December 1, 2009 12:53 PM

Marines to Lead Obama's Afghanistan Surge

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 7:43 a.m. Eastern.

New infusions of U.S. Marines will begin moving into Afghanistan almost as soon as President Obama announces a redrawn battle strategy, a plan widely expected to include more than 30,000 additional U.S. forces.

Mr. Obama will try to sell a skeptical public on his bigger, costlier war plan Tuesday by coupling the large new troop infusion with an emphasis on stepped-up training for Afghan forces that he says will allow the U.S. to leave.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Mr. Obama formally ends a 92-day review of the war in Afghanistan Tuesday night with a nationally broadcast address in which he will lay out his revamped strategy from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He began rolling out his decision Sunday night, informing key administration officials, military advisers and foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls that stretched into Monday.

Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks of Mr. Obama's announcement, and would be in Afghanistan by Christmas. Larger deployments wouldn't be able to follow until early in 2010.

The initial infusion is a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly, officials said. The quick addition of Marines would provide badly needed reinforcements to those fighting against Taliban gains in the southern Helmand province, and could lend reassurance to both Afghans and a war-weary U.S. public.

Speaking to "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith Tuesday morning, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the months-long process of deliberation Mr. Obama took to make his final decision.

"Everybody involved really worked hard with the President to make this policy better than it would have been had we announced it after only a week," said Gibbs.

Thirty thousand more troops would be 10,000 fewer than Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, requested, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin. The president hopes to make up at least some of the difference with contributions from NATO allies.

"This is going to be an international effort," Gibbs told "the Early Show". "This is not one country, or one region of the world's problem."

"I think NATO will come through with a couple thousand and so I think we'll still be somewhat short of what Gen. McChrystal proposed," Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution told CBS News.

Martin reports that the commandant of the Marine Corps has said his troops will among be the first in - about 9,000 into the Taliban heartland in Southern Afghanistan. It was not immediately clear whether that contingent of 9,000 would be deployed by the end of 2009, or would be staggered.

Aides to McChrystal say the rest of the buildup will consist of two combat brigades from the Army plus trainers for Afghan forces and support troops to construct all the new facilities that will be needed.

It will take upwards of a year to get them all there, but when the buildup is complete, the United States will have nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, concentrated in the South and East of the country where the insurgency is the strongest. The North and West will have to wait for NATO to send more troops.

"My best guess is the North and West of the country continue to fester a little bit more than we would like," O'Hanlon said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in remarks Monday to business executives in New York, stressed that the administration's strategy is to go after not just the al Qaeda terror network but also the Taliban militants allied with it in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"As long as Afghanistan and Pakistan struggle to control their borders and extend their sovereignty to all their territory, the door is open to bad actors, and the result can be an environment in which terrorist groups thrive," she said.

The war escalation includes sending 30,000 to 35,000 more American forces into Afghanistan in a graduated deployment over the next year, on top of the 71,000 already there. Mr. Obama's announcement is the culmination of more than three months of debate over whether and how to expand U.S. military involvement in a war that has turned worse this year despite Obama's previous infusion of 21,000 forces.

Mr. Obama also will deliver a deeper explanation of why the U.S. must continue to fight more than eight years after the war's start, emphasizing that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own. He will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan and, especially, Afghanistan, and will provide a fresh path toward disengagement.

"This can't be nation-building," Gibbs told Smith. "It can't be an open-ended forever commitment, and I think that's what the president will outline."

With U.S. casualties in Afghanistan sharply increasing and little sign of progress, the war Mr. Obama once liked to call one "of necessity," not choice, has grown less popular with the public and within his own Democratic party. In recent days, leading Democrats have talked of setting tough conditions on deeper U.S. involvement, or even staging outright opposition.

The displeasure on both sides of the aisle was likely to be on display when congressional hearings on Mr. Obama's strategy get under way later in the week on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Obama was spending much of Monday and Tuesday on the phone, outlining his plan - minus many specifics - for the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, India, Denmark, Poland and others. He also met in person at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

A briefing for dozens of key lawmakers was planned for Tuesday afternoon, just before Mr. Obama was set to leave the White House for the speech against a military backdrop at West Point.

The Afghan government said Tuesday that President Hamid Karzai and Mr. Obama had an hourlong video conference. Mr. Obama was also going to speak with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

In Afghanistan, rampant government corruption and inefficiency have made U.S. success much harder. Mr. Obama was expected to place tough conditions on Karzai's government, along with endorsing a stepped-up training program for the Afghan armed forces along the outline recommended this fall by U.S. trainers.

That schedule would expand the Afghan army to 134,000 troops by next fall, three years earlier than once envisioned.

Military officials said the speech is expected to include several references to Iraq, where the United States still has more than 100,000 forces. The strain of maintaining that overseas war machine has stretched the Army and Marine Corps and limited Mr. Obama's options.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 51 Comments
by KER6218 December 4, 2009 9:56 AM EST
To all of those bashing the past admninistration for failures in Afghanistan, let me fill you in on 1st hand knowlege, not second, not something that's been taken of the internet, but 1st hand knowlege- my son was part of the 24th MEU that pushed into Helmand Province during the spring offensive of 2008, for no other reason than the determination of our Marines; their mission was a success, over 1000 enemy combatants eliminated and peace was brought back to the Garmsir district in which our Marines stood static post after the combat was over until they were relieved by the British in Aug 2008. (10) days after our Marines left the British lost the area back to the Taliban- not because of the Brits unwillingness to fight or anything of the sort! My son said they were some of the finest forces he had shared a combat zone with. They lost it because of politics within NATO and lack of support from our "Allies" in keeping this area. As anyone with any clue knows our Marines are a "combat" force, not an occupational force. So the US Marines did their job- NATO didn't as history has told us several times over the years.

Now we fast forward to today my son is still a Marine and currently home visiting his (2) month old son and has just recieved word that his unit (the initial 1000 that keeps getting mentioned in the press)- again- will spearhead the new "push" into Southern Afghanistan and is expected to leave within the next couple of weeks. What people don't realize is that this time it's different for our Marines because their being sent as an attachment to current forces, not as a MEU, for those that don't understand the difference, in simple terms a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit)is self contained, has their own combat support structure etc...for further information on a MEU go to the NATO website and look up the piece they did on the 24th MEU in 2008; (it's a (5) part segment wonderfully done) as I've not got enough time to go into detail. The Marines being sent as an attachement means that they will be DEPENDANT on others for any additional support they might need, i.e. airsupport, artillary, tanks etc... where's that support going to come from? Take a guess- which does nothing to ease the mind of our Marines and their families, in fact, the dangers of this particular deployment are more prevalant than that of the 24th's mission in 2008- and let me state for the record (since that deployment has seemed to have been forgotten about)the 2008 mission was NO pleasure trip for them or their families.

So to all those who like to sit back and arm chair quarteback, second guess or whatever term you would like to use, get over it,we Americans who support our troops and our government (whether Democratic, Republican or Independant administration) and the decisions that are made are tired of hearing from you and the likes of you. Your opinions and comments are insignificant and becomming more so every day.

I am an American, a vetran, son of a WW2 vetran, grandson of a WW2 vetran, nephew to (2) WW2 and (1) Korean war vetrans, and cousin to a Vietnam Marine (3 tours) vetran, and currently a father to a current Marine combat vetran getting ready for his next assignment in the next couple of weeks.

