Barack Obama's New Afghan Strategy To Be Announced Soon

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Barack Obama's New Afghan Strategy To Be Announced Soon stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY | March 13, 2009 05:17 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Afghan journalists protest in the streets of Kandahar City, Afghanistan on Thursday March 12, 2009. Over 40 journalists gathered in the city to protest the killing of Jawed Yazamy, shown on placards, a freelance cameraman and reporter with close connections to Canadian news outlets, earlier this week. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, A.R. Khan)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is close to announcing a redrawn strategy for a war in Afghanistan that the president says the United States is not winning, focusing on enlisting Pakistan in the fight against extremism and trimming U.S. expectations for military victory, administration, defense and intelligence officials said.

The White House expects to announce new objectives for the flagging war as soon as next week that place an onus on next-door Pakistan to contain extremism, defense and administration officials said Thursday.

President Barack Obama was expected to explain the redrawn U.S. objectives to NATO allies when he attends a NATO summit in Europe next month.

The in-house review coordinated by the White House National Security Council lays out objectives over three years to five years, although that doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. military could leave in that time, defense officials said.

The White House objectives were expected to roughly parallel 15 goals contained in a 20-page classified report to the White House from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among them were getting rid of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and adopting a regional approach to reducing the threat of terrorism and extremism in both countries.

The U.S. goal in Afghanistan must be to protect Kabul's fragile government from collapsing under pressure from the Taliban _ a goal that can only be achieved by securing Pakistan's cooperation, increasing substantially the size of Afghanistan's national security forces and boosting economic aid in the region, according to senior military and intelligence officials.

"We're just about done," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said in an interview with PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show" on Thursday.

The review addresses "the safe haven in Pakistan, making sure that Afghanistan doesn't provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which al-Qaida could return or the Taliban could return," Mullen said, as well as the need for stability, economic development and better governance in Afghanistan, and the development of the Afghan armed forces.

Story continues below
advertisement

An administration official said that although the review was not complete, one thrust was that Pakistan needed to recognize that combating extremism was in its own interest as well as that of U.S. and NATO fighting forces across the border in Afghanistan. The official, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on condition of anonymity because the review was not complete.

The review overseen by former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel drew on several generally bleak internal government assessments of the war done over the past six months. People familiar with those accounts sum up the conclusions much as Obama himself described the Afghanistan war in a New York Times interview last week: The United States is not winning.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, and Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, met privately on Thursday with more than a dozen senators. Although the session was confidential, it was part of the administration's effort to recruit support for a trimmed-down U.S. mission in the war begun by former President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It is not clear whether Obama will approve additional forces for Afghanistan this year beyond 17,000 he has already dispatched. His ground commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, has requested up to 30,000 troops.

The White House review was expected to frame U.S. objectives in two major categories: strategic regional goals for stability in impoverished Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan and smaller-scale warfighting goals for the growing U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan.

Broadly speaking, the Obama administration was expected to endorse a doctrine of counterinsurgency that has military and civilian components and that scales back U.S. expectations for Afghan democracy and self-sufficiency. A main theme is the premise that the military alone cannot win the war, officials said.

The review was expected to focus on containing the Taliban and the proliferation of lesser-known militant groups, providing a greater sense of security and stability for Afghan civilians and increasing the size and proficiency of the Afghan armed forces.

"I would say that, at a minimum, the mission is to prevent the Taliban from retaking power against a democratically elected government in Afghanistan and thus turning Afghanistan, potentially, again, into a haven for al-Qaida and other extremist groups," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview with National Public Radio this week.

Part of the strategy would be purely military, as the 17,000 additional troops Obama has approved for Afghanistan this year attest. Their role is to face off against extremists in the busy spring and summer fighting season and buy time for less tangible counterinsurgency tactics to take hold.

Administration and military leaders have given a glimpse into one such tactic, describing ways that Afghan and U.S. leaders might co-opt or pay off mid- and lower-level Taliban and other insurgents in rough imitation of a successful strategy to blunt the insurgency in Iraq.

___

Associated Press writers Charles Babington and Pam Hess contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is close to announcing a redrawn strategy for a war in Afghanistan that the president says the United States is not winning, focusing on enlisting Pakistan in t...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is close to announcing a redrawn strategy for a war in Afghanistan that the president says the United States is not winning, focusing on enlisting Pakistan in t...
 
Comments
54
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- sarabono I'm a Fan of sarabono 16 fans permalink

We don't belong in a war we are not Prepared to Win. That was the problem with Nam.
We were winning, even after Tet, but you would never know it listening to the American Press reports.

No invader has ever succeeded in Afghanistan. We are an invader. I hope Obama knows that history.

Obama better layout clear objectives for this mission before one additional boot hits the ground. If he doesn't he's toast.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 AM on 03/14/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

"Justice" department Motion to dismiss t_orture case of Rasul v. Rumsfeld. Did you vote 0bama to stop t_orturing by protecting the t_orturers?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 AM on 03/13/2009
- VPN I'm a Fan of VPN 101 fans permalink
photo

I voted for and TRUST President Obama to do what's best for the country, unlike your hero Boo$h President Obama actually thinks, there must be some VERY compelling reasons why his Admin doesn't want to open that barrel of snakes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

Maybe you see things I don't see. I fail to see a compeling reason to protect Bush t_orturers. They should be in p_rison for life.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 03/13/2009
- nirek I'm a Fan of nirek 84 fans permalink
photo

As much as I want the USA to stop fighting over there, I know it cannot be done quickly ! That said , I do think the way to get bin Lauden would be to send in just a couple guys who fit the profile and let them infiltrate and kill just the bad guys, not the innocent folks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 03/13/2009
- naluca I'm a Fan of naluca 13 fans permalink

Put the onus for security, defense against terrorism on Pakistan?? A) An unlikely, unwilling, and incapable ally, B) in the campaign Obama said he would invade Pakistan if activity not up to snuff.
Is he setting us up for yet another war, or giving up on this one? As usual, he wants to have an out against all criticisms, and ends up doing virtually nothing, or half-way measures which amount to nothing but political cover.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 03/13/2009
- VPN I'm a Fan of VPN 101 fans permalink
photo

Maybe you ought to read the ENTIRE article before you start conjuring up hypothetical scenarios to criticize with.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

Did you vote 0bama to stop kiIIing people around the world by continuing to kiII people around the world?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 03/13/2009
- forpeace I'm a Fan of forpeace 280 fans permalink
photo

newyorkid
-----------
Listen, I am against w.ar myself, but after reading your comments .......... it seems like you are against Obama not w.ar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 03/13/2009
- elcojonu I'm a Fan of elcojonu 28 fans permalink

Here's a sensible, prudent and workable strategy: PULL OUT.
They( the Taliban ) wants us there and is not going to be just in Afghanistan, Pakistan is going to be part of the conflict. We're going to be engaging the PASHTOONS ( the majority tribe in Pakistan and southern Afghanistan ).
Are we ready for that kind of action ?; I don't think so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

Did you vote 0bama to stop the vvars by continuing the vvars?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

Did you vote to stop t_orturing by protecting the t_orturers?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

0bama is protecting and kissing (Bush) the vvar criminals. Didn't you see it on TV? What kind of change did you vote for. This is what you vote for? To stop the vvars by continuing the vvars?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

0bama is protecting the t_orturers. What change are you guys expecting?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 03/13/2009
- forpeace I'm a Fan of forpeace 280 fans permalink
photo

newyorkid
----------
Not true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

motion to dismiss the case of Rasul v. Rumsfeld. Google it and read about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 03/13/2009
- VPN I'm a Fan of VPN 101 fans permalink
photo

Did anyone ever tell you your st-oo-pid?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 03/13/2009
- dst1 I'm a Fan of dst1 8 fans permalink

Take a hike Stupid.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 AM on 03/14/2009
- Jazzman323 I'm a Fan of Jazzman323 48 fans permalink
photo

It will be nice to go to war without the left fighting the president over it, even though there is much less of a threat from Afghanistan than Iraq. No WMDs [or intelligence of them] or oil. Yes there is the Taliban, and maybe Osama bin Laden, although I don't see why we need tens of thousands of troops to capture one man.

And there will be blood on Obama's hands if he kills civilians in the process, which he has done already. But all in all it should be much smoother.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 03/13/2009
- NJmikeV I'm a Fan of NJmikeV 50 fans permalink

"It will be nice to go to war..." "......But all in all it should be much smoother..."

Please tell us what's nice or smooth about war.

Are you of any of your children going?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 AM on 03/13/2009
- NJmikeV I'm a Fan of NJmikeV 50 fans permalink

Are you OR any of your children going ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 03/13/2009
- Jazzman323 I'm a Fan of Jazzman323 48 fans permalink
photo

It will be nice because the left will not attack and criticize Obama for going to war, as they did for six years nonstop with Bush. Obama will get a free pass from the left, just as Clinton got when he bombed Kosovo in 1999.

Yes I am being sarcastic, but accurate. Show me anywhere where there is discernible opposition to Obama's military plans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 03/13/2009
- newyorkid I'm a Fan of newyorkid 40 fans permalink
photo

0bama Justice department urges dismissal of another t_orture case. In another move that suggests the 0bama Department of Justice is not making many big policy breaks with its predecessor when it comes to the legal rights of G_uantanamo Bay detainees, the department filed a brief renewing the government’s motion to dismiss the case of Rasul v. Rumsfeld.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 03/13/2009
photo

War in Iraq, maybe we will get out later
Rendition, that's not so bad
To rt ure, we will stop, but reserve the right to review the policy at any time
GITMO, maybe we will close it later, or maybe we will just use the back door at bagram air force base
FISA, yes please
A-Stan, new strategy, we aren't leaving
Continued civillian d ea ths, well you are bound to break a few eggs

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 AM on 03/13/2009
- VPN I'm a Fan of VPN 101 fans permalink
photo

What's really pathetic is how you criticize that which you seem to have NO memory about how or who committed the US into these military actions and what commitments were agreed to that has hamstrung the President in enacting his own policy. Keep parroting that drivel and keep loosing elections and being more and more irrelevant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 03/13/2009
- daxster1 I'm a Fan of daxster1 3 fans permalink

Obama has floated the idea of talking to less extreme elements within the Taliban, whose hardline regime was ousted in 2001, as part of a new strategy in the Afghan war. But the International Crisis Group said the possibility of negotiating with insurgents willing to stop fighting is the wrong approach.

Previous peace deals with militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan "enhanced the power and activities of violent insurgents, while doing nothing to build sustainable institutions," the non-governmental group said in a report.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 03/13/2009
photo

Did you see the statement released by the Talibam when he announced that little gem. They actually laughed at and openly mocked him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 03/13/2009
- VPN I'm a Fan of VPN 101 fans permalink
photo

He probably dose't listen to or read what Rush/Hannity have to say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 AM on 03/13/2009
- zizyphus I'm a Fan of zizyphus 100 fans permalink
photo

I think Obama is being forced into Afghanistan by our military, and the fact that defense spending props up part of the economy.

I saw 30-year CIA veteran Milton Bearden speaking on the war in Afghanistan on C-Span, and he described Afghanistan as "the graveyard of empires". No invader has ever, in history, conquered this land. Afghanistan is going to be an endless quagmire for our nation. Since the CIA went in there, opium production has skyrocketed, just as drug production does wherever the CIA goes. They use it to fund covert activities that they can't get past Congress. That is what the War on Drugs is really about, in my view- keeping high level drug dealing in the hands of the military/i­ntelligenc­e/banks/ca­rtels.

Obama, just say "No Way" to endless wars of any kind. I know you know better. However, after JFK announced his desire to break up the CIA because it was so corrupt, he was assassinated, and no doubt that is part of why no one else has dared to mention anything like that since.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 03/13/2009
- Windchime I'm a Fan of Windchime 7 fans permalink

Obama is being "forced"? He is the CIC..the buck stops with him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 AM on 03/13/2009
photo

CIC in Constitution just says the President is the CIC, no role for CIC is actually outlined.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 AM on 03/13/2009
- zizyphus I'm a Fan of zizyphus 100 fans permalink
photo

The military basically call the shots in our country, don't they? Don't they get the majority of every tax dollar we spend? He has all the generals "advising" him, do you think any of them would advise anything but more war? Can you see the hue and cry if Obama just flatly refused all their advice? What do you think would happen to him then?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 03/13/2009
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect