Obama to Discuss Afghan War With Lawmakers

President Calls for Congressional Opinion as He Considers Gen. McChrystal's Request for More Troops

(CBS/ AP)  President Barack Obama will confer with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders on the Afghanistan war at the White House on Tuesday as he weighs a decision on whether to send more U.S. troops there. (See below for a list of those invited.)

Obama's top defense and diplomacy advisers said the United States retains the Afghanistan war goal that Obama outlined just two months into his presidency - to sideline al Qaeda - but changing circumstances require a reassessment of how to get there.

A "snap decision" on whether to add more U.S troops would be counterproductive, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

Whatever the president decides, the military will salute, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.

The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.

Obama also will meet twice this week with his national security team.

Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.

Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama's opponent in last year's presidential election and one of the lawmakers expected at Tuesday's meeting, said he thinks it's critical that the administration avoid thinking of the insurgent Taliban and the al Qaeda terrorist network as separate issues.

Marines in Afghanistan: A Day in the Life
Taliban Gaining Firepower and Confidence
Battle of Wanat - Inside the Ambush

"If the Taliban returns, they will work with al Qaeda," he said on NBC television Tuesday morning. "It's just a historical fact. You can't separate the two. ... I strongly disagree with those who allege those are separate problems. They have worked together in the past and they will work together in the future."

Gates appealed Monday for calm amid the intense administration debate over the flagging war, and for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision. Gates' remarks stood as an implicit rebuke of the man he helped install as the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for lobbying in public for additional troops Obama may decide to forgo.

In two separate appearances Monday, Gates made the point that Obama needs elbow room to make strategy decisions about the war - as the internal White House debate goes increasingly public.

"It is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right," Gates said at an Army conference. "In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations civilians and military alike - provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."

Later, speaking alongside Clinton in an interview taped for CNN, Gates praised McChrystal and said no matter what Obama decides the general will execute it faithfully.

Gates has not said whether he supports McChrystal's recommendation to expand the number of U.S. forces by as much as nearly 60 percent. He is holding that request in his desk drawer while Obama sorts through competing recommendations and theories from some of his most trusted advisers.

Coming up on the "CBS Evening News": Afghanistan: The Road Ahead, an in-depth examination of the escalating conflict, airing this week at 6:30 p.m. ET.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

During the CNN session, Gates said, "Because of our inability and the inability, frankly, of our allies to put enough troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now."

The fierce Taliban attack that killed eight American soldiers over the weekend added to the pressure. The assault overwhelmed a remote U.S. outpost where American forces have been stretched thin in battling insurgents, underscoring the appeal from the top Afghanistan commander for as many as 40,000 additional forces - and at the same time reminding the nation of the costs of war.

In trying to blunt the impression that the White House and military are at odds, Gates did not name names. But his remarks came days after McChrystal bluntly warned in London that Afghan insurgents are gathering strength. Any plan that falls short of stabilizing Afghanistan "is probably a shortsighted strategy," the general said, and he called openly for additional resources.

That prompted Obama's national security adviser, retired four-star Gen. James Jones, to say Sunday that military advice is best provided "up through the chain of command."

Obama may take weeks to decide whether to add more troops, but the idea of pulling out isn't on the table as a way to deal with a war nearing its ninth year, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

"I don't think we have the option to leave. That's quite clear," Gibbs said.

At issue is whether U.S. forces should continue to focus on fighting the Taliban and securing the Afghan population or shift to more narrowly targeting, with unmanned spy drones and covert operations, al Qaeda terrorists believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

Gates and some other advisers appear to favor a middle path. A hybrid strategy could preserve the essential outline of an Afghan counterinsurgency campaign that McChrystal rebuilt this summer from the disarray of nearly eight years of undermanned combat, while expanding the hunt for al Qaeda next door.

The top three U.S. military officials overseeing the war in Afghanistan favor continuing the current fight against the Taliban, and have concluded they need tens of thousands more U.S. troops beyond the 68,000 already there.

Officials across the Obama administration have acknowledged that the Taliban is far stronger now than in recent years, as underscored by the U.S. deaths in Nuristan province.

The fighting Saturday marked the biggest loss of U.S. life in a single Afghan battle in more than a year. It also raised questions about why U.S. troops remained in the remote outposts after McChrystal said he planned to close down isolated strongholds and focus on more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

Here's a list of senators and representatives invited to the White House meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Senate:

Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, D-Nev.
Sen. Dick Durbin, Majority Whip, D-Ill.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader, R-Ky.
Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican Whip, R-Ariz.
Sen. Carl Levin, Armed Services Chairman, D-Mich.
Sen. John McCain, Armed Services Ranking Member, R-Ariz.
Sen. Daniel Inouye, Appropriations Chairman and Defense Subcommittee Chairman, D-Hawaii
Sen. Thad Cochran, Appropriations Ranking Member and Defense Subcommittee Ranking, R-Miss.
Sen. John Kerry, Foreign Affairs Chairman, D-Mass.
Sen. Richard Lugar, Foreign Affairs Ranking Member, R-Ind.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Foreign Operations Appropriations Chairman, D-Vt.
Sen. Judd Gregg, Foreign Operations Appropriations Ranking Member, R-N.H.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Intelligence Committee Chair, D-Calif.
Sen. Kit Bond, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, R-Mo.

House:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, D-Md.
Rep. John Boehner, Republican Leader, R-Ohio
Rep. James Clyburn, Majority Whip, D-S.C.
Rep. Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, R-Va.
Rep. Ike Skelton, Armed Services Chairman, D-Mo.
Rep. Howard McKeon, Armed Services Ranking Member, R-Calif.
Rep. Howard Berman, Foreign Affairs Chairman, D-Calif.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Foreign Affairs Ranking Member, R-Fla.
Rep. David Obey, Appropriations Chairman, D-Wis.
Rep. Jerry Lewis, Appropriations Ranking Member, R-Calif.
Rep. Nita Lowey, Foreign Operations Appropriations Chairman, D-N.Y.
Rep. Kay Granger, Foreign Operations Appropriations Ranking Member, R-Texas
Rep. John Murtha, Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee Chairman, D-Pa.
Rep. Bill Young, Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee Ranking Member, R-Fla.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Intelligence Committee Chairman, D-Texas
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, R-Mich.


©MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Share:

• Share
• Yahoo! Buzz
• Twitter
• Mixx

More From Politics

• Obama's First State Dinner Honors India
• Fact Check: Health Care Reform Claims
• Sanford Impeachment Hearings Begin
• Doug Hampton Dishes on John Ensign Affair
• Obama: U.S., India are Natural Allies
• Food Fit for a President
• Obama Heralds U.S. Ties with India

• 

  VideoExit Strategy for Afghanistan

• 

  VideoObama's Oath to 'Finish the Job'

Add a Comment

by noloyalisti October 6, 2009 2:57 PM EDT

We had to stay in Vietnam so the communists would not take over. We have no plans, no strategy and no goals in our occupation other than the stupid, ignorant Bush Crime Family logic of "winning". Yet another fake straw man argument. Get out now before we lose EVERYTHING.

Reply to this comment

by noloyalisti October 6, 2009 2:37 PM EDT

Every time we drop a bomb or shoot an "insurgent" we make ourselves less safe. Are we really that primitive and ignorant that we will continue to do terrorist acts to the world?

Reply to this comment

by Nikos_Retsos October 6, 2009 1:25 PM EDT

There are intense Afghan War consultations at home because the specter of the Vietnam War in General McChrystal's 10-year strategy for Afghanistan is wafting in the air. Facts: Lyndon Johnson said in 1964 that "if the North Vietnamese and VietCong refuse to negotiate [on U.S. terms], they will be beaten in the battlefield." 2009 replay: Baraq Obama said that "the U.S. will stay in Afghanistan until it defeats Al Qaeda and its allies." General Westmorland kept asking for more and more U.S. troops for Vietnam to defeat the communists until the U.S. has amassed 500.000 troops there. But even with one half million U.S. troops, and an additional 600.000 South Vietnamese, we lost the war. Replay 2009: General McChrystal is asking for more troops for his 10-year Afghan plan, and he would probably keep asking for more and more in the next 10 years -like Westmorland. And there is a plan to increase the Afghan army to 300.000. But in the end, the war in Afghanistan will end like the war in Vietnam, because, as the Vietnam era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admitted later: "We were blind; we never thought we could lose that war!"

2009 Afghan question: If 8 years of fighting the ragtag Taliban has us in a quagmire, what would guarantee us a victory in 10 years? After all, the Taliban have become more sophisticated; have adopted Iraq's lessons of effective insurgent tactics, and have learned to adopt fast, and change tactics when the U.S. changes its tactics. And more U.S. troops for Afghanistan will mean more Muslim sympathy for the Taliban, more financial support and funding, and more Muslim volunteers to join in to offset the occupier's higher numbers. All Muslims everywhere are dead set against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and the thousands of civilian casualties caused by U.S. air strikes, and they certainly don't want to see the "Great Satan" taking over the lives of other Muslims under any pretext, like Al Qaeda threats, etc. More troops, therefore, will increase
the intensity of the war, but it won't bring victory to the U.S. because 30 million Pashtun in Afghanistan, and their brethren in Pakistan have already made up their minds that they will never live as U.S. vassals.

Now, behind the facade of Al Qaeda threat from Afghanistan lies the clear truth, that is: We keep fighting in Afghanistan because leaving without achieving anything will saddle us with another "Vietnam Syndrome." Should we then continue the war for another 10 years for a chance to avoid it? There is no chance that we will ever avoid an "Afghan Syndrome" because the Afghans will keep fighting for 10,20, or 30 years - or until the Christian occupiers are out. The only thing we need now for Afghanistan, then, is "a face saving way out!" General James Jones CNN interview, therefore, represents the reality of the facts in the Afghan conflict, while General McChrystal's 10-year plan represent the failed model of General Westmorland's plan for Vietnam. And history will repeat itself in Afghanistan if those in charge of the Afghan war repeat the
errors of the past. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Reply to this comment

by zzacrat October 6, 2009 12:55 PM EDT

Yep, Obama said that when Elected President, that he would have everything under control, that he had all of the hard answers that was needed, Yep, Obama is making all of the rules that we need to live by, Yep, Obama is the man, he knows what to do, he dosn't need to be told what that he can or should do, Nope, he will not bow to anybody, not even a King, Nope, Yep, Nope, Yep! 3 years, 3 months, 3 weeks, A life time!

Reply to this comment

by sjc_1 October 6, 2009 12:18 PM EDT

This is an important decision and no matter how many twisted comments are posted, making the right decision is the goal.

Reply to this comment

by cptdeuce October 6, 2009 12:10 PM EDT

"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.
Actually Hillary - your quote should have been - "It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he knows will help him politically."

Reply to this comment

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[noloyalisti]

We had to stay in Vietnam so the communists would not take over. We have no plans, no strategy and no goals in our occupation other than the stupid, ignorant Bush Crime Family logic of "winning". Yet another fake straw man argument. Get out now before we lose EVERYTHING.

[noloyalisti]

Every time we drop a bomb or shoot an "insurgent" we make ourselves less safe. Are we really that primitive and ignorant that we will continue to do terrorist acts to the world?

[Nikos_Retsos]

There are intense Afghan War consultations at home because the specter of the Vietnam War in General McChrystal's 10-year strategy for Afghanistan is wafting in the air. Facts: Lyndon Johnson said in 1964 that "if the North Vietnamese and VietCong refuse to negotiate [on U.S. terms], they will be beaten in the battlefield." 2009 replay: Baraq Obama said that "the U.S. will stay in Afghanistan until it defeats Al Qaeda and its allies." General Westmorland kept asking for more and more U.S. troops for Vietnam to defeat the communists until the U.S. has amassed 500.000 troops there. But even with one half million U.S. troops, and an additional 600.000 South Vietnamese, we lost the war. Replay 2009: General McChrystal is asking for more troops for his 10-year Afghan plan, and he would probably keep asking for more and more in the next 10 years -like Westmorland. And there is a plan to increase the Afghan army to 300.000. But in the end, the war in Afghanistan will end like the war in Vietnam, because, as the Vietnam era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admitted later: "We were blind; we never thought we could lose that war!"

2009 Afghan question: If 8 years of fighting the ragtag Taliban has us in a quagmire, what would guarantee us a victory in 10 years? After all, the Taliban have become more sophisticated; have adopted Iraq's lessons of effective insurgent tactics, and have learned to adopt fast, and change tactics when the U.S. changes its tactics. And more U.S. troops for Afghanistan will mean more Muslim sympathy for the Taliban, more financial support and funding, and more Muslim volunteers to join in to offset the occupier's higher numbers. All Muslims everywhere are dead set against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and the thousands of civilian casualties caused by U.S. air strikes, and they certainly don't want to see the "Great Satan" taking over the lives of other Muslims under any pretext, like Al Qaeda threats, etc. More troops, therefore, will increase
the intensity of the war, but it won't bring victory to the U.S. because 30 million Pashtun in Afghanistan, and their brethren in Pakistan have already made up their minds that they will never live as U.S. vassals.

Now, behind the facade of Al Qaeda threat from Afghanistan lies the clear truth, that is: We keep fighting in Afghanistan because leaving without achieving anything will saddle us with another "Vietnam Syndrome." Should we then continue the war for another 10 years for a chance to avoid it? There is no chance that we will ever avoid an "Afghan Syndrome" because the Afghans will keep fighting for 10,20, or 30 years - or until the Christian occupiers are out. The only thing we need now for Afghanistan, then, is "a face saving way out!" General James Jones CNN interview, therefore, represents the reality of the facts in the Afghan conflict, while General McChrystal's 10-year plan represent the failed model of General Westmorland's plan for Vietnam. And history will repeat itself in Afghanistan if those in charge of the Afghan war repeat the
errors of the past. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

[zzacrat]

Yep, Obama said that when Elected President, that he would have everything under control, that he had all of the hard answers that was needed, Yep, Obama is making all of the rules that we need to live by, Yep, Obama is the man, he knows what to do, he dosn't need to be told what that he can or should do, Nope, he will not bow to anybody, not even a King, Nope, Yep, Nope, Yep! 3 years, 3 months, 3 weeks, A life time!

[sjc_1]

This is an important decision and no matter how many twisted comments are posted, making the right decision is the goal.

[cptdeuce]

"It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.
Actually Hillary - your quote should have been - "It's important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he knows will help him politically."