Gates: Military Will Fall In Line Behind Obama On Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. military will not hesitate in carrying out whatever mission President Barack Obama decides on in Afghanistan.

Gates said Monday that the president's military and civilian policy advisers need to give Obama candid but private advice until that decision is made.

Gates' comments to the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army came as the Obama administration debates whether to continue fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan or shift focus to destroying al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan using unmanned drones and special forces.

Top military officials want to continue fighting the Taliban with as many as an additional 40,000 troops, as the U.S. and NATO commander in Kabul has recommended.

Comments

[znamef]

05:40 PM on 11/06/2009

when i see obama taking months and months to answer the call for more troops - it is obvious the decision has a lot of political calculus when the answer is obvious:

the us under bush 43 invaded iraq and afghanistan, lied and falsified intelligence - perhaps a trillion dollars. obama inherited this - yes - but there is something worse than being wrong - persist in error.

the us became a super power during and after ww11. but the world is flat.

the us is on borrowed time - the democrats and republicans and k street have been on a feeding frenzy. you got hungry children right here in this country - the tiny 1% have bought washington and it is INDEED for sale.

the federal government is out of control and the states are going belly up also.

public financing of policical candidates
(corporations and individuals should not be able to trade influence for cash)
reduce government spending (taxes will take care of themselves)
stop corporate welfare (if they want to play with credit default swapps then use their own money)

but these folk are at the feeding trough in washington. the door is wide open. for a price.

these political parties are broken - i am not a fan of obama - but when i hear fox
news - they are just as broke - if you want lower taxes THEN TRY LOWER SPENDING - AND
WHERE YOU GONNA CUT?

americans essentially have not yet figured that

[Maygressive]

10:59 AM on 10/06/2009

Well they better or they will get fired, this isn't Honduras!

[shag11]

08:13 PM on 10/05/2009

McChrystal is completely out of line and I am glad he's getting his comeuppance. He probably one of those right-wing ideologues.

[benne]

06:02 PM on 10/05/2009

But will they on gays in the military?

[ljc]

05:56 PM on 10/05/2009

Odierno sh/ot his mouth off too in the beginning. He was put in his place. If McCover-up doesn't like it, let him go spend time with his family. He is an employee, nothing more.

[azdisabledsci]

05:13 PM on 10/05/2009

Obama spending $47 billion in 2009 on unwinnable Afghan war

The US economy is in free fall and the national debt is over $11 trillion dollars (that’s $36,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in America), but America is spending hundreds of billions on an unwinnable war in Afghanistan . Barack Obama plans to spend $47 billion in 2009 alone.

In addition to this military spending, and learning nothing from Iraq, where $190 billion reconstruction money “disappeared”, the US is pouring vast amounts of new resources into Afghanistan for security and “reconstruction” projects. “There is unbelievable abuse in waste and yes, fraud," says one US senator.

So far the US has spent more than $33 billion in “reconstruction” funds in Afghanistan. But there are too few auditors to track where all the money went, let alone how billions of dollars of new money will be spent.

"There has been no oversight in the last seven years, and because Afghanistan is not really a tribal society as much as a mafia-type society with strongmen, there has been a culture of spending money in very loose ways," says a US government official. "Did the money get used and appropriated and achieve the results it was intended for? The answer will be a resounding no."

As in Iraq, the US will rely heavily on government contractors in Afghanistan, and they will work in an environment in which corruption is endemic.

[azdisabledsci]

05:08 PM on 10/05/2009

A very informative movie is "Charlie Wilsons War" which chronicles the way things get done in Washington & how we trained & funded through the CIA the Afghan freedom fighters or "mujahideen" & created the very thing we are now fighting against. Bin laden & al queda are only the tip of the iceberg in Afghanistan.

[OliverTwist]

05:37 PM on 10/05/2009

The movie is a political propaganda piece which mistells the history to suit a political narrative.

[Manx]

05:03 PM on 10/05/2009

Gates says the military will not hesitate to carry out Obama's mission in Afghanistan, once it is decided.

You mean there was some doubt that they would?

[ljc]

05:44 PM on 10/05/2009

I have a relative that works for ICE. In their office there is a sign on the wall that says " NO WE WON'T" . When I asked what that meant, I was told it is their answer to "Yes we Can" and means, no, they would not take a b/u/l/l/e/t for "That Guy" . I am very disturbed by this. Although I doubt that ICE agents would ever be in a situation to protect the President, that attitude makes me sick.

[bigsioux]

05:57 PM on 10/05/2009

It should be reported. They should be fired.

[imfedup]

04:27 AM on 10/06/2009

What's ICE?

[gconners]

05:01 PM on 10/05/2009

Why is it even necessary for Gates to say this??? The US Constitution makes The President Commander-in Chief. The military does not MAKE policy. It follows orders.

[ljc]

06:32 PM on 10/05/2009

Some dolt reporter probably.. I have seen many of his press briefing with Admiral Mullen. Gates is always very good and takes no crap. So is Mullen.

[azdisabledsci]

04:58 PM on 10/05/2009

This is not a war that can be won. We need to focus on the true objective which is to control the region with Pakistan which can best be done with special forces & drones. They have NUKES! Otherwise thousands of our innocent soldiers will be killed for nothing. We cannot police the world. When will we ever learn & see through the military industrial complex BS that is fueling this call for more troops to do what? Protect the Afghan people. Let them control thier own people & government. We have no money, we are broke as a nation & we better protect our own country from evil forces within. Bring the troops home & let them start to help rebuild roads, bridges, dams, schools, hospitals for the USA & put a large presence at the Southern Border to stop the flow of drugs, money & illegals in this country. I am in Phoenix & this city is choked with illegals, drugs, drop houses & gangs.

[mergina]

03:41 PM on 10/05/2009

What are American taxpayers paying for a single bullet? A single grenade? A single steel helmet? Where can WE THE PEOPLE see a complete list or invoice as to what WE THE PEOPLE are paying for all the stuff needed to LOSE A WAR?

[apoyo]

02:50 PM on 10/05/2009

Or else!

Great point made by Joe Klein, (yes, him) on MSNBC today.
This media focus on Petraeus not being front and center as he was under Bush.

His response was "Duh".
Can anybody remember who was CentCom while Petraeus was in charge of Iraq?

Exactly!
Petraeus is now Centcom. Different job and responsibilities.
Wouldn't it be helpful if the media actually reported facts and not spent its time fabricating conflict?

[lalilyman]

02:37 PM on 10/05/2009

I think a general should stand behind his commander a bit more, making private pushes but not such public appeals, unless we really are down to the wire. Which begs the question, this month are we that much more desperate than we were one month ago, and 9 months ago? I think it's completely untactful and disrespectable to not work some of this out in private meetings with Obama, and take the time it takes to come to a good decision, instead of mounting public pressure that makes it a serious image question for Obama right in the middle of several other heated political debates, including health care and Iran. And it forces political and image pressure on Obama, which I think matters of war should not be. They are moral issues, not political ones.

We could well end up losing important pieces of healthcare reform because of the timing of this military question, and the subsequent compromises Obama has to make with both sides in order to accomplish both.

If I were Obama I would fire McChrystal.

[PoliticalAmazon]

03:17 PM on 10/05/2009

How can McChrystal give Obama "private pushes" when Obama can't be bothered to call him but once in a 70-day period?

I'm no fan of McChrystal, but I do have for compassion for the man who has to watch his troops being s laught ered while obeying the orders of a president who has zero interest in the "surge" he ordered?

I also think only a general fighting in the middle east who is a fool--and General McChrystal is no fool--would not have watched generals in Iraq carrying out Bush Jr's orders, only to then be blamed for the orders "failing" sometimes because Bush Jr had changed the objectives in the middle of the military maneuver...and then, when his own command was being criticized for failure when a big part of the problem was no communication from the Commander in chief, not want to protect himself from becoming the president's scapegoat.

[DCBarrister]

03:52 PM on 10/05/2009

This is General Shinseki, part II.

Another neocon President ignoring the pleas of a general on the ground watching his troops pinned down in a quagmire.

