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.

[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?