to this comment
- Mister president why not turn to the GOP previous leadership and say "Mister Cheney, Mister Rumesfeld, Mister Pearl, Mister Wolfewitz you are under arrest for WAR crimes. Yea I know I left out the spoled rich kid fake rancher turned dog poop picker upper. But he was playing with his chain saw when they planned the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of course in the real world the real criminals controlling the American government want to continue making money in both illegal wars. So there will be no arrests and no change in the over all plan to continue the fake phony war on terror. What a shame that so many Americans are so darn stupid. - Reply to this comment
- The amateur community organizer has to turn to the party that actually knows something about military matters....Barney Fwrank is not exactly the premier expert to turn-to when you don't have a clue what you are doing, as is the case with the Bammy.
- Reply to this comment
- What happens in Afghanistan may no longer be up to the United States or even NATO, for that matter.
.
A recent editorial in 'China Daily' (a publication owned by the red chinese government) highlights red china's increasing impatience with our 8-year Afghan war. In the article, red china calls for:
.
1. An end to American and NATO military activities in Afghanistan.
2. A political solution, involving all sides... the Taliban included.
3. An international "peace-keeping" force, not an army of occupation.
4. The Afghan people in charge of their own destiny.
.
Given red china's growing military, economic and political footprint, the fate of Afghanistan may well be dictated in Beijing, not Washington. - Reply to this comment
- by pigsinlipstick October 1, 2009 1:14 PM EDT
it was always for nothing
the republi'con's started these wars for money, and money only
The Taliban sheltered the terrorists in Afghanistan who trained for the 9/11/2001 attacks which killed 3000 plus Americans. The Taliban will do it again as will the terrorists if we pull out and leave them alone. I'm in favor of killing all of them--all the terrorists, and all the Taliban's followers. I sincerely wish I could go do it my self, but I can't. I can only hope and pray that the President does the right thing and destroys them so they can't rise up again to come after us on U.S. soil. To all the white flag waving, left-wing, pacificist, dope smoking idiots who think we are there for no reason, please take your politics and leave America to those of us who love freedom and are willing to fight for it. - Reply to this comment
- Yup
He's going to have to ask the Republicans for help on Afghanastan and they are going to want something in return on health care reform. And why is this country embroiled in these Middle East conflicts? Why to protect the interests of Israel! - Reply to this comment
- Well MUSH FOR BRIANS Americans it looks like the USA will be in afghanistan forever.The destruction of Americia is the primary intention of those Al-Qaeda people.What are you MUSH FOR BRIANS Americans going to do? HAND IT RIGHT TO THEM....on a silver-platter...Good luck folks.
- Reply to this comment
- THE IMMORAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA CREATED THESE MINDLESS WAR'S
- Reply to this comment
- by jimmyc1955 October 1, 2009 12:48 PM EDT
Wow - that was almost 10 years ago and your STILL not over the fact the Bush WON that election - he won Florida by every recount that the NYT and other oranizations could muster once the ballots were released.
He won EVERY recount?
They only had one, and the supreme court stopped it after the heavily republican counties were recounted, and before they could get to Miami-Dade or Tampa = two cities with HUGE democratic populations.
Nice try at rewriting history. - Reply to this comment
- I can't believe anyone would take Biden, Levins or Kerrys advice. Looks like the Cut and RUn policy is the favorite of the Dems. The message to our allies is don't count on us. Pakistan will be forced to not be so severe with the Taliban if it is thought that the Taliban will be back in charge of Afghanistan. And were does a lot of the intelligence about AlQueda come from, Pakistan. That will be certainly be shut off if we show we will not back Afganistan. Any progress in Afghanistan will be lost and the Taliban will become stonger and become the haven for Al Queda it was before 9/11. Dems can't make the hard decisions. FDR would be ashamed.
- Reply to this comment
- SICK REPUBLI'CON' GREED STARTED THESE WARS,
THEIR IMMORAL 'CON'SERVATIVE AGENDA, ALONG
WITH THE ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY CARRIED OUT BY
THE CRIMINAL'S BUSH/CHENEY/REAGAN ARE WHAT IS
WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY TODAY
IT IS TIME TO VOTE THE GREED DRIVEN REPUBLICAN PARTY OUT OF OFFICE - Reply to this comment
- Washington (AP) -- Just moments after delivering a fiery address to the government watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington yesterday, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, director of three of the five highest-grossing documentaries of all time, clutched at his abdomen, groaned loudly, and steadied himself on a nearby railing.
All of what followed is still unclear, although witnesses say... http://wp.me/pENnF-d - Reply to this comment
- Washington (AP) -- Just moments after delivering a fiery address to the government watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington yesterday, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, director of three of the five highest-grossing documentaries of all time, clutched at his abdomen, groaned loudly, and steadied himself on a nearby railing.
All of what followed is still unclear, although witnesses say...http://wp.me/pENnF-d - Reply to this comment
- the so called war is nothing but a money making device for republi'con's
- Reply to this comment
- President Obama wants two terms, and while Afghanistan is not popular (as no war should ever be)a military failure would not help. There have been about 650 combat casualties (another 200 to accidents) in Afghanistan since 2001. If you compare this to the 1600 murders alone in Washington DC alone from 2001-2008 our costs have been very light for keeping terrorist at bay.
- Reply to this comment
- He should do what his instincts tell him to do and most Americans would support. But, he needs a measurable goal and exit strategy. No more troops without both.
- Reply to this comment
- CAPITALIST CORPORATE GREED AND THE IMMORAL
'CON'SERVATIVE AGENDA ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY,
LETS VOTE THE GREED DRIVEN PIGS IN THE REPUBLI'CON' PARTY OUT OF OFFICE. - Reply to this comment
- This is stupid, it was the lying rubber stamping republicans that got us into this quagmire.
- Reply to this comment
- To davicar8. You wish. After the senseless cruelty your party promulgated in the Bush terms, I would NEVER vote for a Repub again. You people are wackos!
Why would our esteemed president want to ask for Repub cooperation, as he has before, to join in to do anything to help our country, when all they want to do is send their lying emails behind his back, stand in the corner and whine because they can't turn this into a Nazi state?
I don't whom they're asking about the war in these so-called polls; maybe just Repubs, when they can get them to let go of their guns and come blinking out of their bunkers into the light of day, but nobody asked me, and this is my country and I pay taxes too. I am definitely for continuation of the war in Afghanistan. We must keep after Bin Laden until we catch him, and we must help the Afghanis and Pakistanis defeat the Taliban so that the people may live a peaceful and productive life. One might assume that even if we catch and/or kill Bin Laden, the terrorists won't stop, but he's their chief philosopher and planner, so that blow is a necessary one.
I agree that the Afghani army must be built up more, and as I understand it, they're now without the proper weapons to protect themselves or the people.
Probably, if we were to take the Bush's new American embassy in Iraq down to its bare bones, we could free up some billions to arm the Afghani army.
Only with more troops in Afghanistan can we give the president's comprehensive team there the freedom to help Afghanis build up their economy and drive out the poppy that feeds the Taliban's efforts. - Reply to this comment
- whats wrong with the stupid dems?
This is exactly what Obbma said he wanted to do in the campaign
If we dont finish what we started, and do it right, all will be for nothing - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
