Official: Obama Wants New Afghan Options

Concerns Over President Karzai's Viability Weigh Heavy on Obama's Mind as U.S. Ambassador Warns Against Surge

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 7:23 a.m. Eastern.

President Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the official told the AP.

A U.S. official, speaking to CBS News on condition of anonymity, said Thursday morning that, "parts of what's being reported are inaccurate." The official would not give any details on what those alleged inaccuracies were, and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul refused any comment.

Source: U.S. Ambassador Objects to Afghan Surge

"The timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government" are the key sticking points in Mr. Obama's mind, a senior administration official told CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.

CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reports that U.S. officials have suggested the President's decision to delay a firm commitment on troop levels in Afghanistan may have been influenced in part by Eikenberry's concerns.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Mr. Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy - most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

The official told CBS News that President Obama raised questions during his war council meeting Wednesday that could, "alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan, and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone."

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

CBS News political analyst John Dickerson told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith Thursday that President Obama is worried, as is his ambassador in Kabul, that there has been little indication from President Karzai's government, since he was declared winner of a tainted election, that corruption will be tackled in a serious way.

Their concern, says Dickerson, is that more troops are sent, but significant changes aren't made to bring Karzai's government domestic credibility, the U.S. will be left with no viable partner in the war-torn country.

Administration officials said Wednesday that Mr. Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry's cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with them who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified documents. Other administration officials raised the same misgivings in describing Obama's hesitancy to accept any of the options before him in their current form.

The options presented to Obama by his war council will now be amended.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than the war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Mr. Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

Another official stressed that Mr. Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion and that his eventual decision will cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.

With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama's tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.

[noloyalisti]

Unfortunately, Obama is just another in a long line of presidential puppets doing the bidding of the big corporations who own and run the military and the government.

His hands are tied as he governs with a gun to his head.

[50BMS13]

noloyalisti
agreed. left or right it pretty much has always been that way....just to greater or lesser extents

[stratabuse]

OBAMA STANDS BY WHILE AMERICANS DIE!!!

[50BMS13]

stratabuse
And MANY MORE WILL DIE because Obama is letting Iran and North Korea (Bush's Axis of Evil) go Nuclear. When Ahmadinejad sends a nuke over to try to wipe Israel off the map, WW#3 starts.

[mjlewis6]

The strategy in re-deployment is that when a location of consequence is left and thereafter occupied by the enemy, he can be destroyed en masse and NOT piecemeal as we are presently doing. Search and Destroy as well as designated free fire zones did not work in Viet Nam, and as for the projection of power, it is meaningless when the goal is control and not just dealing death. The transition to one of peace means there has to be a time of no conflict before rebuilding. When Afghans have only eachother, perhaps then the rebuilding can start. The Taliban were not builders....and our absence would reinforce this perception. By the by, you can only kill your enemies when you know where they are located and when you know the Order of Battle, resources, assets. Apparently President Karzai wants the US to do all the work of rebuilding AFghanistan. No thanks, do that yourself and rebuild your own country. The ONLY reason we are there was to exert control and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven, kicking the Taliban out of the government. We can bow to local sentiment, let the Afghanis take their own destiny in their own hands...and return either to help them or strike any re-emergent lawless terror state with our technology as we do in Pakistan.

[brian1920]

Obama is looking for a way not to make a decision which will anger the left wing of his party. Pure and simple, he is playing politics with the soldiers lives. Obama is nothing short of a pandering politician in over his head. You people who voted for this guy were warned not to do it. You are to blame for allowing this idiot to wreck the country.

[fedup12]

Can I ask a question of all the NeoCon talking heads.

Why you in such a rush now? Bush just left when we went to Iraq. What is the hurry now.

Cant get back in a war fast enough?

[dwilson59]

I look at it like this: If the commanding officer request more troops then we should send them. President Bush and President Obama have no military experience or very little. That is why they have advisers who briefs them and tell them what to do. If the President hand picks the top Officer for the job he should listen to him. If President sends in more troops this will go against the party line and when you play politics is the men on the field it is not a good day.

This is what is upsetting to me as a Neo-Con.

[Mortarman-29]

Can I ask you a question, lib? Wh yareyou in such a rush to get healthcare passed? What is the hurry? Why cant we make sure we get it right?

