Afghan Troop Decision Tied to Election

White House Says It Will Only Send More Forces if It Has a Credible Partner There; No Word Yet on Runoff

(CBS)  There is still no winner in the disputed Afghan election and pressure is mounting on President Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff.

The White House today linked an upcoming decision on future U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to a resolution of the impasse, as CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports.

The White House sent a powerful message this morning to Hamid Karzai - no extra troops until he proves his government is credible.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. Troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN Sunday.

U.S. diplomats have been urging the incumbent Afghan leader to repair an election widely believed to be rigged, by choosing one of two options. According to Emanuel: "One is another runoff election between the two top candidates, or a negotiation between those candidates."

Waiting for an afghan election result also buys President Obama more time to decide his Afghan war strategy. But it could delay a decision until January.

"At some point, deliberation begins to look more like indecisiveness, which then becomes a way of emboldening our enemies, and causing our allies to question our resolve," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., told CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

Mr. Obama has held been five war cabinet meetings this fall, with more coming this week, and next. The main debate: whether to commit up to 40,000 extra U.S. troops to help protect the Afghan people from Taliban insurgents - a strategy known as counterinsurgency.

Blog: Counterinsurgency or Counterterroism? U.S. Says Both
Related: Sen. Kerry Says Afghan Troop Decision Tied to Election

The other main option stresses more counterterrorism, which would boost the numbers of special operating forces to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda.

A top U.S. official in the war cabinet meetings said that the face-off over these two strategies is overblown by the media. He said those in the room think both are needed; it's just a question of how many U.S. troops to commit to bridge the gap, until the afghans can protect their own.

[Mortarman29]

Hey Beckie...how is Obama's inability to make a decision on this, Bush's fault?

[mav547166]

President Obama is too busy at war.....with FOX news.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by ???? October 19, 2009 9:28 AM EDT
...and liberals are still blaming Bush for everything.
===============================================================

Except the Titanic. Oh, if only there were a time machine.

[RedWings_ninety_one]

Good One

Obama make a decision? Obviously, McChrystal is no longer in charge, Kerry and Biden are Obama's foremost experts in the field of warfare and counterterrorism and they are providing advice. Two liberal Politicians providing advice to the most liberal President we ever had. Twenty (28) American soldiers dead in Afghanistan and Obama is still in camapaign mode and hitting the celebrity circuit, winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and liberals are still blaming Bush for everything.

[zamorin44]

Gorbachev says the elections in Russia are a joke.Rahm Emmanuel should do something there too.

[zamorin44]

What a wonderful idea!!!Extra toops will be sent only after the Taliban forms a credible government in Afghanistan.

[m_moonshine]

If we want to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we need to have the cooperation of the local governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, because that's where he and his closest supporters are hiding.

If we want this hunt to be successful, it has to have popular support within this region. If we are seen as foreign invaders, allied with puppet regimes who do not truly represent their own populations, this effort will fail. This mission has already failed for year after year after year under the catastrophic non-leadership of the right wing GOP.

Think VietNam. At some point, the people in the villages began to identify more closely with the government of Ho Chi Minh than with the American-supported regime in Saigon. From that point on, although our military forces never submitted to a humiliation like the French suffered at Dien Bien Phu, the war was lost.

To succeed in Afghanistan, we need to be allied with a legitimate government in Afghanistan. Since Karzai benefitted from extreme voter fraud during the election, he will never be seen as legitimate - unless he wins a runoff that is beyond dispute.

The U.S. must do all we can to force Karzai to participate in a runoff election. For our sake, for his sake, for the future of Afghanistan.

And because this is how we will finally get Bin Laden.

[finkfust]

No, you're completely wrong. If the main American objective is to capture Bin Laden (which it isn't of course), what would be needed is the help of the Saudi government/royal family. They don't like him much, but they won't help actively because there is nothing but downsides for them. Bin Laden is a popular folk hero in Saudi Arabia and across the Muslim world, and they have long standing commitments to the Bin Laden family. As far as they are concerned this is a problem of America's making and there's absolutely no reason to help. America needs Saudi Arabia FAR more than it needs America!

Bin Laden is only a real issue to the idiot American population. Wait a few years and he'll be dead anyway, but the underlying issues won't change.

[missme4]

"If we want to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda,"

We don't want to hunt them down. They had every chance to do so, but they just beat around the gw bush. Take away Osama and you have no more excuse to take away american's rights a freedoms. A little fear goes a long way with stupid, weak people. Fear is needed to keep americans hiding in their homes quivering like cowards. If you control americans it makes it much easier to tax americans.

[finkfust]

missme4 said - "We don't want to hunt them down."

I'm not sure who you think you're speaking for. Most Americans and your new government DO want to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I agree with you that it's pointless (other than as a political tool) and doomed to failure, but you are in a VERY small minority.

[roach9703]

Afghanistan has for centuries been run by warlords. Our relationship with them will determine our efforts in Afghanistan. The idea of central government is very European, but not reflective of this country. Imposing Western thinking and solutions on Afghanistan will fail just as every other effort there has before. What we need is a credible system of security to protect allies who promote our interests. This in part is what McCrystal seems to be trying to do. So sent in the troops and work with the real power centers.

[pensacola8-2009]

The President's decision to communicate his expectations to the Afghan government is filled with Common Sense. It is the absolute right thing to do. I praise President Obama's staff for publicizing this.

[mav547166]

So we cant leave, but we arent going to send enough troops over so that they can properly defend themselves. With the Pakistanis finally getting into gear the President decides now is the time to do a Bay of Pigs with US troops, what is it with democrats and winning a war?

[psuedolus]

"It has been tried once before. It was tried twice before that. Why is there a certain cast of the military mind which leads sensible people to do again, with gusto, what didn't work before?"

-pg. 229 of Unseen Academicals, by Terry Pratchett

New general, same old Afghanistan.

[hifiguy14]

Can we have a righteous cause while supporting potentially fraudulent elections? To continue to fight a war supporting an election that was fairly won, will increase existing resistance in an already difficult battlefield.

Wise diplomacy is something this nation has not seen in near a decade.

[donbl1]

Our fight in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Karzai's legitimacy.

[hifiguy14]

Karzai's legitimacy is a concern of the people, and thus a concern of allegiances by the Afghan population. If we knowingly support an illegal election, our validity as liberators is a facade.

[finkfust]

by hifiguy14 October 18, 2009 9:59 PM EDT
Karzai's legitimacy is a concern of the people, and thus a concern of allegiances by the Afghan population. If we knowingly support an illegal election, our validity as liberators is a facade.
-----------------
No! The issue is whether IT ACTUALLY WAS a facade or not! Was it?

[donbl1]

Obama said he was all knowing, had a plan and could walk across water.

He was elected on that political image.

Of course, we now know he only blames the last guy and has no plan.

[donbl1]

Whose election? Theirs or ours?

The is worse than Bubba who was almost always a politician all the time.

This guy, is still running the campaign.

We need an executive not a constant campaigner.