Source: U.S. Envoy Objects to Afghan Surge

Official says U.S. Ambassador Warns Obama in Leaked Cables that More Troops Won't Help Amid Corruption

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 6:24 a.m. Eastern.

The U.S. envoy in Afghanistan, a former Army general who once commanded troops in the country, has objected strongly to emerging plans to send tens of thousands of additional forces to the country, a senior U.S. official told the Associated Press Wednesday.

Ambassador Karl Eikenberry resigned his Army commission to take the job as U.S. ambassador in Kabul earlier this year, and his is an influential voice among those advising President Obama on Afghanistan. Eikenberry sent multiple classified cables to Washington over the past week that question the wisdom of adding forces when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain, said an official familiar with the cables. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations and the classified documents.

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 declined to give any details on what the alleged inaccuracies were.

Cables are diplomatic messages that may or may not be classified and carry greater heft than other forms of communication such as e-mail.

Asked for confirmation of the leaked cables' content, assistant press attache John Groch at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul told CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark; "We do not comment on private conversations between the ambasador and the president."

Eikenberry made the point that the administration should step cautiously in planning for any troop buildup while there are still so many questions surrounding Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the official told the AP.

Eikenberry is the front line U.S. official dealing with Karzai, the U.S.-backed leader whose administration was stained by corruption and mismanagement. It was a visiting senior senator, Democrat John Kerry, who was instrumental in persuading Karzai last month to accept the findings of a U.N. panel that his re-election vote in August was too marred by fraud to stand.

Karzai agreed to a second round of voting but was elevated to a second term as president without a runoff election when his challenger dropped out. Since then, U.S. officials have been alarmed at some of Karzai's remarks and the lack, so far, of meaningful steps to clean house.

Eikenberry's objections were a wild card in the midst of what had appeared to be the final days of Obama's long decision-making process on how to revamp U.S. strategy in the 8-year war. Eikenberry has participated in some of Obama's war council sessions over the past several weeks.

A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press that Mr. Obama rejected all four options presented to him at what had been expected to be the last of those sessions Wednesday. Those options started from the premise that some addition of U.S. forces is necessary, and included ways that Mr. Obama could meet or nearly meet war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's preference for about 40,000 additional troops.

It is not clear whether Eikenberry's objections played a part in Mr. Obama's decision not to accept any of the choices prepared by military planners Wednesday.

"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.

At his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Eikenberry underscored what he called the urgency of the requirement to turn around the war effort, which has evolved into a stalemate in key parts of Afghanistan as the Taliban-led insurgency has gained clout.

"Time is of the essence," Eikenberry said. "There will be no substitute for more resources and sacrifice."

He said Europeans, for example, should be expected to provide more mentors for Afghan police trainees. Another key to success, he said, is getting more civilian experts such as agriculture specialists and justice experts who can help reduce Afghanistan's dependence on the illicit narcotics trade.

Eikenberry was the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan for two years before moving to Brussels to be deputy chairman of NATO's military committee in 2007. He had served one previous tour in Afghanistan.

[wdh3007]

Their is no mission in the Afghan country Karzai is a puppet president put in by the U.S. when Bush was in office the government is not stable but corrupt becuase of the opium. Thier is no dictator to remove no economy and no oil in the country so we should pull our troops out save lives let them defend their own country and earn their own democracy like the U.S. did over two hundred years ago.

[thesevenveils]

The US abandoned Afghanistan when Russia pulled out. Had we done our job then and finished what we started, 911 would have never occured and the nasty wars may have never occurred.

Never walk away from a job without finishing it.

[alphaa10000]

The US was not "in" Afghanistan-- officially, at least. We unofficially supplied much of the weaponry used against the Soviet occupiers, but after Kabul fell to locals (which eventually meant the Taliban) we still were not a player.

America cannot be everywhere, nor should we be. But none had a crystal ball (not even Nancy) to inform Reagan about the prospects of Afghanistan collapsing into a failed state.

Reagan was president, but the key player was Brezezinski's strategy for distracting the USSR from its European satellites. Exhausted and defeated in a mountainous region that defies description for inaccessibility, the USSR had no power to turn on Eastern Europe for the heavy police action suppressing dissent would require (Poland, etc.).

The Afghan diversion, and internal chaos in the Soviet economy, brought down the USSR in a way Ronald RayGun never did. It was not Reagan's doubling the national debt to finance a massive Pentagon budget that defeated the Soviets, but the Soviet system, itself, which collapsed of internal stress.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Gorbachev (and Yeltsin) for keeping Russians from engaging in civil war or rebuilding the Stalin state. The remaining hard-line Kremlin powers actually kidnapped Gorbachev as they schemed to return to power.

So, there was no "job" in 1989 to finish, only a vacuum of power.

[AJMarine12]

by formrusmcsgt November 12, 2009 8:06 AM EST

Both the Afghani's I know here in Vegas claim that Karzai is hip-deep in opium (common knowledge, according to them).




I thought that could be said about anyone living in Afganistan.


Semper Fi Sgt.

[stn_sage]

Is Eikenberry really telling them ANYTHING they don't ALREADY know?

But, more importantly...are they going to LISTEN and ACT UPON what he says?

...probably NOT!

[skepticalJM]

Democratic freedom must be earned by the people who would have it.
There's no royal road to Democracy, certainly not one Nation imposing it on another -- you can't force someone to be free, that's the antithesis of what Democracy is.

[jgg000015]

the problem is that you can't let afghanistan fall to the taliban and al qaeda because it affects pakistan, iraq and the entire middle east.
you either get out with the proviso that if they dare to look at us funny we will bomb you into oblivion, or you stay and try to make what's best of a bad situation. surely, the afghans and nato better step up to the plate. The US cannot be the world's policeman and pay for all that ails the world.

[jgg000015]

actually, skyk, tell me something... anything that has improved since obama has become president. Unemployment is worse. The wars are worse.
The value of the dollar is worse. Debt is higher. Our allies question us, and our enemies have become empowered. Surely something must have gotten better. Oh, do you know what businesses are doing well? Guns, bullets, and safe manufacturers. What does that tell you? It tells me that people don't trust this government. Keep drinking the kool aide. You make a wonderful lemming.

[jgg000015]

if any of you were getting your rear-ends kicked in afghanistan with fatalities at record highs, how long would you consider it to be acceptable before the reinforcements arrived?

[skyk-2009]

jgg000015,so you think we should just keep on feeding the meat grinder regardless of the question of any exit or any chance of winning? I'm sorry but anyone listening to you folks at this point really needs to seek help form a mental professional. We were told SEVEN YEARS ago by you and that Incompetent LOSER Bush that Afganistan was secure and we didn't need troops there.. we needed them instead in the Front on the War on Terror, Iraq! Please try to be quite while our Commander in Chief TRIES to figure out how to get around that incompetence and SO MUCH more.

[JBARON79]

Please decipher.

[JBARON79]

Please decipher.

[JBARON79]

skyk-2009

for seven years you have been keeping score.?.
Get off the computer and make a difference...

[jgg000015]

so you can't answer the question, eh? The current CIC said this is the war we should be fighting. He is dithering and politicizing. Either send troops, or pull them out. He got the request 90 days ago from his self appointed general based upon his own strategy. It is beyond time to s*** or get off the pot while soldier's lives are at stake.
You are the one who needs mental help. BTW, based upon how your beloved leader has acted and handled this country thus far, I'd take Bush back in a nanosecond.

[AOCGUY]

jgg000015 - When additional troops were sent to Afghanistan last spring, I beleive that it was McCrystal's predecessor that stated that we should expect more violence and casulties if for no other reason than we have more troops in theater (re: more target opportunities). While it may not be a predictor, one could draw a similar conclusion that until we have a strategy on what to do with these additional troops, any increase will probably further increase the casualty rate.

[msimamaji]

I am grateful that we have Obama as president. Otherwise, we'd be bombing Iran and nuking Mecca. Remember the bad old USSR??? They thought they could "win" Afghanistan. And for real, women in the Soviet Union had more rights than women in Afghanistan, so the USSR was also exporting "freedom."

And what happened to the USSR and its mighty army? Reagan & Co armed the "freedom-loving" mujadeen and "liberated" Afghanistan. And the mujadeen became the Taliban.

Obama is right. We need to turn the responsbility of running Afghanistan to the Afghans. The longer we stay, the more we will be regarded as infidel, Christian invaders - and bear in mind most Afghans hate Christians just the way the tea-baggers hate Obama. We need a responsible exit strategy.

If we want to bring about change, then we must do it through the power of our example, not by the example of our power. We cannot expect the Afghans to act like reasonable people when we permit the tea-baggers, the birthers, and other rabid extremists,and racial and religious fanatics to run our country.

[bubbadubba]

"I don't understand why we don't burn the opium crop?"

But then where would the right wingers get their Oxycontin to feed their addictions because it comes from Opium?

[bubbadubba]

Thank you Ambassador Eikenberry, you are a true American with honor and courage because you are not afraid to tell the truth.

[melchg07]

People wanted change?........HERE IS OUR CHANCE!!!! TERM LIMIT BILL!!!


Citizen Legislature Act


Summary:

This resolution provides for consideration of two joint
resolutions which propose amendments to the constitution limiting
the number of terms members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives can serve. The first joint resolution
(identical to H.J.Res. 38 as introduced in the 103rd Congress)
limits the number of Senate terms to two and the number of House
terms to six. The second joint resolution (identical to H.J.Res.
160 as introduced in the 103rd Congress) also limits Senators to
two terms, but it limits members of the House to three terms.
Under the terms of this resolution, the joint resolution with the
text of H.J.Res. 38 will be debated first and the first amendment
in order will be a substitute consisting of H.J.Res. 160.


Background:

The idea of limiting the tenure of elected officials has recurred
through our history, but it has become more popular in the last
few years. In 1992, 14 states passed initiatives limiting the
tenure of federal legislators. Two of these laws, however, have
been challenged and found unconstitutional in court. The U.S.
Supreme Court will review the ruling by the Arkansas Supreme
Court. Since there is a chance the high court will uphold the
state court's ruling, a constitutional amendment may be necessary
to limit congressional tenure.

[superdem1]

People who want term limits don't understand how Congress works, which is by the Committee System. The Committee System is entirely about seniority, experience, and power. Members become powerful through their accumulated experience, their expanded expertise in complicated issues, and in the working relationships they establish with other members. A rotating door with the likes of Sarah Palin coming in could not possibly serve this nation, the expertise on the committees would be lost, and not only that, members who know they only have a small window will be MORE inclined to take the lobbyist money, not less. The answer is not limited terms, but limited private money which currently buys influence and thwarts the will of the people. Legislators will never defy their benefactors so long as they must run million dollar re-election campaigns. The answer is public funding of elections, with free television time. I can hear the Republicans screaming now. They've been behind the "money equals free speech" and "corporations are individuals" election laws. Why aren't the low tax teabaggers behind limiting corporate influence in the political system ? Because they aren't really grassroots populists, they are ginned up by the corporations and power eletes, and funded by the same lobbyists who corrupt the politicians now. They are lobbyists in a different guise.

[JBARON79]

This has what to do with the above article?

[us_1776]

superdem1, good assessment.

JBARON79, you need this spelled out? Are you kidding?

[vuenbelvue]

Yesterday was one of the most participated Veterans Days I have seen in a long time. I am talking from a national and a local level and what I experienced. This has motivated me to reach out to all active service and all overseas veterans to consider that for less than $35 a year and even less with a life time membership (one time payment) you can join the VFW or American Legion. There are over 11,000 lobbiest in Washington , DC and for this small amount you will have a association (lobbiest) continually fighting for your rights as a soldier in America's military til the day you die. Why do you think politician's seek their endorsements on election day? Just like this story depicts, you are the one's at risk. I am a lowly member of each but a proud member.

[emelder2]

spam

[vuenbelvue]

There would not be one parade without these organizations. Did you go to one emelder2. I only post this because these men and woman because the wounds and dieseases they incur will only worsen as they age and that the interests of politicians constantly change per the article. Nine years or more in Afghanistan, the same in Iraq and for what? We democratize muslim nations? Ha Ha Ha Ha.

[erich_1-2009]

I don't understand why we don't burn the opium crop?
Wouldn't that make sense to stop corruption?

[Empire-George]

by erich_1-2009 November 12, 2009 9:07 AM EST
I don't understand why we don't burn the opium crop?
Wouldn't that make sense to stop corruption?
________________

I can't confirm it, but I believe the reason is that Poppy is their only source of income to feed/cloth themselves, and to deny them their crop would be a death sentence...that's my opinion of why

[BeckieBest]

Afghanistan has never had a strong central government and it is unlikely that we will be able to impose one, especially when that government is completely corrupt.

[stillunbanable]

"The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations and the classified documents."

Does anybody else see a problem with this? Why is the official discussing classified documents?

[DocD--2008]

What that line says to me is: "I as the 'reporter' am making things up as I go and blaming them on people who don't exist because if they did and they gave me this info they would be convicted as a traitor and go to prison".

[formrusmcsgt]

Both the Afghani's I know here in Vegas claim that Karzai is hip-deep in opium (common knowledge, according to them).

[stn_sage]

Well, that doesn't surprise me...or you either! It makes sense!
It's also probably the MAIN reason he doesn't want to step down!
He controls some part of the military as president, which ensures he gets his 'cut' from business associates!
I'm sure this is 'common knowledge' in Washington, D.C., too!

[nowhiningallowed]

The president is probably doing his usual happy dance over this. The more dissension, even among his buddies on the matter of Afghanistan, the easier it will be for him to make a "decision". If the president were to totally make a decision only on his own, he'd be incapable of doing so, which is why he needs dissenters surrounding himself. We know where the president's allegiance is, and it's not with our troops.

[dmwj2]

you are an idiot...

[thinkharder-]

Rreally...who is i with then pray tell?

[JBARON79]

Does anyone that blogs here make sense?

[alphaa10000]

GOP POSTER GOES BACK TO THE USSR

Back in the USSR, when Pravda or Tass announced a new way for thinking of "Soviet reality", they presented their latest party-line fiction as though everyone already recognized it as fact.

"As is well-known" began many a tired Pravda propaganda piece, announcing the latest-issued fact of Soviet life.


PUMPING UP TRIAL LEAD BALLOONS

In the same Soviet style, GOP poster "nowhiningallowed" whines, "We know where the president's allegiance is, and it's not with our troops."

His preposterous comment harks directly from the GOP Mythology Hour, and is a coffee-stained bumper sticker from 2007-2008. Those were the years the GOP tried to persuade American voters Obama was too "alien" to be president.

Clearly, most Americans found GOP campaign rhetoric lacking-- which is why President Obama now invests great efforts to make the right decisions on our behalf in Afghanistan.


AFGHANISTAN, AFGHANISTAN

By any light, Afghanistan remains a difficult decision. Destroying Afghan lairs of al Qaeda was a worthy objective back in 2001, but Afghanistan became a basket case by 2008. Not surprisingly, the Taliban is back, in force.

The immediate cause of this disaster is hiding in plain sight-- Bush ignored the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan for seven, long years. What did he expect? Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sent as few troops and equipment to Afghanistan as possible, with as little funding as possible. The three literally left Afghanistan to die slowly of official neglect.

Yet, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were not finished. The three not only second-guessed their own commanders chasing bin Laden in Afghanistan, but actually dropped the ball several times in succession (FIASCO, by Thomas Ricks).

But the worst aspect of their incompetence and neglect in Afghanistan was a steadfast refusal to promote vigorous reconstruction efforts, to which Bush originally had pledged Karzai billions in aid.

One Afghan province was assured by the Bush administration that its medical clinic would get all the medicine and supplies it needed. This clinic was a humble, one-story white-washed building fronted by a spiffy sign declaring it was dedicated to First Lady Bush, with intent of making it a glowing model of American muscle behind Afghan reconstruction. After months of delay, inexplicably broken promises from Bush officials, and fruitless email traffic, the clinic was all but closed.

So desperate were clinic volunteers, they used contaminated hypodermic needle points as pushpins for bulletin boards. They had no bandages but what rags could be found. Restrooms were cesspools, and general sanitation was out of the question. After a year or so, an anonymous Bush official directed the Laura Bush sign over the clinic be removed. No further contact ever came from anybody in the Bush administration.

Bush actually withdrew American units from Afghanistan-- troops still in hot pursuit of Taliban insurgents-- into Iraq. Instead of giving oversight and support to operations in Afghanistan, Bush and DOD gave it the back of their hand.


BETRAYING OUR TROOPS

The Bush doctrine for Afghanistan was "set it and forget it"-- a prescription for disaster. Seven years later, a disaster is exactly what Bush handed Obama.

While Bush executive negligence is the very definition of not supporting the troops, it goes beyond negligence. Bush malfeasance-- the criminal failure to fulfil the duties of public office-- is his continued, criminal indifference to critically worsening conditions in Afghanistan.

Specifically, such Bush malfeasance applies to the welfare of American troops fighting in Afghanistan.

In contrast to Afghanistan, Bush entered Iraq by fraudulent claims and action illegal under international law. This was the same international law Bush piously cited when protesting Russian invasion of Georgia only last year.

But Bush hypocrisy does not end there-- Bush was the consumate enemy of the American people, and put the lives of their sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq without a shred of justification.

No less august a personage than former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, himself, concludes in his memoir, THE AGE OF TURBULENCE, "Iraq is about oil..." This is the same Alan Greenspan, knighted in 2007 by G.W. Bush for his "wise policies and prudent judgment."


GOP KNEE-JERK EXERCISE

For the GOP, childish, spiteful attacks on political rivals has become a signature exercise for the diminishing circle of Archie Bunkers still carrying GOP cards.

But as the odious history from the eight years of Bush and GOP disaster makes clear, the GOP has eight years of public betrayal for which to answer. If "loyalty to our troops" is the GOP litmus test, it fails its own test.

The question America now should ask of the GOP is simple-- "Where is your allegiance to the United States of America?"

[wyodutch]

We Americans have no aversion to having our military fight and die to prop-up corrupt and rotton governments... Certainly General Eikenberry knows that.
.
As long as there is no draft and no war tax, the American public could care less how many working class boys come home in boxes or wheelchairs.
.
However... enact a draft and tell the average dumbed-down American sofa spud that his Johnny-boy has to march off to Kabul... Why, the rush to exit Afghanistan would become a stampede.

[AOCGUY]

1. Eieknberry didn't resign he retired.
2. Gen Eikenberry, why are you still employed as an Ambassador when under your watch we saw perverted drunken parties held by your security staff? I would hazard a guess that had something similar happended within a unit under your command while in the Army the commander of that unit would have been relieved by you.

[JBARON79]

Good points.

[ramos1129]

A few months ago, a top UN official resigned when his warnings about Karzai were derailed by his boss. Now, Amb. Eikenberry is backing him up. Obama really needs to be very deliberate and careful here.

Amb. Eikenberry does not go far enough with the Europeans. If additional troops are really needed, they should come from European countries and not the USA.