iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Official: Obama Does Not Plan To Accept Afghan War Options, Wants Handover Details

BEN FELLER and ANNE GEARAN   11/11/09 10:15 PM ET   AP

Obama

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy – most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

The president was considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table Wednesday were ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

The key sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.

Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry's cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with them who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified documents. Other administration officials raised the same misgivings in describing Obama's hesitancy to accept any of the options before him in their current form.

The options presented to Obama by his war council will now be amended.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

Another official stressed that Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion and that his eventual decision will cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.

With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama's tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S.
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,626
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (76 total)
07:36 PM on 11/24/2009
You know I think this Afghanistan thing has got to be over with, how long do Americans have to keep dying in that godforsaken place. Here’s something I just read…
http://ketiva.com/Politics_and_Government/obama_isnt_eight_years_in_afghanistan_enough1.html
06:12 PM on 11/13/2009
Girls can learn at home until this war is over and things quiet down. You want to turn Afghanistan into killing fields because of oppression of women? With your way half the girls will end up dead along with thier parents. In fact building schools now is just making targets.
03:01 AM on 11/13/2009
Ah - the decision we were all waiting to hear - Oh wait a minute, there was no decision.
12:35 AM on 11/13/2009
Perhaps this is a foreign concept for some considering we saw little of it in the preceding 8 years, but there is such a thing as deliberation or "thinking" about a complex problem. Unfortunately it takes some time and requires the use of factual information and consideration of real-time conditions. Yes, I know, we had the almighty "gut" of W along with his conversations with the heavens to guide our nation unsuccessfully in previous years. Well, this new president likes to think about the best solution BEFORE acting. Rule #1 - you don't go to war without an exit strategy - even W's own dad probably told him that. We ended up in this mess because of lack of foresight. Obama is wise not to prejudge the situation either way but to take time, examine all angles of the situation and seek the best options for a COMPLETE plan before acting. As he said during his campaign - "we must be careful getting out as we were careless getting in." There are a lot of variables at play in the Afghanistan situation, not simply the well-being of our troops but what happens after we leave. Obama wants the US to leave in a responsible manner, not leaving a disaster zone that we'll have to return a few years down the road.
01:56 AM on 11/13/2009
It is very complex situation, but I can trust president Obama to do the right decision
08:50 PM on 11/13/2009
That's IF he makes a decision.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:24 PM on 11/12/2009
Afghanistan. I've heard some say that there are only 100 al-qaida in Afghanistan while there are many more in other countries, like Great Britain. That may be true but Great Britain has a police force which monitors suspected terrorists in the slum neighborhoods of that country. The same cannot be said of Afghanistan, where we are the only cops on the beat. Were we to leave Afghanistan, al-qaida would be unmonitored and much more capable of carrying out overseas attacks, in my judgment. You see, all law enforcement is local. So until we can leave behind a police force capable of surveilling the bad guys, we're stuck there.
10:13 PM on 11/12/2009
I have yet to see one good reason why we should waste the life of another precious American kid for this miserable place.

Time to cut bait !!!
09:53 PM on 11/12/2009
Schools? For girls!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cooday
09:02 PM on 11/12/2009
I'm glad Gen. Powell advised President Obama to "Take Your Time" on this decision. More Troops mean more Wounded and Deaths next year. Oct 2009 was a preview of this. Are the Majority of Americans ready for this?

We already know how the Republicans who support the Bush/Neo Conservatives approach feel as they beat the drums of war again and calling for more troops.

Somewhere there is a solution and an exit with the help of our Allies and the Experts who spent their lives studying this part of the world.

Until a solution is found our Troops and allies need better protect against the deadly IEDS happening now.

The hardest part of this is dealing with the Bush and Neo Conservative War legacy left to us now. The Republicans want to pass the buck and mess they created to the Democrats so the Republicans can have clean slate to run in the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Republicans should be held accountable until our troops are safely home from both wars.
09:31 PM on 11/12/2009
powell sold the war to the world, guilty
09:54 PM on 11/12/2009
Mi Lai cover up too. But today is today.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
myarmsaregreen
10:14 PM on 11/12/2009
It's Obamas plan he endorsed just this year. It's his handpicked general making the recommendation.

