Obama's Afghanistan Decision: 34,000 More Troops And An Exit Strategy, Reports Say

First Posted: 11-23-09 07:34 PM   |   Updated: 03-18-10 05:12 AM

What's Your Reaction?
Obama Troops

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House braced for a tough sell of President Barack Obama's long-awaited decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war in Afghanistan, even as the president met Monday with top advisers for the last major discussion before an announcement "within days."

Military officials and others expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the 8-year-old conflict. That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.

The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement -- in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it to reporters on Monday, it's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out."

Obama held the 10th meeting of his Afghanistan strategy review since mid-September on Monday night, with a large cast of foreign policy and military advisers, to go over that revised information from war planners. The two-hour Situation Room session was aimed at discussing "some of the questions that the president had, some additional answers to what he'd asked for," Gibbs said.

The spokesman said the president left the war council meeting without announcing a decision to the group, but added it would become public soon.

"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," Gibbs said late Monday.

Story continues below

The spokesman said the president did not share his thinking on what he would speak about when he makes an announcement.

McClatchy News reports:

A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening's meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.


The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said. [...]

As McClatchy reported last month, the Obama administration has been quietly working with U.S. allies and Afghan officials on an "Afghanistan Compact," a package of political reforms and anti-corruption measures that it hopes will boost popular support for Karzai and erase the doubts about his legitimacy raised by his fraud-tainted re-election.

The meeting was arranged for the unusual nighttime slot to accommodate both Obama's packed public schedule on Monday and the fact that many of his top advisers were leaving town for the holiday. No more war council meetings are on the calendar.

The presidential spokesman had said ahead of the meeting that it was possible Obama could lock in a decision then, or that one could come "over the course of the next several days." In either case, it will not be announced this week, he said, and the meeting concluded with no announcement about a decision.

The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday, after Congress returns from its Thanksgiving break.

President Obama meeting last night with his national security team to discuss Afghanistan in the Situation Room. (White House/Pete Souza)


Military officials, congressional aides and European diplomats said they expect Obama to deliver a national address laying out the revamped strategy. Obama said in a television interview last week: "At the end of this process, I'm going to be able to present to the American people in very clear terms what exactly is at stake, what we intend to do, how we're going to succeed, how much it's going to cost, how long it's going to take."

Congressional hearings would immediately follow that address, including testimony from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Others likely to take part in hearings would be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All four were among the approximately 20 top administration officials and Obama advisers participating in the talks Monday night -- one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions in some time.

Obama must not only sell his plan to the public, but to foreign allies whose additional resources the White House wants in Afghanistan and to lawmakers on Capitol Hill who would be asked the fund the effort.

Gibbs said that the subject of a war tax on the wealthy, proposed by a handful of leading Democrats, has not come up yet in the president's extensive war council meetings. But the idea, though unlikely to pass Congress, is one way for Democrats who are coming to dislike the war in greater numbers to challenge the president to confront the cost of any escalation.

Democratic allies of the president, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, have become more outspoken on the war in other forums as well.

The force infusion expected by the military would represent most but not all the troops requested by Obama's war commander, for a retailored war plan that blends elements of McChrystal's counterterror strategy with tactics more closely associated with the CIA's unacknowledged war to hunt down terrorists across the border in Pakistan.

McChrystal presented options ranging from about 10,000 to about 80,000 forces, and told Obama he preferred an addition of about 40,000 atop the record 68,000 in the country now, officials have said.

Obama has already ordered a significant expansion of 21,000 troops since taking office. The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.

The additional troops would be concentrated in the south and east of Afghanistan, the areas where the U.S. already has most of its forces, military officials said. The new troops that already went this year were directed to help relieve Marines stretched to the limit by far-flung postings in Helmand province and that would continue, while the U.S. effort would expand somewhat in Kandahar.

The increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent, officials said.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision is not final.

U.S. war planners would be forgoing the option of increasing U.S. fighting power in the north, a once-quiet quadrant where insurgents have grown in strength and number in the past year. But McChrystal's recommendation never called for a quick infusion there.

In the absence of large additions of ground forces, dealing with the north would probably require relying more heavily on air power, two military officials said. Any such additional air strikes would be more successful if, as U.S. officials hope, Pakistan turns up the heat on Taliban militants on their side of the border.

As originally envisioned by McChrystal, the additional U.S. troops would begin flowing in late January or after, on a deployment calendar that would be slower and more complex than that used to build up the Iraq "surge" in 2007. McChrystal's schedule for full deployment has it taking nearly two years, military officials said.

The relatively slow rollout is largely driven by logistics. But it also could give the White House some leverage over Afghan President Hamid Karzai. U.S. officials note that where and how fast troops are deployed are a means to encourage fresh and more serious efforts at cooperation and clean government in Afghanistan.

