| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force | |
| 2009-10-08 | |
| President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general. My guess is he'll go for the worst of both worlds...
But as the war approached its eight-year anniversary on Wednesday, the session underscored the perilous crosscurrents awaiting Mr. Obama. While some Democrats said they would support whatever he decided, others challenged him about sending more troops. And Republicans pressed him to order the escalation without delay, leading to a pointed exchange between the president and Senator John McCain of Arizona, his Republican opponent from last year's election. Mr. McCain told the president that "time is not on our side." He added, "This should not be a leisurely process," according to several people in the room. A few minutes later, Mr. Obama replied, "John, I can assure you this won't be leisurely," according to several attendees. "No one feels more urgency to get this right than I do." Still, compared with the harsh debate over health care, the tone was civil and restrained during the 75-minute meeting in the State Dining Room as Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and about 30 members of Congress gathered around a large table with only glasses of water and notebooks in front of them. Mr. Obama summoned the lawmakers to assure them that he would keep their concerns in mind as he considered the request of his commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 more troops. The president plans to meet with his national security team on Wednesday to talk about Pakistan and on Friday to talk about Afghanistan. Aides plan to schedule one more meeting before he decides on General McChrystal's proposal. Several administration officials and lawmakers who attended the session on Tuesday said Mr. Obama was intent on using it to dismiss any impression that he would consider pulling out of Afghanistan. "There is no option that would entail a dramatic reduction in troops," said one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden made it clear that the option Mr. Biden had proposed was not a pure counterterrorism alternative, relying only on drones and Special Forces to track down leaders of Al Qaeda. Instead, Mr. Biden's approach would increase the use of such surgical strikes while leaving the overall size of the American force in Afghanistan roughly at the 68,000 troops currently authorized. And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Mr. Obama said, according to participants. "I put him there to give me a frank assessment." A joint appearance afterward on the White House driveway by the two top Democratic Congressional leaders demonstrated Mr. Obama's political challenge. "The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we'll support it basically," said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader. But Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, smiled and raised her eyebrows in apparent disagreement. "Whether we agreed with it or voted for it remains to be seen when we see what the president puts forth," she said. "But I think there was a real display of universal respect for the manner in which he was approaching it." | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 Surely the troops coming out of Iraq deserve a chance for refit and recreation before being sent on to the next war? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-10-08 15:36 |
| #10 Maybe if they go by way of Iran.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-10-08 15:17 |
| #9 Can't the troops in Iraq be transferred over relatively quickly? |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-08 15:16 |
| #8 I think Lord Garth is spot on. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-10-08 14:13 |
| #7 My guess is he'll go for the worst of both worlds... That's what LBJ did. |
| Posted by: Varmint Glath4987 2009-10-08 13:23 |
| #6 Even if Obama thinks an additional 40k in troops is needed, it will take some time to implement such a increase. I'm thinking it would take at least 9 months based on the logistics and the fact that our deployable forces are stretched pretty slim already. This should give Obama some room to try a two or three phase surge (I'm sure it won't be called a surge) and McC could agree to report on the results of phase I before initiating phase II. This would allow Obama to split the difference between the McC side and the Biden side in a way which causes minimal friction. This |
| Posted by: lord garth 2009-10-08 13:04 |
| #5 Mike N - i think the challenge line was a reference to the Pelosi eye roll, not the support from the GOP and from Reid. Besoeker - I read that as BHO admitting what many of us have been saying, that it would be strange and embarrassing for BHO to not give high credence to the opinions of the guy he not only just hired, but whose predecessor he fired somewhat controversially. McCrystal really IS BHO's man. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-10-08 11:41 |
| #4 And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Mr. Obama said Translation: I hired him, I can fire him or rondfok him and his army at my leisure. |
| Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-08 07:50 |
| #3 A joint appearance afterward on the White House driveway by the two top Democratic Congressional leaders demonstrated Mr. Obama's political challenge. "The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we'll support it basically," said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader. Note to writer: That isn't a political challenge. Obamas political opposition pre-acquiescing to whatever he wants is the exact opposite of a political challenge. Whatever the word for that is. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-10-08 04:54 |
| #2 TOPIX/WMF > OBAMA VOWS TO HITS AL QAEDA WHEREEVER IT IS. US Mil-led Anti-Terror operations NOT limited solely to AFPAK andor Iraq-Mideast??? Lest we fergit, and unfortunately for POTUS BAMMER = the USA/USSA-USRoA, this scope is also contained in the GORBACHEV-YELTSIN-PUTIN-MEDVEDEV DOCTRINES, i.e POST-COLD WAR RUSSIA RESERVING ITS NATURAL RIGHT TO USE MILITARY + NUCLEAR FORCE TO UNILATER PROTECT RUSS INETRESTS + CITIZENS ANYWHERE, ANY TIME, ANY PLACE, + NOT NECESS WID ADVANCE WARNING [Preemption]. Read, even AGZ the USA INSIDE THE USA, ee GROWING CONUS-BASED JIHADIST, TERROR CELLS + ACTIVITIES. RUSS DOCTRINES > RUSS VERSION OF REAGAN-BUSH ERA "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" > it is "sufficient" only that a Terror strike(s) agz Russ Interests and espec Russ Citizens be made by Milits-Terrs TRACED BACK TO A US POINT(S)-OF-ORIGIN. This is why US GOVT0-INTEL ANALYSTS of the period were worried about these new Russ Dcotrines. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-08 01:01 |
| #1 Sounded better than "Obama rules out taking action". So much for hope and change. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-10-08 00:47 |