[Mortarman-29]

And by the way, the answer to the question you posed is obvious: we are already at war! We arent asking to rush to go to war. We are asking the POTUS to give to the soldiers what they have asked for to win.

[mav547166]

We werent "loosing" in Afghanistan like we are now. Do you really think President Obama wants another loss hung around the necks of the Democrats like Vietnam? And do you honestly think that will get him re-elected in 2012 if he fails here. I would think you liberals would want to root for the home team for once now that you own it.

[Empire-George]

by chitown639 November 12, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Murdock is EVIL...and a racist!!! The Foxnews Channel is anti-everything-that-isn't-white-and-christain.... Murdock is the biggest peddler of hate in the world.....
____________

The leftists have indoctrinated.....oops, I mean brainwashed....you well.

I'm curious (not really) of your opinion of people like George Soros, Ted Turner and Michael Moore....upstanding citizens in your book, I'm sure

[endurorob_5]

us_1776 November 12, 2009 12:09 PM EST
No, you're the joke.



That is an excellent liberal response. You are incapable of effectivley rebutting the comment so you attack the commentor. Janeane Garofalo would be proud.

[olyboy]

I'm not sure what option he's looking for... I suspect it's one where the war goes away and he doesn't pay a political price. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has finally reached a level where he can no longer simply give a speech, he actually has to do something. New role for him based on his empty resume. This guy's a joke.

[us_1776]

No, you're the joke.

[Empire-George]

No, the joke was played on the American people by this amateur

[us_1776]

empire-george, the only joke is that the corporate funded well-oiled propagandist machinery of Rupert Murdoch has corrupted the thinking of so many Americans like yourself. Murdoch is a purely 'evil' individual to use a Bushism. This guy has a private corporate extremist power agenda and he could care less about the United States of America or Great Britain. And he is on a mission to destabilize the political situation in both countries.

[fedup12]

Dude I think I prefer a thoughtful careful decision on this. You know it is war and peoples lives at stake.

Of course we could rush to judgement and go go go like Iraq. We all know what a success that was/is.

I think we learned our lesson after Iraq. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

When Obama has all the (correct!!!) intel it will be time to make the call. Until them I hope he takes his time.

[Mortarman-29]

fedup, why dont you prefer a thoughtful careful decision on spending money on a stimulus or on healthcare?

[us_1776]

Karzai was the installed puppet of Bush and Darth Cheney. Put there to guard the oil pipeline interests. And over the past 4 years of being almost totally ignored by Bush and Darth the guy goes 'rogue' and starts engaging in drug trafficking and forming alliances with our enemies. Karzai is not to be trusted. Period.

The only hope in Afghanistan is for someone to remove Karzai from power and hopefully then a more trusted individual could take the reins of power.

[chitown639]

by Empire-George November 12, 2009 11:38 AM EST
by chitown639 November 12, 2009 11:29 AM EST

Chinatown, were am I blaming Obama for the last 8 years ? he was talking about Pelosi's, Reid's and Obama's failure this past year, not 3 years since Pelosi came to power, not 8 years.....THIS YEAR, the year of Obama.

What are you talking about? Pelosi and Reid aren't directly responsible for executing war...READ your country's constitution....that's why we have a Executive Branch in our government. You low information critics are a danger to the country........

[Empire-George]

by chitown639 November 12, 2009 11:48 AM EST

The Pelosi/Reid failures mentioned weren't about executing a war.

"low information critic" ??? your information is about as low as you go

[chitown639]

by Empire-George November 12, 2009 11:19 AM EST
Hey Chinatown, your 8 years blah, blah, blah...is getting old and tired

endurob was discussing PELOREIDFWRANKBAMA's failure not Bush...stay focused....Obama's the president now, not bush
-------------------------

No....what people like you fail to understand is that President Bush failed for 8 years to defeat our enemies in Afghanistan.....he failed for 8 years!!!!! This president has been in office for less than a year and you want to blame him for the last 8........do you know how ridiculous you sound?

[Mortarman-29]

Silly.

[Empire-George]

by chitown639 November 12, 2009 11:29 AM EST

Chinatown, were am I blaming Obama for the last 8 years ? he was talking about Pelosi's, Reid's and Obama's failure this past year, not 3 years since Pelosi came to power, not 8 years.....THIS YEAR, the year of Obama.

What do you think went on during the Afghanistan war in 2001> ? Who do you think were the targets of our relentless bombing ? Bush was the president who had the ____'s to actually do something against terrorism.

What is Obama doing about terrorism ? Waiting for new afghan options....that's what....and a few drone strikes, which is primarily the USAF

[endurorob_5]

Well, despite all of Bush's failings at least he was capable of making a decision and didn't just sit back mulling things over while people dies.

[USA_is_back]

by endurorob_5 November 12, 2009 11:44 AM EST
Well, despite all of Bush's failings at least he was capable of making a decision and didn't just sit back mulling things over while people dies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you think it's better to rush into ANY decision without thinking about the consequences just for the sake of making a decision? What if that decision results in MORE deaths?

[Mortarman-29]

USA_is_back,

So, you take the position we should take our time and discuss and research and make sure we get it right, since this is such a big decision, correct?

[USA_is_back]

by Mortarman-29 November 12, 2009 12:12 PM EST
USA_is_back,

So, you take the position we should take our time and discuss and research and make sure we get it right, since this is such a big decision, correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We rushed into Iraq without doing any research, right? Now we have over 4,000 dead Americans.

[Mortarman-29]

So, rushing into a stimulus package and rushing into a healthcare boondoggle is probably not wise also, right???

[USA_is_back]

by Mortarman-29 November 12, 2009 12:38 PM EST
So, rushing into a stimulus package and rushing into a healthcare boondoggle is probably not wise also, right???
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That depends. Will it SAVE lives or cause more deaths?

[USA_is_back]

by Mortarman-29 November 12, 2009 12:38 PM EST
So, rushing into a stimulus package and rushing into a healthcare boondoggle is probably not wise also, right???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of healthcare, since you say you are a veteran, that means you get "socialized" VA, a government run system, correct? So you're OK with government subsidies as long as you get them but no one else?

[endurorob_5]

Mortarman-29 November 12, 2009 11:11 AM EST
We pay most of them oney into that mess. Let's just stop paying all of that. Make our dues just be the same as every other country. If there are 185 nations, for example, let's just pay 185th of the dues.



Come on now that is not the socialist way.

[Mortarman-29]

I know. lol

[chitown639]

President Obama should start pulling our troops out now....let the Afghans fight for their own country.....

[Brokennews]

At least that would be a decision.

[Mortarman-29]

So, you chose for us to lose? Unbelievable.

[endurorob_5]

Mortarman-29 November 12, 2009 10:58 AM EST
The UN is a joke. Why do we even bother with those guys?


I am with you there. We need to sever all ties with that nutbag orginization. They are more corrupt than any nation on the planet and yet they want to tell nations what to do. I say take back the land the headquarters is on and send them all to Europe.

[Mortarman-29]

We pay most of them oney into that mess. Let's just stop paying all of that. Make our dues just be the same as every other country. If there are 185 nations, for example, let's just pay 185th of the dues.

[Brokennews]

NO...the choice made is to strategically ***** what can be done and what cannot be done. You can send the entire military over there and when its all said and done...what is the prize?

by stillwaters6 November 12, 2009 10:46 AM EST


The prize?
See if this quote from a great historical leader helps.

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Conan the Barbarian


We're pretty good at crushing & driving, we have that down pat. So, I guess we're after their women. Yep! It must be the women!

[stillwaters6]

What goes around comes around...starting in one's own house. Every 12 seconds an American woman is raped in this country by an American citizen.

[chitown639]

Ambassador Karl Eikenberry's opinion should carry alot to weight because he was the former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Afghan government isn't worthy of an increase in American troop levels.....Obama should focus on pulling out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

[endurorob_5]

So you are all for quitting. At least you are one left nut liberal who can make a decision. Try passing that on to Obama.

[Mortarman-29]

He was also the commander in charge when everything started to go south there.

[endurorob_5]

stillwaters6 November 12, 2009 10:56 AM EST
WHAT IS THE PRIZE?

DO YOU THINK {C.A.R.B.} Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush had a good war strategy about IRAQ?


C.A.R.B. is no longer in charge. PELREIDAMA is and they are failing miserably.

[chitown639]

by endurorob_5 November 12, 2009 11:00 AM EST

C.A.R.B. is no longer in charge. PELREIDAMA is and they are failing miserably.
.........................................

Bush is the failure!!! He had 8 years to defeat the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan...and he failed....allowing the Alqaeda and the Taliban to reqroup in Afghanistan for the last 8 years while he focused on a war of choice in Iraq. Obama is just trying to clean up failures of Bush.....

[Brokennews]

chitown639

Few would argue that Bush was a failure, but why sit back allow us to go two for two.

[Empire-George]

by stillwaters6 November 12, 2009 10:46 AM EST

You can send the entire military over there and when its all said and done...what is the prize?
______________

The prize ? this isn't a game, but if their is any benefit to destroying our enemies, it is our National security at stake, and reduction of future attacks planned on our country....period

[stillwaters6]

where do you think H1N1 come from?
It's a new day...

[endurorob_5]

stillwaters6 November 12, 2009 10:46 AM EST
NO...the choice made is to strategically ***** what can be done and what cannot be done. You can send the entire military over there and when its all said and done...what is the prize?

You really think Obama or any of his political advisors know anything about strategy? This is a group that have spent their careers trying to figure out how to break down America so they can reshape it into a socialist nation. They know nothing about war strategy.

[stillwaters6]

WHAT IS THE PRIZE?

DO YOU THINK {C.A.R.B.} Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush had a good war strategy about IRAQ?

[Mortarman-29]

They had a great strategy for defeating Iraq. They had a poor strategy for governing Iraq...until the surge. And the surge idea came from the military. And once that was implemented, you have see nthe steady progression of things in Iraq for the good.

[stillwaters6]

So let me get this straight....
$3 Trillon spent, 4,360 dead in OIF operation and 31,557 Wounded for life in OIF operation as of November 5, 2009 is a good measure of how successful our mission was in Iraq. A country less than half the size of the United State with no military, just backpacks, car bombs, IED's and unshakable resolve got us what???

[Mortarman-29]

Stillwater,

You dont seem to get it. Iraq is just one piece of the entire war. We are at war with radical Islam. Radical Islam has been at war with us for over 30 years. We just decided to start fighting back after 9/11.

This war will go on for quite some time. In many places. Not just Iraq and Afghanistan. There will even be more bloodshed in the US. Our enemy will not give up, and cannot be reasoned with.

With an enemy like that, there is only one solution and that is extermination. Look at what happened at that outpost that was almost overrun several weeks ago. We lost like 13 men in that fight. And I value every one of them for their sacrifice.

But those guys slaughtered over 100 Jihadis. That is 100 nutjobs that wont ever kill another American.

Again, these people are not reasonable. Stay or go, they will not stop fighting us and not stop wanting us dead.

So, again, as Reagan stated...our policy should be but one thing:

"We win, they lose."

[rank_n_file]

I am a democrat who voted for Obama. I am NOT a war hawk. But the message we are hearing is astonishing. We are being told that "The evolving U.S. policy . . . increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force." This means that we are acknowledging defeat by a rag-tag bunch of cave-dwelling terrorists. We have heard this before. We have been told with iron-clad certainty that the combined forces of the U.S., Japan, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France and many other nations will never be able to stop the flagrant in-your-face piracy that has now been going on for many years off the coast of Samolia. And that echoes the statement the U.S. made when we left Samolia with our tail between our legs, namely, that it is patently impossible for the U.S. to ever defeat the rag-tag thugs in that country. We know with certainty that Afghanistan has long-since been a safe haven for global terrorists. And we know with certainty that these terrorists have declared war against the U.S. and its allies and has militantly dedicated itself to the annhilation of the U.S. and its allies. And all we are hearing from our government is that we are powerless to defeat this enemy. We fought the wrong war in Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban, Al Queda, global terrorism or the events of 9-11. And now we are cowering in fear, trepidation and doubts as to whether we should fight the REAL war, the war that IS directly and unmistakably related to the Taliban, Al Queda, global terrorism and the events of 9-11. This is reality standing on its head. We fought the war that should NEVER have been waged and refuse to fight the war that desperately NEEDS TO BE WAGED. If we learned anything at all from the Vietnam War, it is that we need to either get all the way in it with a full-throttle commitment, or we need to get the hell out . . . IMMEDIATELY. At this point, Al Queda and the Taliban are on the threshold of an outright, total, unequivocal victory against all the World powers. And the U.S. is on the threshold of one of the most astounding defeats of a global power in human history.