And always remember- this great Nation has an open door policy- you and your kind are free to leave at anytime-
Reply to this comment
by Brokennews December 1, 2009 3:35 PM EST
"Marines to Lead Obama's Afghanistan Surge"




That wanted to use the Girl Scouts, but they told Obama to get bent because Afghans are poor & cookie sales would plummet.
Reply to this comment
by rwsmith29456 December 1, 2009 3:10 PM EST
We'll send 30,000 and Nato will send a couple of thousand? I'm grateful for any allies we have, but couldn't you scrape up a little bit more, Nato?
Reply to this comment
by Empire-George December 1, 2009 12:42 PM EST
by melchg07 December 1, 2009 12:02 PM EST
He already sent 17,000 troops during his first few months as president.

Perhaps you already forgot about that. (hmmm...thats pretty close to the total bush sent in the first SEVEN YEARS)
______________

melch, No, I don't view decisions by this President, through the spectrum of "Bush did blah, blah".....this isn't Bush, it's a new administration....so what, he sent 17k troops....big freaking deal...the community organizer had to actually do his job as CinC

The commander (McChrystal) requests 40-45k to move toward success.
Reply to this comment
by OldGeezer43 December 1, 2009 12:21 PM EST
After 12 weeks of sorting through all the information my decision is as follows: Since it takes approximately 1 million per soldier to maintain them in Afghanistan, I would sent in 1,000 marines armed with money. The mission
is to seek out the Taliban and give them a "stimulus" check that can only be used for domestic purposes and we can leave in 30 days. Then the rich warlords can fight it out among themselves. Then with the money saved we can buy our way out of the financial mess and pay back our loans from China.
Reply to this comment
by OldGeezer43 December 1, 2009 12:21 PM EST
After 12 weeks of sorting through all the information my decision is as follows: Since it takes approximately 1 million per soldier to maintain them in Afghanistan, I would sent in 1,000 marines armed with money. The mission
is to seek out the Taliban and give them a "stimulus" check that can only be used for domestic purposes and we can leave in 30 days. Then the rich warlords can fight it out among themselves. Then with the money saved we can buy our way out of the financial mess and pay back our loans from China.
Reply to this comment
by reveal4 December 1, 2009 12:10 PM EST
America can not risk Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of Al Qaeda.
Reply to this comment
by BeckieBest December 1, 2009 12:09 PM EST
Notice that the very same right wing nuts who cheared on Bush's disasterous incompetence for 8 years and whined that Obama might pull out of the mess Bush made of Afghanistan, are now whining that he's sending in more troops.

The only thing consistent about these rabid, un-American, lunatics is that they will whine and try to undermine everything our President does to fix the mess they created.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod December 1, 2009 12:13 PM EST
Beckie,
When the vote comes to the floor for voting funding, we shall see who is behind President Obama and who isn't. I bet you a dollar that all the Republicans will vote in favor of funding and most Democrats will be against.

We shall see who the rabid, un-American, lunatics actually are and who will continue to whine and try to undermine the war effort, much like the same ones that have been doing for the past 8 years.

By the way, the same people who will vote against the funding are also the ones that got us into this financial mess. See for yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Also, by the way Afghanistan was a mess before President Bush was Governor of Texas and you want to blame him for it. Now that's funny.

For the first time, for the record, I am in complete support of President Obama sending in more troops, I just wish he would send in more troops by overwhelming force so our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters can come home sooner rather than later.
by patronejohn December 1, 2009 11:39 AM EST
Now where are all the teabaggers to protest the amount of taxpayer money for this???? Oh, I get it. We have money to kill people, but not money to help people.
Reply to this comment
by melchg07 December 1, 2009 11:58 AM EST
This would be funny if it weren't so true.
by chevyhotrod December 1, 2009 11:58 AM EST
patronejohn,
The one thing our United States Constitution does allow spending on is the protection of its citizens. It does not allow money to be spent on helping people.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson

?We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice the words "provide for the common defence"

Notice the words "promote the general Welfare"

It does not say "provide for the general Welfare"

You should also remember that they killed us first and we would not be there if 911 did not happen.
by RedWings_ninety_one December 1, 2009 11:19 AM EST
All I have to say about this is, GO MARINES!
Reply to this comment
See all 51 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook