Obama Rules Out Drawdown In Afghanistan, But Mum On Troop Increase

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Rules Out Drawdown In Afghanistan, But Mum On Troop Increase stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

BEN FELLER | 10/ 6/09 10:27 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday ruled out shrinking the Afghanistan war to a counterterrorism campaign. Yet he did not signal whether he is prepared to send any more troops to the war zone – either the 40,000 his top commander wants or a smaller buildup, according to several officials.

House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.

Obama is examining how to proceed with a worsening war that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned – eight years on Wednesday.

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.

Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.

Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a "leisurely pace," according to people in the room.

That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said. Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.

Story continues below
advertisement

Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops – closer to 10,000 than 40,000 – according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.

The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.

"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."

What's clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep al-Qaida terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.

Several lawmakers described the exchanges as helpful and open. Different views emerged over just how much backing the president will get.

"The one thing that I think was interesting is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said, 'Whatever decision you make, we'll support it,' basically," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "So we'll see."

The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said later: "I think Republicans will be able to make the decisions for themselves." But he added that Obama is likely to get significant Republican support if he follows the advice of his military commanders. Boehner agreed, saying "my colleagues on the House side will be there to support" Obama if he stays true to the mission of denying a haven for al-Qaida terrorists or Taliban militants who are fiercely fighting coalition forces.

Obama's emphasis on working off a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to "dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate," as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.

The president made clear he would not "double down" in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.

"Half measures is what I worry about," McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters. He said Obama should follow recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country – similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop "surge" in Iraq.

Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping. It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.

The White House said Obama won't base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.

"The president is going to make a decision – popular or unpopular – based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

___

Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Jim Kuhnhenn, Anne Flaherty, Anne Gearan, Jennifer Loven, Robert Burns, Philip Elliott and Charles Babington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday ruled out shrinking the Afghanistan war to a counterterrorism campaign. Yet he did not signal whether he is prepared to send any more troops to the...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday ruled out shrinking the Afghanistan war to a counterterrorism campaign. Yet he did not signal whether he is prepared to send any more troops to the...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
87
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

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 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
- SevenSees I'm a Fan of SevenSees 10 fans permalink
photo

These kind of stories breed ill-advised remarks from people who haven't thunk it all through. Barack Obama inherited two wars, an 11 trillion-dollar deficit, an impatient and rambunctious american populace, systemic corruption - governmental waste, fraud, and abuse, and an elitist mind-set in Washington D.C. that could not ever believe he would be president.

So far, he has done what he said he would do. His liberal base might want to take a reality pill before commenting on troop levels rising. I'm sure if he could, he would rather not do that. But we are a warring nation. We don't like to look at ourselves as one, but we are. God is at the center of all of our cherished beliefs - or not. That is what this is all about. This is where corporations meet at the crossroads with morality - the morality of the American people.

Is this war moral? Why are we there? Who is the real enemy? We who elected you felt you would offer truth, transparency, and dignity. We still believe in you, Mr. Obama - we know the alternative. We pray for you, our country, and ourselves - but we are not in a position to wait much longer for those things we are sure we need, and those things we know we must have. THIS war is not needed. Healthcare reform IS. And, that's not debatable. God bless America.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 10/07/2009
- viper234 I'm a Fan of viper234 41 fans permalink

Obama needs to bring the troops home, but what he'll most likely do is send more. He'll go for a lower number, say 10,000 to 20,000 in some political gesture to the left to show he's not giving in to the general's full request for 40,000 troops. The problem about all this is that it is all about "politics" and less about the need to end this war -- a war that the American people do not support no matter how hard the media industrial complex tries to sell it. It's always about the "next election" with these people. It's all about those "magic maps," red states, blue states, the "50 state strategy." Well the bottom line is that this war must end. Not one more American life should be lost in an 8-year-old campaign that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars that the US can not afford to spend. This economy is a wreck. If the US expects to get back on its feet, one of the things it will have to do is stop pouring trillions into perpetual war and start investing in America. Enough!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 10/07/2009

Isnt it saddening his approval rating rose 6% when he talked about more war mongering

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 10/07/2009
- ThomasMc I'm a Fan of ThomasMc 10 fans permalink

Obama is just another war-mongering Conservative who conned the Left into voting for him.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 10/07/2009

PART 2

Our war like hunger seems to have replaced national security with the national pastime of perpetual conflicts. This particular mentality is lunacy. We will fight this, we will fight that, and we will fight the kitchen sink I guess, if it gets in the way, unbelievable. We have become a nation of hawkish visionaries and hallucinators.