[centsable]

05:38 PM on 10/05/2009

Ever hear of the chain of command? He answers to SODefense!!!!!!

[Bluesue]

02:28 PM on 10/05/2009

I cannot believe that it even has to be said that the military will carry out the decision of the President of the United States - the Commander in Chief.

Further, I think McChrystal should be removed because he has conducted an inappropriate PR campaign from the leaked memo to his public rejection of a strategy to rely on drones and special forces.

He is a military officer whose role is to provide information and advice to the President so that the President can make an informed decision. He can advocate his position in private but should not do it in public. It not only undermines the President but makes it seem that the military only wants the President to rubberstamp their decisions. That is not their role.

[tnkeating]

07:23 PM on 10/05/2009

His role is to kill the enemy and if left to do so without troops and supplies he should resign in protest for stupity of a President, Obama knows nothing about war as he has never served and it is only his ego that is getting in the way, he should let the professionals do the job they took an oath to do. And they actually honor the oath they took.

[Agentprovokatur]

08:05 PM on 10/05/2009

His role is to carry out the military component of our foreign policy strategies.

If POTUS decides that the military component needs to be lessened or de-emphasized his job is to do so.

If he does not like it you are right, he should resign in protest, disgrace and without pension or benefits.

If he mouths off about it while still wearing the uniform he should be MacArthur'ed and shown the door, again without pension or benefits.

[madHenry]

02:20 PM on 10/05/2009

The US military, like any military establishment, has one main purpose--to kill people. This is their job, not baby-sitting leaders of other nations, not nation-building. The US military is a hammer, and the biggest, heaviest hammer on earth. Before we bring that hammer down any place on earth, we need to think through the consequences, both for us and for the place where we bring that hammer down. I hate hearing these stories about 3 Americans lost in this outposts, 8 or nine lost in that outpost. Perhaps it is time to pull back top the cities, let the Taliban get puffy-chested and careless about having "driven the Americans out." Then, when they and the al Quaeda elements they shelter reveal themselves, we have targets.

[oldcliche]

03:32 PM on 10/05/2009

The issue is they need to work with the local elements, or it continues the process where we bomb/raid their resources. Which in that scenario civilians are killed and focus their anger at the US, and join the terrorist forces.

The Military is really the wrong tool for dealing with an insurgency. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that.

[madHenry]

04:10 PM on 10/05/2009

Who but the military would hazard a tour in Afghanistan, especially one focused on "dealing" with the locals at this point? If development is the goal, development must be predicated on security--being able to get to school, to market, to the polls--unmolested and alive. As long as Taliban or those claiming to be Taliban are roaming the countryside, what village elder or local official would deal openly and honestly with Americans or NATO troops? We can sit in our comparatively safe homes, cities and country and ask "why don't the locals fight against the tyrants?" Would you? The best strategy for them would be to play both sides to whatever advantage is to be had. So, no, I do not trust the locals in the security part of this thing. And, in the absence of adequate security, our non-military/development personnel will not be able to monitor projects underwritten by our aid dollars. The principal reason we SHOULD be there, yanking bin Laden and Zawahiri into jail or out of this life, persists. Tora Bora....Tora Bora.

[Agentprovokatur]

08:17 PM on 10/05/2009

The military, in addition to defending the nation from military attack, is the force component of our nation's foreign policy.

It's use, non-use and threats of being used is a little more nuanced than all you "Only one tool in the tool belt, a hammer" posters on this thread understand. There are roles that it has been ill equipped and trained to carry out at times, but killing people is not it's only, nor actually its "main purpose".

Sorry if I'm pointing out that the world is a little more shaded than just black and white.

There is ONE black and white issue when it comes to our military.

Generals that publicly speak out against the policies of our duly elected POTUS, Commander in Chief under our Constitution while still in the service, should be MacArthur'ed - FIRED.

If they don't like the way things are being done they can, after resigning, run for POTUS themselves.

Eisenhower did it.

There are noises that Petraeus is considering(?) being put forward for such. If that ever got serious one would expect him to resign from the Military Immediately.