November 25, 2009 8:37 PM

Obama Expects Support for Afghan War Plan

By
CBSNews
(CBS/ AP)  President Barack Obama will announce his plan to bolster the war in Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday night, his spokesman said, a surge that U.S. military officials say could top 30,000 troops.

The president promised this week to "finish the job" begun eight years ago, and press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday the announcement would include an exit strategy. But the surge in troops would be Mr. Obama's second since taking office, and liberal Democrats already are lining up against it, in part because of the also-surging cost - up to $75 billion a year.

Gibbs said Mr. Obama's recent meetings with military advisers have often focused on how to train Afghanistan's police and army to secure and hold areas taken from the Taliban so that U.S. forces can leave. "We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," he said.

Gibbs said the president will argue that that kind of commitment would be "unsustainable" -- in terms of the numbers of Americans killed and wounded, and the monetary cost, which officials say is a million dollars a year for each additional troop, CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid said.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Incompetence and corruption in the Afghan government have aided a rise in the Taliban's strength. The military strategy is expected to include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not final.

Mr. Obama will be speaking to a war-weary American public. Polls show support for the war has dropped significantly since Mr. Obama took office, with a majority now saying both that they oppose the war and that it is not worth fighting.

With Americans losing confidence in the president's handling of the war -- only 23% believe it's going well -- analysts say he must convince them that it will not become a quagmire, Reid reports.

"That we aren't simply going to throw resources, blood and treasure into Afghanistan until the end of time," said CBS News security analyst Juan Zarate.

The president and his top military and national security advisers have held 10 meetings to discuss America's future steps in Afghanistan. The top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, has asked the president for about 40,000 troops, arguing that a robust but temporary surge was the best way to end the war.

Administration officials said Mr. Obama has not made a final decision about the number of troops he would approve. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the president's plans, said they expected the total to be between 32,000 and 35,000.

Analysis: Obama Goes with Head, Not Gut

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama predicted the American people will support his strategy once they understand the stakes.

"I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said, speaking at a White House news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

McChrystal has warned that the war effort could fail without a large troop infusion. Although he preferred a higher figure - about 40,000 - McChrystal is expected to testify before Congress next week that this lesser number still gives him enough.

The expected increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent, the officials said.

Among others likely to take part in congressional hearings are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All were among about 20 officials and advisers participating in the president's final deliberations Monday night - one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions.

Obama, Democrats Likely at Odds on Afghanistan

The administration plan will have a tough sell among some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat who has questioned the value of adding forces and pointed to the war's rising cost.

The Afghan war bill hit $43 billion annually this summer, with the addition of 21,000 forces Obama has already added to the fight this year.

Meanwhile, an official with the NATO-led force in Afghanistan concedes that the Taliban have gained momentum in their insurgency.

His comments come as the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, insists the insurgents have gained the upper hand and are winning the war.

Canadian Brigadier General Eric Tremblay says the NATO force needs to "slow them down." Tremblay says the militants are aware that progress is being made in the country with international support. He says that's why the Taliban want to undermine the government.

In his message, the Taliban leader urged Afghans to break off relations with what he calls "this stooge Kabul administration." Mullah Omar says there will be no negotiations that would prolong the presence of foreign forces in the country.


CBS/ AP
Add a Comment See all 47 Comments
by HGOODGUY November 29, 2009 12:35 PM EST
THIS IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF THE VIET NAM WAR. THE PARTICIPANTS WERE:

THEN:

VIET NAM
1. THE NORTH VIET NAM ARMY
2. THE VIET CONG


NOW:

AFGHANISTAN
1. THE TALIBAN
2. AL QUEDA

LOOK FAMILAR??

HERE IS A FACT FOR CERTAIN:

IF WE DO NOT GET OUT, AND GET OUT NOW, THOUSANDS OF OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST YOUNG MEN WILL BE KILLED AGAIN!!!

IT APPEARS THAT HISTORY HAS TOUGHT NOTHING TO OUR MILITARY AND CONGRESS!!

THE ONLY THING THAT IS AN UNDENIABLE IS THAT THOUSANDS OF OUR TROOPS WILL COME BACK IN BODY BAGS!!

IF OBAMA GOES DOWN THIS ROAD IT WILL WRECK HIS PRESIDENCY JUST LIKE IT WRECKED JOHNSONS PRESIDENCY.
Reply to this comment
by pjk12354 November 28, 2009 9:43 PM EST
No matter what Obama proposes, Rush, Glenn Beck, & Fox News will oppose it just bcause they want Obama to fail............
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 28, 2009 1:40 PM EST
Gates to Army: We'll follow Obama's orders on Afghanistan
____________________


WASHINGTON -- Amid tension between the military and President Barack Obama over military action in Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a gathering of Army officers Monday that the Pentagon would follow any strategy that Obama orders.

Bob Gates: "Speaking for the Department of Defense, once the Commander in Chief makes his Decisions, We will Salute and Execute those Decisions Faithfully and to the Best of Our Ability,"

Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington.

Gates' comments seemed to include a rebuke to Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McChrystal appealed for more troops during a speech before the Institute of International and Strategic Studies, calling current White House consideration of proposals that would not increase U.S. troop strenght in Afghanistan "short-sighted."

On Monday, Gates said that military and civilian advisors should provide "our best advice to the president candidly -- but privately."
___________

U.S. military officers, both in Washington and Afghanistan, recently have expressed growing frustration with the administration and its prolonged debate over policy in Afghanistan.

The administration is now reconsidering its strategy just months after it named McChrystal as its commander there, calling him the best military mind the United States has to fight a counterinsurgency war.

McChrystal has asked for as many as 45,000 troops, but the White House said it needs weeks to consider that request, with some suggesting the United States may redefine its goals there all together.

In an assessment submitted to the Pentagon, McChrystal that found the effort there could fail without more troops.
____________
Reply to this comment
by lmartink November 28, 2009 12:18 PM EST
Dear Mr. President,

Where are you going to get this support you are hoping for? Democrats and liberals like me know Afghanistan is now a lost cause. One big factor --- we simply cannot afford it. Sooner or later we are going to leave, and the situation there will begin to deteriorate at that time. Why postpone it?

Republican Obama Haters, and America Haters, will never approve of anything you do. Don't expect support from this band of arrogant, asinine, stupid, and opinionated jerks.

The previous leadership has left us with a nothing war, Mr. President. There is nothing left to fight for. Don't take this on, please.
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 28, 2009 9:41 AM EST
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-david-obey-warns-president-obama-afghanistan-war/story?id=9126805

Top Dem to Obama: 'There Ain't Going to Be Money for Nothing if We Pour It All Into Afghanistan'

Rep. Obey Warns President Obama He Will Ask Taxpayers to Pay for War, Should More Troops Be Sent.
________

The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."


Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., talks exit strategy, compares Afghanistan to Vietnam.

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview.

"If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Watch ABC News' exclusive interview with Rep. Obey here.

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said.

"But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy
Obey's opposition to funding a troop increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant problem for Obama if he decides to send more troops (a decision the White House says the President could make as early as November 30).

As Appropriations Committee chairman, Obey was a key player in securing money for the war when the last war funding bill narrowly passed the House in June.

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.

The White House won't be able to count on Obey's support the next time the president seeks funding for the war.

"I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC News.

"I am no military strategist, but I don't believe we have the tools to accomplish our mission in Afghanistan because you have to have functioning, effective government and there isn't one in Afghanistan. There isn't one in Pakistan either."
Reply to this comment
by gboyd41 November 29, 2009 12:02 AM EST
Just how many more % points do you think the taxpayers will pay before they send our elected officials back to their law practices? We shall see in 2010, and especially in 2012.
by Omni-Present101 November 28, 2009 9:23 AM EST
I Hope President Obama Implements the Damn [[Draft]]

Everybody Needs to Pitch in, I'm sure all these Obama Haters would Agree to that as well as Pay as You Go, regarding the War, Opposed to what Bush-Cheney did..

Leaving the Borrowed Trillions for the next President to Pay Off, with Interest to Communist-Socialist China.

Oh Yeah, That's the Ticket..


Pay as You Go Policy: Regarding Paying for our Wars, without Communist-China Money, unlike Bush-Cheney, for the past 8 Years.

President Obama Implement The Draft: Because Men and Women are not Enlisting in the War Effort,like before. That's what Selective Service was Created for and its Time to Implement [[The Draft]]

The Draft will Show who Supports the War Effort, that will Continue as Reported by [Reuters] & Federal Finance Top Dog david Obey has noted..

The War will Continue for the 7-8 More Years, Robert Gibbs said this week, We will Go No Longer than 2017 and we will not be there in [[2018]]

We are 12 trillion in Debt to China and pay 500 Million daily in Interest, we now must Add an Additional 9 Trillion to the 12 Trillion Based on a 10 Yr Strategy.

You Republicans Talk a Good Game. You say you want to STAY in Afghanistan, that the President should Listen to his Generals on the Ground, yet you don't Want Generational Debt, well You can't have Heaven in Hell.

Bush Stiffed Your Dumb A!!es with 12 Trillion $$ of "Generational Debt"

Big Note: President Obama has been President for Only [[11 Months]]

Bush-Cheney were so Dumb & Incomeptent, they Never Paid for their 2-Wars in All of their 8 Years in Office, they left that Debt for President Obama.
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 28, 2009 9:22 AM EST
Gates to Army: We'll follow Obama's orders on Afghanistan
____________________


WASHINGTON -- Amid tension between the military and President Barack Obama over military action in Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a gathering of Army officers Monday that the Pentagon would follow any strategy that Obama orders.

Bob Gates: "Speaking for the Department of Defense, once the Commander in Chief makes his Decisions, We will Salute and Execute those Decisions Faithfully and to the Best of Our Ability,"

Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington.

Gates' comments seemed to include a rebuke to Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McChrystal appealed for more troops during a speech before the Institute of International and Strategic Studies, calling current White House consideration of proposals that would not increase U.S. troop strenght in Afghanistan "short-sighted."

On Monday, Gates said that military and civilian advisors should provide "our best advice to the president candidly -- but privately."
___________

U.S. military officers, both in Washington and Afghanistan, recently have expressed growing frustration with the administration and its prolonged debate over policy in Afghanistan.

The administration is now reconsidering its strategy just months after it named McChrystal as its commander there, calling him the best military mind the United States has to fight a counterinsurgency war.

McChrystal has asked for as many as 45,000 troops, but the White House said it needs weeks to consider that request, with some suggesting the United States may redefine its goals there all together.

In an assessment submitted to the Pentagon, McChrystal that found the effort there could fail without more troops.
Reply to this comment
by egresor November 27, 2009 8:54 PM EST
and here i thought obama stood for change

sadly he it seems he about to also fail to learn from the mistakes of the past and re-commit to a war that cannot be won thru the conventional means he is proposing. whose end is just as predictable and at the costs of who knows how many injured and killed and costs of untold billions more tax dollars that we borrow from china and burden the economy to it's bursting limits.

mr. obama

i woud not expect you to ever see thing cbs news blog post, but if you did-----please stop the madness. it is insanity to continue the policies of the past. as a candidate you saw the utter stupidity of fighting a war that could never be won by means other than by the decision of the people themselves. (they that rule -- rule by the people's consent and to paraphrase a biblical quotation: "the workman is worthy of his hire"

america is being repaid for it's wrongs done to countless unknowing and therefore innocent people. and you sir, you spoke of change from that path and were elected because of it. americans see the utter futility, as you yourself once did and want us out of the entire region. they want you concentrating on rebuilding the damage done by 8 years of bush and cheney.

not lapsing ringt back into the same old rut and failing to be the decisive president who gave people the impression of being. stand up and be president mer. president and end the insanity of trying to fight conventionally with cannot be defeated by it.

you are a smart man, but even smart men do dumb things!
Reply to this comment
by ivehadit9 November 27, 2009 3:21 PM EST
WiseWidget~~~

Now you know that incompetence does cross party lines. In the real world, it doesn't really matter which party you sold yourself to.
Reply to this comment
by WiseWidget November 27, 2009 1:20 PM EST
All the criticism that was directed toward the Bush Gang is about to be redirected toward Obama. What we have is another arrogant out of control president who is very out of touch with the real world. In the real world we are stuck with the work of finding some other president who can lead us out of the Bush cesspool, not into it.
Reply to this comment
by egresor November 27, 2009 8:58 PM EST
he seems to be going done the primrose path isn't he?

sadly

maybe if we instead of dropping one million dollar a day soldier we could instead drop a million dollars in cash money instead? save a lot of suffering.
See all 47 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook