Obama Narrows Afghan Strategy To 4 Possible Options

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — The White House says President Barack Obama has narrowed down his decision for an Afghanistan strategy to four options.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the president will discuss those options with his national security team on Wednesday. Gibbs did not provide any details about the options, and says the president's decision on troop deployments is still weeks away.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal – the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan – has told the president that the U.S. mission there is headed for failure unless the president sends an additional 40,000 troops. Sources tell The Associated Press that the president will add tens of thousands more forces, though probably not quite the 40,000 McChystal is seeking.

Comments

[alternate id]

07:44 AM on 12/27/2009

strikes

[alternate id]

07:42 AM on 12/27/2009

twisted

[Tackora]

04:04 PM on 11/11/2009

Is resigning, going home to Chicago, an letting Joe Biden take care of Afganistan one of the four options?

[Gary Morimoto]

11:14 AM on 11/15/2009

What are you talking about? Isn't military indecisiveness a true sign of greatness as a Commander in Chief? Who else would have had the wonderful idea of letting those poor Guantanamo detainees have the opportunity to share ideologies with our very own felons. Who knows, They may even help to place our ex-convicts with very nice 6 to 7 figure income jobs throughout our wonderful country

[Bill125]

12:48 PM on 11/11/2009

Warriors who spend time on the battlefield learn to hate war. Sooner or later they touch a bloodied corpse and realize it is cold and hard like stone. The blood is greasy--a real mess. They can't eat. They can't sleep. They grow old and their strength and appetite for conflict becomes sapped. They get a queasy feeling in their stomach that won't go away. They wake up night in cold sweats. They can't sleep. War destroys the victors and the vanquished. This truth has been known since ancient times. Homer, Aeschylus, Eurypides and countless others from ancient times until now have told this truth to anyone who will listen. It seems like every generation has to relearn it. The lust for war that drove our population into war frenzy before Kuwait and Iraq is frightening in retrospect. No war is ever really won. The fighters simply tire and quit. The survivors have children and grand children who live to fight another day. For this reason we need to fear the Japanese and the Germans and build many friendly bridges. We need to do the same with our most recent enemies. Love, not war, is truly the answer.

[wonketteRAWKS]

11:40 AM on 11/11/2009

Historic. Just historic, I tell ya!

Like the time he swatted a fly on TV. Simply historic!

[yankee222]

10:20 AM on 11/11/2009

From a videotaped interview, October 27, 2007

OBAMA: I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.


This is an incredibly dishonest politician.

[stevebest]

05:52 PM on 11/11/2009

you are an incredibly dishonest poster. Obama was very clear through the campaign that he was supporting the war in afganistan. the promise to start bringing troops home was in regards to the war in iraq wich he has done. and clearly you know that.

[Okieborn]

09:48 AM on 11/11/2009

If this President doesn't follow the option of sending our troops home !!
This President is buying himself a one term Presdency, and that is whath his Republican buddies want !!!

[RobertFromMN]

06:35 AM on 11/11/2009

Any strategy that involves occupying Afghanistan or "nation-building" is pure folly.

[PhilipTaylor]

09:16 AM on 11/11/2009

Yes! A gallon of Gas there is $500!

So a $million school will likely cost $100 Million and go to one of OUR Corrupt US Military Contractors!

[skymuffin]

03:23 AM on 11/11/2009

Until you send the loved ones of Congress and all top government officials, stop sending our troops overseas to fight your rich man's "wars." You can't beat an insurgency with more troops. You can't keep redeploying our military and the National Guard repeatedly. We are creating more enemies when we bomb innocent civilians. We are going down the wrong road. Exactly when will we be "victorious" and can leave Afghanistan? No country has ever achieved this so-called "victory" there.

[1sanevoice]

01:55 AM on 11/11/2009

how utterly sad. 4 options - not 3, not 5? what is the purpose of floating 4 options? and i voted for this? i didn't vote for this!

[lrgphd]

02:52 AM on 11/11/2009

You didn't? You didn't vote for a President who will actually consider the options, and the implications of those options, and the risks to U.S. troops, and the national security interests of the US, and combat stress issue, and the results generated by the war games and other research, and ALL FACT AND ANALYSIS AVAILABLE, before committing American men and women (and their families) to increased combat involvement? If the last President had done that, we might already have won in Afghanistan and we most likely would never have invaded Iraq. I don't know the best answer for Afghanistan, but I'm glad we have a President who THINKS and COLLECTS INFORMATION, from a variety of perspectives, before putting American forces in harms way. (The guy who didn't win routinely makes big decision by gut instinct - the last one was Sarah Palin.)

How about, if we don't know the best answer, we start by supporting the fact that there is a MIND AT WORK in the White House?

[yankee222]

10:21 AM on 11/11/2009

Your president has had oversight responsibility for Afghanistan for 3 years now and he still can't get off the toilet.

Voting PRESENT has it's downside when you have the only vote.

[marylandtravelinman]

09:13 AM on 11/11/2009

If you had voted for McCain, we would be bomb, bomb bombing Iran.

[thestargazer]

01:42 AM on 11/11/2009

He might be able to narrow it down to three by New Year's!

[FACTISFACT]

12:14 AM on 11/11/2009

The decision, President is going to take is going to have a far reaching effect in the entire area including the South East Asia. Therefore, the matter is highly sensitive. the previous regime just wanted to prove that the President of the Republican Party was an unwavering Commander-in-Chief. political thinkers say they can imagine if he would have been still in power he would have totally ruined the entire defense force and would have declared Mission accomplish as there is no defense force therefore there will be no more war.

This decision whenever it will come into force will also have a tremendous impact on the future of the nation as well as the party. Therefore the President is right to take time to decide all the prose and cones of the issue. it will not be only US involved, but also other countries will be involved with the decision.

Whatever the decision be, once taken then there will be no turning back from it. Therefore, calling him names probably is not a wise thing to do nor wishing him to take a hurried decision would be correct.

The country previous regime selected to start the war realized the blunder they committed and very surreptitiously changed the course of the war and slowly dragged it and ultimately left it on the shoulders of the democratic party knowing fully well that their days would soon ended.

[mamacat]

11:45 PM on 11/10/2009

Why, oh why, did we ever let Bush near the White House?

[Watain]

11:39 PM on 11/10/2009

Yes and when he counts them on one hand -he leaves the center finger erect.

[MarianneEvans11]

11:56 AM on 11/11/2009

You have the answwer or his decision right there as you said it so rightly. 4 options leaving the middle finger standing which represents his option and his answer. Let's go home, boys! This is te end of this war! No more WARS!!!!!!!!!! Put an end to the BUSH wars Now! Bring our boys and girls home for the Holidays!

[harriettubman]

11:16 PM on 11/10/2009

The army needs to stop putting in political generals. A soldier should know no politics on the battlefield or in his job. In the air force all you hear are officers spouting off their Republican beliefs. It shouldn't be allowed.

Aren't there some other qualified, non-white generals in the branches? I have yet to see one assigned there.