Here's NBC News coverage of Obama's Afghanistan decision from Tuesday's "Today" show.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House braced for a tough sell of President Barack Obama's long-awaited decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war in Afghanis...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House braced for a tough sell of President Barack Obama's long-awaited decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war in Afghanis...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
7,807
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »   (113 pages total)
Show: 
photo
gailmercedes   05:20 PM on 11/25/2009
After 8 years of failed Afgahaistan military policy now we are sending approximately 40,000 more troops for nation building. The American economy has failed. Obama ran on the platform of a populist. Once in office he appoints Geithner and Summers Wallstreet guys. Wallstreet has been well served by the Obama Adminstration. Nothing has been done for mainstreet. Since unemployment is so high it is easier to recruit young men and women into the military because they cannot find jobs at home. Not because they believe in these senseless wars. It does not matter if it is a Democrat or Republican America is governed by Big Business. Obama showed promise we have been tricked again.
hiker61   08:13 AM on 11/25/2009
Exit Strategy? What exit strategy. The 34,000 number is just window dressing and will not even come close to meeting the needs of field commanders who are trying to meet mission objectives. The troops will be parceled out in numbers to just keep the status quo going. Fast forward to a year from now and it is virtually guaranteed that requests for more troops will continue as we are methodically becoming more and more entrenched in Afghanistan. Exit strategy indeed! Here is another hint for the President. If you are going to have your handlers release photo ops with troops, it would be a good idea to be seen more with the actual troops that are doing the 24/7 on the ground fighting. No intention to disparage the fine folks of the USN and USAF, but it is the USA and USMC who are in the meat grinder, and will be for many more years to come as we are seeing now.
photo
ChelseaC   10:28 PM on 11/24/2009
This is Obama's war now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RogHol   11:31 PM on 11/24/2009
Sorry but that was a half-truth.
photo
returnofthejedi   04:42 AM on 11/25/2009
Wrong ignorant one, this is Americas war. Why does it make you so happy that the people you support started a debacle and then you sit back and laugh and snicker for everyone to see. The republicans have done something this detrimental to American progress and you think it's funny that Americans are struggling to recover from that. You really think that is a winning strategy. Destroying America is the way to win an election? That is ridiculous in so many ways.
photo
ChelseaC   10:27 PM on 11/24/2009
This is bad news.
More death, more destruction.
God, help us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon   09:33 PM on 11/24/2009
Well, here's a prediction: He'll be challenged by Kucinich or Dean in the primaries. There'll be a credible third party anti-war candidate in 2012. The Dem base will stay home. The GOP will show up. Then with a few voting machine and other shenanigans wanna bet on the logical outcome for the Electoral College vote?”
LushLife72   10:34 PM on 11/24/2009
But if the mythical (so far) third party candidate can reenergize the Dem base and attract new voters, maybe a shot. Maybe. The thought of Palin or Huckabee or any of 'em for four years would be too much to take. We barely survived Bush. Palin as President? God, the horror.
photo
ChelseaC   10:59 PM on 11/24/2009
Palin would never be President.
allalone   09:30 PM on 11/24/2009
Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Congress has the real and final say on the funding of this troop increase. Another 8 years in Afghanistan your 8 year old child will be? Your sixteen year old child will be what in 8 more years. Your 24 year old child will be living with the aftermath of what our so called 'winning this war' will end up being. Just saying!
photo
bluesmann   08:28 PM on 11/24/2009
2 Democrat war_s....failed stimulus...10.2% unemployment....soaring deficits & debt...tax increase in 2011....trillion $$ HC reform....cap & trade....bogus climate change...kinda makes you want to have a drink...
photo
bluesmann   08:24 PM on 11/24/2009
Saw a bumper sticker at Ft Hood yesterday...."Dith_er and Di_e."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Zorabedian   09:27 PM on 11/24/2009
Hey, it wasn't the president's fault Fort Hood happened, and sending more troops to Afghanistan won't end people dying there.
photo
skialethia   08:14 PM on 11/24/2009
No wonder people's bank accounts are depleted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn134-KLL7Y&NR=1

Liiiiar, liaaaar, pants on fiiiire!
photo
BarakCarpathia   07:44 PM on 11/24/2009
We gotta win this thing.
photo
BarakCarpathia   07:36 PM on 11/24/2009
It took Obama months to decide on which dog he wanted, how does anyone expect him to make a decision on something of this significance.
LushLife72   07:34 PM on 11/24/2009
680 Billion Dollars a year. That is what are annual defense budget is. This does not include the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. Meaning, it will get worse.
The empire is over folks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Zorabedian   09:24 PM on 11/24/2009
This year the administratiuon included war spending in the defense budget - unlike under Bush.
LushLife72   10:27 PM on 11/24/2009
Ok, touche. It's still out of control and morally obscene (although I'm sure Haliburton and the like have no qualms).
LushLife72   07:26 PM on 11/24/2009
What would Hillary have done had she been elected instead? The same I fear, especially as a woman to prove her bona fides. We're governed by corporatist war parties, both of them. What kind of choice is that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Zorabedian   09:24 PM on 11/24/2009
Hillary is advising Obama as Sec State - she wants more troop.
photo
SparkyDash   09:26 PM on 11/24/2009
Much more troops and US $ to Afghanistan.
photo
ChelseaC   10:32 PM on 11/24/2009
Indeed.
They find it necessary to feed the Military Industrial Complex.
NCAV2   06:28 PM on 11/24/2009
I thought Obama was elected to change this type of bull shyyt.
photo
hellboundtrain   06:20 PM on 11/24/2009
Obama may want something that can not be acquired.
photo
skialethia   06:23 PM on 11/24/2009
Yeah, a second term!

Twitter Edition