Time for you biyatches to quit griping about what "we were left do deal with" and grow up.

FDR left Truman a world in flames and a cold war just around the corner...he didn't complain; he dealt with it.

GROW.UP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KISHAGREEN
11:08 AM on 11/13/2009
How could Roosevelt have LEFT Truman something that hadn't happened yet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
henryberry
MASSACRE IN NEWTOWN Adam Lanza Passage to Madness
07:41 PM on 11/12/2009
Why is Obama asking what the "exit strategy" is? I thought he was the president.

This reminds me of a moment in my being audited by IRS. After looking over my books for a while, the auditor asked me what some of my bookkeeping entries were all about. I told him I had no idea, I thought he was the expert.
09:01 PM on 11/12/2009
YOU ARE RIDICULOUS
01:57 AM on 11/13/2009
Because we have a democracy and he is not a dictator
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivasquest
07:34 PM on 11/12/2009
You cant fight a war with an illigitimate government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
myarmsaregreen
07:09 PM on 11/12/2009
Veterans of dysfunctional corporations will recognize the Obama style as the one in which upper management is fond of giving middle management “All the responsibility, none of the authority, and zero resources.” It’s a time-tested recipe for failure and demoralization while maintaining an aloof, "concerned," and above the fray posture on the part of the CEO. It is what is being done to the US military, day in and day out, in Afghanistan and, as such, works to Obama’s favor as long as it can be done slowly and without alarm.
04:42 PM on 11/12/2009
glad to hear this.
04:37 PM on 11/12/2009
Stop War Incorporated Now!
Prosecute war profiteers, sadistic CIA renditioners and then re-instate the Bill of Rights.

Get the heck out of Afghanistan (and that means US Corporate mercenary contractors)!

AND freedom is fascism when corporations have individual rights (Because corporations have never been put in jail and have become "to big to fail", ha, ha ha...) = The demise of government of and by the people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDog76A
Radical Centrist
04:52 PM on 11/12/2009
do you even know what's happening in afghanistan right now?

thought so...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Dosadi
Political agnostic
05:02 PM on 11/12/2009
None of us do. None of us know why we are still there. None of us know why we are at war with the Taliban which did nothing to our soldiers until we started killing them. None of us knows if OBL is still alive. This is a good example of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. It is time to heed his warning for if left to the military commanders we will be at war someplace forever.
04:23 PM on 11/12/2009
Mr. Obama, you want out! that's very easy, Call the leaders in congress and tell them to "Stop the Funding'.
Mr. Obama, here's another way out, "Your the President, the Commander in Chief ' Order all troops out of the conflicts, that's all you have to do, sir' Ignore the Military War Complex, that department has gotten to big to fail, and very costly to the american taxpayer. Mr. Obama, you know fully well a whole lot of people are profiteering off these two conflicts at the price of american lives. So ''Stop it".

Mr. Obama, you have that little book in your pocket that all members of congress should carry as well, "Let's see' its called the United States Constitution" Read It", Follow It", It can save you a lot of headaches.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDog76A
Radical Centrist
04:56 PM on 11/12/2009
Stop the funding!

That means you support Taliban-driven genocide... which will happen in the vacuum if we pull out prematurely... a hundred thousand or more Afghans will get killed.

It also means you support misogyny. You support the oppression of women, their genital mutilation and being forced to wear burkhas, this will happen soon as the government in Afghanistan collapses.

You should actually read the Constitution yourself while your at it
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Dosadi
Political agnostic
05:03 PM on 11/12/2009
I'm not sure I understand how our Constitution protects Afghanistan from it's own people.
07:40 PM on 11/12/2009
Sorry, I haven't read anything credible on the Taliban that talks about genital mutilation, unless you count "Islamwatch.org" as being credible. Sure, the Taliban are bad, but why are we going after them and not the genocidal berserkers in Darfur? A hundred thousand more afghans will be killed? The Afghans probably think of the Taliban as the only thing protecting them from US. I mean, if China invaded the US, and we had Dick Cheney as our prez, we would all be on Cheney's side all of a sudden, despite that he's a horrible human being. It's probably that way with the Afghans and the Taliban.

Also, if you think our military intervention prevents people from dying, how do you explain the 600,000 Iraqis that died due to the Iraq War?