We talk of lofty visions, but in reality those lofty visions have become living nightmares for many, but not for those who don’t have to sacrifice anything. It is easy for some to sit in authority and to delegate when it does not affect them in any form or fashion.

The POTUS is trying to take the middle of the road approach to Afghanistan, I guess. This is like trying to walk the middle lane of a busy highway, hoping you don’t step into the traffic on either side. The Chicken Hawks Repugnicans are complaining that we need to put more troops in to Afghanistan, then I say let them volunteer their sorry butts (age shouldn’t matter) for the cause and let them go back to their constituents and ask them to give more and to sacrifice more. The sorry spineless Democrats who push for an increase or any escalation in this debacle will pay a price come the next election cycles.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 10/07/2009
- DavidDial I'm a Fan of DavidDial 50 fans permalink
photo

Think! Our participation in the Vietnam Conflict was the result of a long chain of bad decisions on the part of our politicians. It was completely unjustified and eventually required it's proponents to resort to outright lies to keep it going. Iraq was even worse. It required outright lies to even start it! I am quite sure that historians will see our invasion of Iraq as the worst foreign policy blunder our politicians ever made. The only good thing about it was that it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt to anyone who still had any doubts that the neo-conservative movement was nothing more than a collection of socio-political psychopaths who should never again be given the opportunity to make important decisions.

Afghanistan is different though. For starters we actually had a halfway decent excuse for going there in the first place. We suffered the worst attack against our own homeland in our history at the hands of terrorists who trained there a the invitation and with the protection of the Afghani government. Those same players and the larger Islamic fundamentalist movement they are a part of are at least as great a threat today as they were then. According to Bassam Tibi, one of the world's foremost specialists on Islamic fundamentalism, "The goal of Islamic fundamentalists is to abolish the Western, secular world order and replace it with a new Islamist divine order.... The goal of Islamists is a new imperial, absolutist Islamic world power."

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 10/07/2009
- kingbuzz I'm a Fan of kingbuzz 3 fans permalink

is this not the exact opposite of his campaign promises? what a sell-out.
time for real third party politics. campaign finance reform.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 10/07/2009

PART 1

All options are on the table, really. It seems as though the option of getting out of Afghanistan isn’t one of them. Have we considered that what we think and decide may not be a determining factor, since we forget that other people and their ideologies seem to have been left out of the equation? I remember a lot was said in our bellicose tirades about Viet Nam, but in the end, we came out.

It was commented that there will not be a draw down in our troops. What I’m about to say isn’t meant to be sarcastic but it happens to be reality. The POTUS and others may not want to draw down the troop levels but there seems to be a steady draw down in troop levels due to the continuous killing of our troops. Why do we continue this foolish spiral of lunacy? We never seem understand that the Wack-A-Mole mentality doesn’t work. If it pops up here, we will go here and strike it. If it pops up there, we will go there and strike it. Also mentioned, we will fight terrorism wherever it takes roots. How many places can we go, how many fights can we fight, how much treasure can we afford, and how many precious lives must be lost for people’s egos, arrogance, self interest, and pride. What about national security you may ask, well that went out the window long time ago.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 10/07/2009
- ljkcan I'm a Fan of ljkcan 22 fans permalink

This is not a war that can be won. It is a war of ideology last week there was an author on TV and he said the majority of people in Afghanistan could not even point North America out on a map. Young men and women are dying yet the drug trade is still in action. Women can be starved if they refuse to have sex with their husband. They are all still wearing burka's. As strange as we in the west find these ideas change has to come from within and I do not see that happening.

Which country wants to say my son or daughter died for the reasons sited above.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 PM on 10/07/2009
- lifeagain I'm a Fan of lifeagain 28 fans permalink

Obama should pull the troops out. Your indecisive and slow to respond. Our troops are not getting the support they need right now and that is contributing to casualties. Please pull them out now or make a decision.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 10/07/2009
photo

President Obama: You're their puppet.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 10/07/2009
photo

We keep-on referring to these wars as: "The United States War on Terror". False.
The United States isn't at war.
About eight-tenths of one-percent of the American People are "Involved" in these fights.
ONLY the voluntary Military personnel and their families. Voluntary? Well, ... "signed-up".
The volunteers get to go fight over and over because there's nobody else to send.
Quit thinking that these campaigns are going to be won with the Armed Forces at volunteer strength.
That isn't going to happen.
The volunteers are counting the seconds until their contracts expire and they are discharged.
Sending the volunteers back for a third or fourth tour is beyond their breaking point.
The fight in that soldier is not for Duty, Honor and Country. They fight each minute to survive the next.
We punish them with extra duty, repeat tours of combat and forced extensions of their contracts.
Send no more troops until Congress declares we are at war.
Open the Draft Boards and enlist some new recruits.
Be prepared for hearing multitudes protest and The President's approval rating to fall.
The Country does NOT want to send MORE troops to Afghanistan.
The Country wants the troops we got in Afghanistan brought home!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 10/07/2009
- outnow I'm a Fan of outnow 183 fans permalink

Pipeline madness caused this fiasco. Enron and Unocal have more to do with the invasion the UBL. We have neither "caught" UBL nor enforced the pipeline. But now we must stop the Taliban whom we created.

The problem with war is that it has lasting consequences, often for many decades. Who would now support the terms of the versailles Treat which precipitated another world war? Only war-mongers.

Too bad that Uncle Sam got himself into another jam in an Asian land war. With Rumsfeld's permanent war, there will be permanent war casualties.

The Caspian Sea oil and gas beckens those corporate war-mongers to profits while our soldiers die, Typical war. Look who pays the price of wars as per usual.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 10/07/2009
- BLSabob I'm a Fan of BLSabob 43 fans permalink
photo

So the question is, Did someone "get to" Obama, or was this part of the plan from the begining?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 AM on 10/07/2009
- gwr72 I'm a Fan of gwr72 3 fans permalink

Having voted for Obama, I am terribly disappointed in his lack of courage. The wars
must end. I will not vote for him again in 2012 if we are still involved in these
stupid, wasteful wars. Obama is becoming an educated GWB.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 10/07/2009

Mr President:-

The war in Afghanistan has assumed a life of its own beyond the national security prerogatives of the United States. The solution to ending the war finds meaning within the pecuniary calculations of the death triad: military-i­ndustrial-­political complex. Justifications for senseless continuation are a frenzied attempt to throw dust into the eyes of already weary Americans.

Thank You.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 10/07/2009
- 1dogs2 I'm a Fan of 1dogs2 132 fans permalink

There may have been a time shortly after our invasion of Afghanistan when we might have "won," if "winning" consisted of capturing or killing OBL and his lot, finishing off the radical Taliban and promptly withdrawing our troops. We might even have helped the Afghanis build a functioning nation-state, if such a thing is possible, at a far lower cost than the Bush administration squandered in Iraq. At least we would have left Afghanistan no worse off than it was before our intervention. Unfortunately, that time is long past.

There are now no good options available for cleaning up the mess that Bush created. There is at best a least terrible option, and it would require clairvoyance to even identify what that option is. Among the consequences of Bush's follies is the bankrupting of America and reality that there are serious limitations to what we can accomplish at home and abroad, especially given the Bush-induced reluctance of our allies to lend significant help.

President Obama will be severely criticized regardless of what he does about Afghanistan. My hope is that the option he does NOT choose is to continue, or worse yet, to double-down on, Bush's failed policy in Afghanistan.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 10/07/2009
photo

Like Vietnam, the Iraq and Afghanistan "Extended Military Campaigns" were/are meant to be prolonged, nothing more or less than that.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 AM on 10/07/2009
photo

You shouldn't take your eye-off-the-ball by focusing on the players.

Think about that for a minute.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 AM on 10/07/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

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

Connect