Gates: U.S. Can't Wait on Afghan Election

Pentagon Chief Says Administration Can't "Sit on Our Hands" Regarding Troop Level Decision

(CBS/AP)  The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy in Afghanistan and not "sit on our hands" waiting for election results and a government to emerge in Kabul, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Gates told reporters traveling with him to Asia that President Obama will have to make his decisions in the context of "evolving" issues.

The remarks come as Afghanistan's election commission ordered a Nov. 7 runoff in the disputed presidential poll after a fraud investigation dropped incumbent Hamid Karzai's votes below 50 percent of the total. Karzai accepted the finding and agreed to a second round vote.

The White House welcomed Karzai's agreement. Karzai, who was under heavy U.S. pressure to accept the U.N. findings, was "ensuring a credible process for the Afghan people which results in a government that reflects their will," President Obama said in a statement.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

"President Karzai's constructive actions established an important precedent for Afghanistan's new democracy," Mr. Obama said. "The Afghan Constitution and laws are strengthened by President Karzai's decision, which is in the best interests of the Afghan people. "

But while an election resolution is desirable, the decision on troop levels looms over the White House.

"A new election in Afghanistan will not make President Obama's decision about whether or not to increase troop strength significantly easier," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk, "but it goes a long way to restore credibility to the oversight and decrease the view of corruption in the current government."

At the White House Tuesday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said it has not yet been determined whether Mr. Obama will wait to announce an Afghan strategy until after the results of the runoff. Gibbs told reporters he still expects that announcement to be made in "the coming weeks."

Regardless of the election's outcome, Gibbs said, "We've got to make sure we're making progress with a partner in that government." He also said the next U.S. strategy meeting on Afghanistan may be pushed back until early next week because Gates is traveling.

Among those most closely involved in seeking a resolution of the crisis is Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said in interviews over the weekend from Kabul that the election process had to be settled before the Obama administration could make a reasoned decision about whether to send additional troops and to commit other resources to stabilizing Afghanistan.

Kerry as at Karzai's side when the announcement was made in Kabul. He had met with Karzai on four occasions before the announcement.

As for the logistical challenges presented by the runoff, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that a new vote was feasible within weeks, or that Karzai might try to negotiate a power-sharing arrangement with former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, who finished second in the August balloting.

[jefleshman]

Ok let me go down the list:

Military assessment: Check
Political Advisors: Check
Sec of Def: Check
Sec of the State: Check
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Check
Congress Approval to support more troops:

Ummmm Ummmmm darn it, I need to know if the citizens of America's elected state representative will support an increase in the Defense Budget, these troops do not come for free. The tax payers are going to have a say in this! Something will have to give with additional troops.

The POTUS can say send a million troops but it will not do any good without congressional backing, just like everything else in the USA.

Congress is in control not the former POTUS and not the current POTUS.

The hold up on a decision is not the POTUS, it is congress. I am sure troop numbers have already been giving to congress at different levels of support. What will congress approve or not approve is a better question.

[George_Morgan]

I too thought Mr. Gates remarks about what Obama must do to be a little out of touch with reality. He is entitled to his opinion and free to express it but in this case, it is at the expense of his own credibility.

I do not believe for a second that we are in Afghanistan to support a regime. In fact, to the contrary, we can only hope that whatever regime that in place will support us.

I view our presence there as strictly defensive and our actions are hardly selfless sacrifice for the sake of a foreign government.

We invaded Iraq, rightly or wrongly, to oust a repressive regime that George Bush deemed a threat to our national security.

We invaded an Afghanistan that had no regime to overthrow. We now need some form of government in place there that will prevent our enemy(ies) from using the place as a safe haven so we can leave. This is our best self-interest and that the Afghan people may benefit from this is good, but not even secondary to our purpose in being there.

How many of the peoples of African nations endure horrible government or no government at all and we?re not considering sending troops there, because they pose no threat to the United States or peace outside of their borders.

[koko98-2009]

I hate to break this to Mr. Gates but it is the President who decides where and when things get done, not the Pentagon. They may have been used to having things rubber stamped under Mr. Bush, but thankfully things are DIFFERENT now.

[endurorob_5]

by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
If the election was stolen, and Karzi had no intentions of giving up power, then why would Obama send more troops into a country, to support a president / regime that stole the election?

Shouldn't he hear the outcome of the election BEFORE he makes a decision?

Aren't you also assuming that he's NOT doing / planning anything regarding Afghanistan, because you don't know for sure if he is or isn't?



What does it matter the outcome. This isn't about Afghanastan and who their leader is. It is about denying terrorist orginizations the means to easily develop their abilities to attack us. I am assuming he is not doing anything because he is not doing anything. He has the recomendations from the generals, the experts in this field and he has the recomendations from politicians. It does not take weeks to make a decision like this.

[hungry1968-16]

This isn't about creating a wannabe government and supporting it while it grows, to the point that we can withdraw our troops?

Then why are we even there?!?!



And how do you know how long it takes to make the decision(s)? Maybe he's waiting on more information, or something else. Maybe he needs more input. Maybe he WAS waiting on Karzi. You don't know anymore than I do, and I don't know what he's waiting for, but he must be waiting for a reason.

His options to you and me are: 'more troops' and 'pull ALL of the troops out'. Maybe he's working on a third option that neither of us considered - I don't know, but I am confident that he is working on it.

[endurorob_5]

sjc_1 October 20, 2009 12:50 PM EDT
Afghanistan has been ignored for most of the last 8 years. Bush declared that the Taliban were defeated. That goes into the category of "Mission Accomplished".
by Ms_enza October 20, 2009 1:27 PM EDT
by sjc_1 October 20, 2009 12:50 PM EDT


That's "Mission Misunderaccomplished"...



Bush has been out of office for nine months. Obama is the decider now. He stated who would listen to the generals on the ground. The generals say they need 40K more troops. Obama for some reason needs to wait until the election issue is resovled before he decides to do anything. meanwhile more Americans die and they do not know if Obama is going to send them more support, leave them as tehy are, or bring everyone home. The price of indecision in this case is lives and moral.

[hungry1968-16]

If the election was stolen, and Karzi had no intentions of giving up power, then why would Obama send more troops into a country, to support a president / regime that stole the election?

Shouldn't he hear the outcome of the election BEFORE he makes a decision?

Aren't you also assuming that he's NOT doing / planning anything regarding Afghanistan, because you don't know for sure if he is or isn't?

[faceofus]

For once I wish folks would stop making an argument that Bush did or did do this or that. Our young American soldiers are dying NOW and Obama needs to make a decision. Either support the troops there or bring them home!

[Forbus56]

Sorry, Mr. Secretary...there are more important things on our President's plate...marijuana, Sheriff Joe, FOX News...etc.

[Ms_enza]

If Afghanistan is THAT important, why then didn't Bush take 6 months of the nearly 7 years he eff'ed about with it and FIX IT?

[endurorob_5]

The generals have said what is needed to stabilize the country. Why does it matter who wins the election? Afgahnastan either needs to be stabilized or not. Is Obama holding off on makining a decision in hopes that his health care gets pushed through before he sends over 40k more troops and pisses off more of his supporters and loses some barganing power with congress?

[sjc_1]

Afghanistan has been ignored for most of the last 8 years. Bush declared that the Taliban were defeated. That goes into the category of "Mission Accomplished".

[Ms_enza]

by sjc_1 October 20, 2009 12:50 PM EDT


That's "Mission Misunderaccomplished"...

[riddelup]

We have to bolster Pakistan's effort by preventing the terrorist from moving into Afghanistan. When Afghanistan settles it's election quagmire and America decides to prevent the terrorist shuffle, it will be to late.