December 1, 2009 9:35 PM

Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011

(CBS/AP)  Updated 3:44 p.m. ET

A senior administration official said this afternoon that President Barack Obama will tell the American people Tuesday night that U.S. troops will start leaving Afghanistan in July 2011, before the end of his first term.

The official stressed, however, that the date marks the beginning of a process that does not have a defined endpoint. The full withdrawal of troops, the official said, will depend on conditions on the ground.

The rough outlines of a withdrawal plan will be part of the revamped Afghanistan strategy that Mr. Obama is announcing in a speech from West Point at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. He will tell Americans he is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, an accelerated war escalation that would have the first Marines there as early as Christmas, senior administration officials said.

With the full complement of troops to be deployed by next summer, the heightened pace of Mr. Obama's military deployment in the 8-year-old war would appear to match the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, which rushed 20,000 combat forces to quell violence there. The Afghan surge would similarly aim to reverse Taliban gains and secure population centers in the volatile south and east parts of the country.

In his prime-time speech to the nation, Mr. Obama will tie the escalation to an exit strategy, laying out a rough timeframe for when the main U.S. military mission would end, and outline plans to accelerate handing over security responsibilities to Afghan forces.

Mr. Obama will try to sell a skeptical public on his bigger, costlier war plan 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.

Public opinion in this country has become increasingly divided over American participation in the stalemated war.

Obama Speech Is First "Address to the Nation"
NATO: Obama Wants up to 10,000 Soldiers
Afghan Plan Revives Nation-Building Debate
Cheney: Obama Showing "Weakness" to Adversaries
Polling Analysis: Afghanistan 2009 Vs. Iraq 2007
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

The new infusion of troops had been envisioned to take place over a year, or even more, because force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make it logistically difficult, if not impossible, to go faster.

Instead, Mr. Obama directed his military planners to make the changes necessary to speed up the Afghanistan additions, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the details had not yet been announced. They said the option the president has chosen gets more troops into Afghanistan faster than any other option that had been presented to him.

Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks of 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 the U.S. public.

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

"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. (More from the Gibbs interview)

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.

On a conference call with reporters this afternoon, senior administration officials said that NATO would "step forward with additional contributions of troops," though they did not say how many. There are currently 40,000 troops from countries other than the United States in Afghanistan, along with 68,000 U.S. troops.

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.

Watch CBS News' David Martin on Obama's Plans

Mr. Obama will discuss a specific withdrawal scenario in his speech tonight, according to administration officials.

"We want to - as quickly as possible - transition the security of the Afghan people over to those national security forces in Afghanistan," Gibbs told ABC News. "This can't be nation-building. It can't be an open-ended, forever commitment."

In Kabul, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the new head of a U.S.-NATO command responsible for training and developing Afghan soldiers and police, said Tuesday that although the groundwork is being laid to expand the Afghan National Army beyond the current target of 134,000 troops, to be reached by Oct. 31, 2010, no fixed higher target is set.

There is a notional goal of eventually fielding 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police, but Caldwell said that could change.

"Although that is a goal and where we think it could eventually go to, it's not a hard, firm, fixed number," he said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Mr. Obama 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. In the past 24 hours he has spoken to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and others about his plans.

Mr. Obama's announcement comes near the end of a year in which the war has worsened despite Mr. Obama's previous infusion of 21,000 forces.

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.

Mr. Obama also deliver a deeper explanation of why the U.S. must continue to fight more than eight years after the war's start in his address, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You can watch the speech on your CBS station at 8 p.m. ET or online at CBSNews.com.

© 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 117 Comments
by Empire-George December 2, 2009 11:25 AM EST
by velma179 December 1, 2009 7:44 PM EST

Velma, you are naive if you can't see that this imaginary date was thrown out there to placate the liberal base of his party, and has no basis in military terms....there is no way this will be done in 18 months, logistically, strategically or tactically......it's a fictional date.....why don't you see that ? being so sharp, as you are....lol
Reply to this comment
by justdatrooth December 2, 2009 3:21 AM EST
I love how Obama said that American would speak out wherever peoples right were trampled. Funny how Obama was silent on the Iranian atrocity.
Reply to this comment
by taryder December 1, 2009 9:50 PM EST
The basic reality HERE is that we have 1 of 8 people in our country STARVING TO DEATH, with 1 in 4 children on foodstamps, and our president thinks we should fiddle around with more GWB policy in Afghanistan, and I say, what for???? We have become like Russia i n the past, NOTHING matters but the BIG WAR MACHINE and SABER RATTLING.....Russia had no infrastructure, and THAT is what the United States is like now. The "war on terror"......we ARE the terror to our OWN PEOPLE!!!

Vietnam here we are!! History repeats itself for those t hat think they are smarter than history
Reply to this comment
by YoureSoWrong10 December 1, 2009 10:27 PM EST
And what about Mother Earth? Shouldn't millions of people just kill themselves in the name of the environment? In the name of the community? When 3% of Americans are psychotic, but 25% of them post on the CBS News board, what a waste of our natural resources.
by askagain December 1, 2009 7:48 PM EST
Almost a year has passed since President Obama took over as president. We are still in Iraq, we are still in Afghanistan, Gitmo is still in operation, China is still taking us to the laundry, and Iran is still expanding its nuclear program, and we still haven't seen health care reform. Perhaps the president deserves a grade of D for his successes. Remember, these were his promises.
Reply to this comment
by msimamaji December 1, 2009 7:03 PM EST
I am not a fan of the troop increase, but if it will facilitate our withdrawal in 2011, I'll grudgingly give my support.

I will give Obama plaudits for one realization - we cannot stay in Afghanistan forever. The Soviet Union tried to impose their version of "liberation" on Afghanistan, look at what happened. Read Afghan history and you will not it is a constant phone book of empires that tried to conquer Afghanistan and failed.

We are no exception. The longer we stay in Afghanistan, the more Afghans will look upon us as infidel invaders. We must turn the responsibility of security over the the Afghans ASAP.

For those right-wingers, I'll point out the following realities.
1. Reagan, Bush, and Cheney armed the mujahideen to fight the Soviets. They have become the Taliban. If it were not for the ignorant policies of the GOP, we would not have this problem.

2. Invading Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense militarily as invading Bolivia after Pearl Harbor. Yet, Cheney, Bush and Co proceeded with the invasion because they prospect of controlling Iraqi oil was far more important than bringing Osama bin laden to justice.

3. The GOP had a chance to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, but they were too busy fighting in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is probably in Pakistan. So for real, who are we chasing????

4. The Iraq/Afganistan war coupled with tax cuts for the rich have plunged this country into a Depression. We cannot continue to sacrifice our people, our infrastructure, or economy, and the need to move to green technology for a hopeless mission. The rich have made mega profits through bloated defense contracts. Rich kids do not fight in the Middle East - they go to college. So it's time to force the rich to pay for a war they started simply so they could rip off the government. They must give back the money they stole.

I give Obama kudos for getting an end date. I wish it were sooner.
Reply to this comment
by velma179 December 1, 2009 7:44 PM EST
by msimamaji December 1, 2009 7:03 PM EST

Good comment... opinion with facts attached. Excellent.


(On your first and last statements... me too.)
by kluzer12 December 1, 2009 6:49 PM EST
It is so funny to see all the libs who wanted us out of this war so bad now jump on the Obama troop surge program. I guess because he had a "D" in the first letter of his party it makes this war a good war. You guys are a joke.
Reply to this comment
by stephand December 1, 2009 6:40 PM EST
It took him 5 months to make the same decision as GW Bush...
The only exception is a meaningless date for pull out. This guys is brilliant!
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage December 1, 2009 6:30 PM EST
WHAT?! Here we go again...!

And, after breaking his word on this...why should we believe he'll start a pullout in July of 2011? THEN, he'll have some other 'dip-shiite' reason to continue the stay even longer!

He's distinguished himself as a liar! His 'word' means nothing!

It looks like Obama is running the presidency the same way that Bush did...as a monarchy! And, he sees himself as KING!!

Well, the parliament (Congress), better 'get off it's arses' and confront the King, before the 'rabble' (public) enacts it's rights to set up a true and independent government that actually represents the public!

It looks like will have a dead-locked Congress again in another 14 months.
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba December 1, 2009 6:20 PM EST
I just wanted to point out that patriotic and REAL Americans support the freely and democratically elected President whoever he is as long as he is President, because that is what our country is founded on.
That included Bush 1, Clinton, GW Bush, and now Obama.
People who trash the President and put their own agenda above the country are simply garbage.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday-5 December 1, 2009 6:25 PM EST
We are all Americans.

And I can't think of one politician I've really liked.

Just my opinion.

.
by stn_sage December 1, 2009 7:02 PM EST
WRONG! YOU are implying that ALL citizens are under some LOYALTY OATH to whatever president currently resides in the office! YOU ARE WRONG, my friend!

It is NOT the man, but the office the public shows respect for!

And, the president...whomever he is...commands the respect of the public insofar as he makes reasonable, responsible, ethical, sensible, and timely decisions!

IF he fails to do so, he rightfully loses the respect and support of the public, the ability to lead, and cannot and should not expect the public to agree, obey, and/or follow him!

They are then forced into the roles of patriots and must dissent in order to protect and defend the republic as he (the president) has chosen NOT to do so; and in fact, acting against his oath of office, does by his choice, become an enemy of the nation.

And, thus every citizen is placed 'on guard' to monitor for this treason, from whomever it occurs, be it the president, a senator, a representative, or a political appointee.

Your SIMPLE stance of government is undoubtedly what has contributed to it's abuse by ELECTED OFFICIALS! As a result, someday you won't have the ability to make such suggestions in an open forum to the rest of the public!!
by slownewsday-5 December 1, 2009 6:09 PM EST
" by fedup12

Ya if Obama was continuing the Bush doctrine we would attack Jamaica now.

Instead we are attacking the heart of the people that hit us on 9/11. Wish we didnt have the lost Bush years to worry about there."


Hilarious Jamaica comment! Thanks for a good laugh!

I have always wondered why we never went after Saudi Arabia, as long as we were whacking around blindly in the middle east. Most of the hijackers came from there.

Maybe holding hands with the king absolved the country...?
Reply to this comment
See all 117 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook