Obama Focusing on al Qaeda, not Taliban

Officials Say President Is Prepared to Accept Some Taliban Involvement in Afghanistan's Future

(AP)  Updated 6:34 p.m. ET

White House officials say the focus of the President Barack Obama's war strategy will be on defeating al Qaeda in Pakistan, while downplaying the need to completely eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid.

The president appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.

The sharpened focus by Mr. Obama's team on fighting al Qaeda above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.

CBS News Special Report: The Road Ahead

Though aides stress that the president's final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

McChrystal's troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to - the general's strong preference - as many as 40,000.

McChrystal Wanted 50,000 Troops
Cooperation Rises between Iran and Taliban
Taliban Threat to Pakistan's Stability?
Civilian, Military Divide over Afghanistan

Mr. Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power," the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan's central government - something it is now far from being capable of - and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al Qaeda, the official said.

Critics say the strategy is deeply flawed - that without a full-fledged effort to crush the Taliban, it will retake control of Afghanistan and reopen the door for al Qaeda which will establish bases there just as they did before 9/11, Reid reports.

"A Taliban-ruled Afghanistan will be wide open for al Qaeda to expand its current sanctuaries and safe havens and I would argue al Qaeda's nothing without sanctuaries and safe havens," said Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan's culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government - though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban.

In Kabul on Thursday, a suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle outside the Indian Embassy and killed 17 people in the second major attack in the city in less than a month. The Taliban claimed responsibility.

Mr. Obama has talked positively about reaching out to moderates in the Taliban since he first announced a new Afghanistan strategy in March. It would be akin to, though more complicated than, the successful efforts in Iraq to persuade Sunni Muslim insurgents to cooperate with U.S. forces against al Qaeda there.

Mr. Obama has conferred nearly every day this week on the war, and was continuing that Thursday afternoon with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On Wednesday, the eighth anniversary of the war launched by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Mr. Obama and more than a dozen officials in his war council met for three hours to focus on Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan. Another of those larger discussions - the fourth of five currently scheduled - is set for Friday, on Afghanistan. That meeting also could feature the group's first discussion of specific troop options.

The White House says that while there are only about 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan, there are thousands in Pakistan, including Osama bin Laden and his top deputies, reports Reid. Using special forces, pilotless drones and a more aggressive effort form the Pakistani army, the strategy has recently led to a series of successful attacks.

"Because of our efforts al Qaeda and its allies have not only lost operational capacity, they've lost legitimacy and credibility," Mr. Obama said.

In the first two of the sessions, which are taking place in the secure Situation Room in the White House basement, Mr. Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.

The answer to Mr. Obama's question was al Qaeda, as it was in March when Obama first announced an Afghanistan strategy.

But amid changing circumstances in Afghanistan, the implications of that renewed determination for the current war debate are many.

The U.S. fight in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, now increasingly being defined by the Obama team as distinct from al Qaeda. While still dangerous, the Taliban is seen as an indigenous movement with almost entirely local and territorial aims, less of a threat to the U.S. than the terrorist network.

Mr. Obama's team believes some elements in the Taliban are aligned with al Qaeda, with its transnational reach and aims of attacking the West, but probably not the majority and mostly for tactical rather than ideological reasons, the official said.

"They're not the same type of group," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "It's certainly not backed up by any of the intelligence."

That leaves the primary aim in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda any ability to regroup there as it did when the Taliban was in power before the 2001 invasion that ousted them. And this points to a smaller military increase in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on surgical strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere - essentially the approach being advocated by Biden as an alternative to the McChrystal recommendation for a fuller counterinsurgency effort inside Afghanistan.

Biden has argued for keeping the American force there around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 extra troops Mr. Obama ordered earlier this year, but significantly increasing the use of unmanned Predator drones and special forces that have been successful in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere.

There also is increasing reluctance among Mr. Obama's advisers to commit large additional numbers of troops because of concerns about the impact on already severely strained U.S. forces.

The administration has been encouraged by the Pakistani government's recent willingness to more aggressively battle extremists inside its borders. Getting additional cooperation from Pakistan is delicate, as the anti-extremist operations remain extremely controversial in that country, and the U.S.-backed civilian government in Islamabad is weak. But the administration sees opportunity there nonetheless.

Clinton has not tipped her hand as to how she is leaning in the sessions, according to aides. While she is broadly supportive of building up troop levels - although not necessarily in the numbers favored by McChrystal - she also believes the military cannot be the only focus, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to detail her views.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, long wary of a large troop presence in Afghanistan, appears to have grown more comfortable with the prospect of a moderate, middle-path increase.

Many lawmakers from Mr. Obama's own Democratic Party do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.

Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders' calls soon or risk failure. "Unnecessary delay could undermine our opportunity for success," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday.

[a-col]

The advantage to following good old Joe "5-Deferment" Biden?s advice is, when President Obama loses both our wars through inadequate resourcing, he can always blame it on this crack Military Expert?s advice. I know Joe "5-Deferment" Biden is the COWARD I would always turn to when it comes to advice on Military Strategy.

Then again, even this week's fawning Newsweek Biden article at least allow as how this COWARD ?has not always showed the most clear-eyed judgment. In 1990 he voted against American involvement in the first Gulf war, which turned out to be a relatively low-cost success, whereas he voted for the invasion of Iraq, which turned into a near fiasco. He opposed the 2007 Iraq surge, which rescued the American effort from near defeat.? Also, wasn?t he the clown advocating splitting Iraq into three separate countries?

By placing the management of both our two Wars in good old Joe "5-deferment's" portfolio, the President might have already strongly sent the message he isn't interested in winning either of them.

Must admit ?5-Deferment? Joe did demonstrate some degree of Military Expertise by the way he deftly avoided any brush with armed conflict during his youth when he successfully dodged the Vietnam draft (he and Dick Cheney did everything short of maiming themselves which neither had the guts to do ? I guess it?s a prerequisite for VP). By contrast here Biden makes "W" look like a war hero! (For the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!).

This COWARD is the reason every American should pray each evening for Obama's good health! He will go down in history as the dumbest and most inept vice president of all times; here by contrast he makes Palin look smart and Dan Quayle absolutely brilliant.

Fortunately, the other role President Obama has assigned this clown is that of designated "butt of jokes" for the late night comedians -- one for which he is eminently well qualified and ideally suited. I hope he devotes his attention to this role and leaves running Wars to the Pros like GEN McChrystal and GEN Petraeus.

[10th_MTN_DIV_Vet]

Ok, you fought, big deal, now explain what the Afghanistanis did to you that justifies you murdering them? Who was in whose country, killing whom?

You talk big stuff, dude, but in the end you were just another hostile invader, no different than the Russians, meddling in business not your own.

______________________________________________________

You are sir, are an ignorant coward...

So I went around murdering Afghanis' huh? Is that what your little pea brain thinks? Your credibility gets lost with each sentence you type... You are a Taliban sympathizing fool, that is obvious.

What you refuse to understand is that country was ruled by tyrant warlords who you are so adamant about defending, they are the murderers bud... Have you ever talked to any Afghani, and how they feel about the US? I can't tell you how many thanked us everywhere we went... I saw it first hand guy, so tell me what gives you the right to say you are correct?!?

Absolutely nothing... You and nextgenman can go make up stories together and slander our troops. I would love to discuss this in person one day, then you tell me I am a murderer. You are a disgrace to this country, and a worthless human being. GET A LIFE

[RedWings_ninety_one]

Go after Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, get the S.O.B. But keep in mind that you also need to keep your eyes on the Taliban.

[Tu_eres]

by brianbwb-2009

You are without a doubt, an idiot!

[Michelle-Obama-Examiner]

Michelle Obama image softened
http://www.examiner.com/x-19673-Michelle-Obama-Examiner~y2009m10d9-Michelle-Obamas-image-softenedhats-off-to-CatherineKatie-McCormick-Lelyvelds-think-tank

[debspeaks]

I don't understand the actions (inaction would be a more appropriate term). Why are we there in Afghanistan; just to play footsie? The Taliban is a threat to the people there and Al Qaeda is a huge danger to our troops. They are posing a greater threat every day. We should have enough troops to keep our soldiers alive. They are being over-run in those obscure outposts and being killed. We need to defend the troops that are there. Is Obama at all serious about situation over there? He seems to be developing a hands off approach to this problem. Who's side is he on?

[gboyd41]

I agree Bush was bad, but what we have now is even worse!

[ramos1129]

The White House says that while there are only about 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan, there are thousands in Pakistan, including Osama bin Laden and his top deputies, reports Reid. Using special forces, pilotless drones and a more aggressive effort form the Pakistani army, the strategy has recently led to a series of successful attacks.

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

Let's see, we have 68,000 troops to battle 100 AQ troops and the General wants 40,000 more troops. That makes the odds 1080 USA troops to 1 (one) AQ troop. And we still cannot win? According to this article, our true fight is againist AQ and the Taliban issue is an internal problem. With these odds, why cannot we win? Wy have we not won in 8 years?

[rf35]

I also believe we should pull the troops out of Afghanistan...and then light the place up and see how many terrorists it can support after that.

[nextgenman09]

Have another Belgian Budweiser and watch some NASCAR.

[fuzzyi]

http://www.alemarah.info/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=260%3Amessage-of-felicitation-of-the-esteemed-amir-ul-momineen-leader-of-the-believers-mullah-mohammad-omar-mujahid-may-allah-preserve-him-on-the-occasion-of-eid-ul-fitre&catid=5%3Astatement-&Itemid=4

[michaelm07]

Not a multi-tasker, is this President. What an absolute zero this guy is. Jimmy Carter must be smiling with his big ol' teeth, because there is now someone clearly worse the he, in the modern era of American Presidents.

[searingtruth]

"We found ourselves left to the whims and consequence of a barbarity we ourselves embraced."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[10th_MTN_DIV_Vet]

SBC- thanks... I was beginning to question if anyone had any common sense not challenging him... It's sad, I fought for the Afghani people while at the same time destroying AL-Queda, and idiots as these make up fantastical science fiction that people believe, spitting in the face of all the soldiers that gave the ultimate price for him... Too bad he would never have the same courage. But of course he'll come back with: "Not for Bush I wouldn't..." or something cowardly to that affect.

I know where all those people in Hollywood are getting thier wisdom from now!!

[10th_MTN_DIV_Vet]

CODE PINK?!?!? You can't be serious... If one supported those clowns they in fact support terrorism. That would make that person a terrorist, simply put. This is the same group that sent money to fund terrorists to KILL American soldiers!! Get a grip and wake up America!!

I am SICK of the direction of this country... What happened to the values of this great nation?!? This is an outrage...

[prajaowain]

I am very proud of you for this more common sense approach. You can not win the hearts and sousl of the Afghan people with guns and bombs but you can if you help rebuild and develope social institutions, education and work for the people. The Taliban are there to stay and I do not think they are going to take over the entire country. They should be welcome to participate in power and have representation in the government much like different groups and factions are represented in the government of Lebanon.
Al Qaeda should be the focus not the Taliban. I respect your decision Mr Obama and thank you for listening to what Code Pink and other intelligent people have written to you. Your decision may not make you popular but at least you know you are doing what is right and just. Bring our boys back home and lets rebuild Afghanistan and help build schools and roads for the people. What is the point to gain the whole world if by doing so you loose your soul?

[pnut134]

It's nice to have a President that THINKS and is not afraid to do what he thinks is right rather than what would get him re-elected.

[bradkt1]

The comments that the Taliban and Al-Quaeda are one and the same are downright moronic. They are not. We are not going to defeat the Taliban because they will simply outlast us...they are being supplied primarily via Pakistan.

[bubbadubba]

I just want to remind the Oxycontin popping right wing Obama haters that you can go deaf from abusing that stuff and have to get one of those robot implants to hear your hero Rush again.

[melchg07]

I don't think that this is the right call by Obama.

We finally have the Pakistani Government actually starting to put some pressure on the Taliban in their country.

Although we've been in Afghanistan for 8 years we've had a fraction of the troop levels there. I mean there were under around 26,000 for the majority of the time there (up to just last year)....versus 150,000 in Iraq. Thats LESS THAN ONE-FIFTH.

Send 30,000 more troops now and send 20,000 more as we continue to scale down in Iraq.

Now is NOT the time to pander to the Taliban.

[bajajohn1]

The main reason there is continued conflict is ability of enemy combatants to cross at will be Afghanistan and Pakistan. For all the money they receive from the U.S., Pakistan is apparently not keeping its end of the bargain in engaging their Muslim brothers. One suggestion is to divert funds from the hideous wall between Mexico and U.S. and build one between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Properly patrolled and with high-tech surveillance, the ability of combatants to keep crossing borders will be hindered. Those borders may be in rugged terrain, but there is equipment available, and people, to do that job. Think out of the box for a change.