iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Promises To 'Finish The Job' In Afghanistan

ANNE GEARAN   11/24/09 09:49 PM ET   AP

Barack Obama

WASHINGTON — War-weary Americans will support more fighting in Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday, announcing he was ready to spell out war plans virtually sure to include tens of thousands more U.S. troops.

He is expected to make his case to the nation in a speech next Tuesday night, even as the military completes plans to begin sending in reinforcements in the spring.

Eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Obama said it is still in America's vital national interest to "dismantle and destroy" al-Qaida terrorists and extremist allies. "I intend to finish the job," he said.

Obama said he would announce after Thanksgiving his decision on additional troops, and military, congressional and other sources said the occasion would be a Tuesday night televised speech laying out his plans for expanding the Afghan conflict – and then ultimately ending America's military role.

Republican critics have been pressing him for months to decide on a next step in Afghanistan, but Obama has said repeatedly he was more concerned with making a decision that was right rather than quick.

Neither he nor his advisers has detailed an exit plan, but the strategy he is expected to describe next week would include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not final.

With U.S. combat deaths climbing on Obama's watch and more than half the American public opposed to escalation, the president seemed to acknowledge Tuesday that he has a lot to explain.

"I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said, speaking at a White House news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"I can tell you, as I've said before, that it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively" in the area, he said. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. And Afghanistan's stability is important to that process."

Military officials expect an infusion of approximately 32,000 to 35,000 troops to begin in February or March, the largest expansion since the beginning of the war and one that could bring the cost above $75 billion annually.

Returning to a campaign theme, Obama said the Afghan effort had been starved for resources and attention during the Bush administration and he intended to finish the war.

To that end, much of the White House discussion during months of deliberations has centered on how the U.S. would end its military role.

Obama held his 10th war council meeting Monday evening, and officials said it was his last. The Situation Room sessions that began in September were the most visible markers of a strategic and political debate inside the administration about how to address a resurgent Taliban and other insurgents and whether the U.S. was creating its own enemies the longer it remained.

Military officials have said Obama is choosing one of the least risky options he was presented, but one still expected to lead to increased U.S. casualties without guarantee of success.

War commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has warned that the war risks failure without a large troop infusion. Although he preferred a higher figure – about 40,000 – McChrystal is expected to tell Congress next week that this lesser addition still gives him the tools to better combat insurgents in the south and east of Afghanistan.

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

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress has been miffed that the administration blocked McChrystal from testifying during what many Republicans considered an inordinately long decision-making period. His testimony has not been scheduled, but would probably come late next week or early in the week after.

Among others likely to take part in congressional hearings are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All were among about 20 officials and advisers participating in the president's final deliberations Monday night – one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions.

The administration figures will have a tough sell among some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has questioned the value of adding forces and pointed to the war's rising cost.

The Afghan war bill hit $43 billion annually this summer, with the addition of 21,000 forces Obama has already added to the fight this year. The White House has given Congress this rough yardstick for future troop increases: Approximately $1 billion a year for each 1,000 troops atop the current record figure of 68,000.

NATO and other allies collectively have about 45,000 troops in Afghanistan.

If the full expansion that U.S. military planners anticipate does happen, it would take up to two years to get all the additional U.S. forces into the landlocked country.

The United States is quietly pressing NATO and other allies to increase forces as well, with a goal of between 5,000 and 7,000 additional non-U.S. troops. European and other diplomats have said that number is probably optimistic.

Obama's expected address is timed in part to come before a NATO foreign ministers meeting, taking place in Brussels, Belgium, at the end of next week.

___

AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — War-weary Americans will support more fighting in Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday, announcing he was ready to spell ou...
WASHINGTON — War-weary Americans will support more fighting in Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday, announcing he was ready to spell ou...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 143
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
11:04 AM on 11/29/2009
He promised that during the election and couldn't even send troops when asked to, why believe him now?
photo
rabiddog6708
This Dog's bite is Worse Than his Bark
01:39 PM on 11/28/2009
Obama admin won't sign treaty with the other 156 countries who already have to ban landmines.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/25/ahead_of_key_global_conference_us
01:04 AM on 11/26/2009
President Obama is not going to give General McCrystal the 40,000 troops he wants. That's why he took so long to make the decision to send only 39,999 troops.
12:37 PM on 11/25/2009
2 trillion dollars burned up in Iraq and another trillion in Afghanistan. Enough is enough! Our military has accomplished nothing, but has put us in a position of not being able to extract ourselves and save face. It's time to say the military has accomplished what they can in that part of the world. Let's try another approach. I personally favor to fight terrorism with covert action. We need to learn from our opponents. Infiltrate their organization, cause disruption where ever possible, eliminate leaders where appropriate, and show the people of the region that terrorism will not prevail. But for the people who want to be part of the global family they will be helped to develop. Bring our troops home. 500 pounds of food will gain a lot more respect than a 500# bomb.
11:41 AM on 11/25/2009
go ahead make the day of Europe and Asia.

while the US spend all its cash and resources in wars and bombs , Europe and Asia invest in research on new technologies... (renewable energy, cars....)

the wheel is turning.... tictoc tictoc

in 10 years, while the US will be bankrupt with all those wars, Europe and Asia will have invested in energy independence from oil....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Samalabear
09:37 AM on 11/25/2009
Maybe this will interest some people here. Unfortunately this article came out yesterday, the same day it became obvious that Obama was not going to do what JFK was attempting before his assassination, if this article is to be believed -- and that was to get out of Vietnam.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/24-11
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimpager
08:56 AM on 11/25/2009
It must be the water. Crazy conservatives have warned us of the perils of "flouridation." I'm starting to believe. The last three elections have turned on the issue of stopping the war(s). So President Obama runs against the war, drinks the White House water, and ramps up the war. What Democracy? I always thought Democrats were against unjust wars and that LBJ was just a corrupt aberration in Vietnam. Not. Both parties are corrupt and neither can stand up to the Pentagon. We've waited a generation for a Kennedy and we got a Bush. How are Obama's policies any different? Same wars. Same Tarp. Same Goldman Sachs. Same Guantanamo. Same rendition. Same homeland security fascism. Protect big corporations with bailouts and screw the people. Soak up the trillion dollar deficit inflation with unemployment to "save" the dollar. Now thats change we can believe in. And will President Obama stop at a 30,000 troop "surge" in Afghanistan? Or is that a down payment? Will he expand the war into Pakistan and Iran? Will he stop the war in Iraq? Will we need a Draft? And if Bush's $3B/week becomes Obama's $6B/week, how does Obama "fix" the economy? And can anyone explain to a dead GI's mom why her son died to protect an Afghan War/Drug lord?

President Obama has done what no Republican has done in my 60 years. He's made me stop being a Democrat. Time for a liberal third party.
02:47 PM on 11/25/2009
Yep, couldn't agree more, and we need a multi party system, the dems and reps are one in the same.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
08:19 AM on 11/25/2009
the job will only be finished when Osama Bin Laden is captured and tried in a court of law.
09:37 AM on 11/25/2009
Go get him.
08:11 AM on 11/25/2009
Finally!!! Ditherer in chief.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pleneras
07:52 AM on 11/25/2009
Our president is not a quitter. Finally the focus of what happened on 9/11 is on the right country. He leaves and when terrorists camps sprout all over the place you guys will be right back here whining about how he left too early. The Afghan people were abandon by the world and now is their time to begin to develop a society (which they had) of hope and a force to fight any camps in their country. Leaving now would mean nothing was accomplished and the American lives lost had no meaning.

I'll back my president than to back those who started the war and now are using every move he makes to embarrass our nation. Repugs were the ones who brought the disasterous mess on us and he has to clean it up.
photo
Littlewords
I think I am, therefore I am, I think?!?
01:21 PM on 11/25/2009
So how many more US lives are to be sacrificed as the needed cost to "mean something and give meaning to the already lost American lives?" ...and just how long do you think it is going to take to develop a society of hope...3 yrs, 10 yrs, a generation or two?

I was never a fan of the prior administration and I fully understand the mess they've left in their wake, but we need to wrap this up and soon for many reasons. Our current Afghan reality is...

* Bin Laden at large
* Taliban is rising (not us) and reasserting control
* Much of the country unsecured
* The people want us out (as opposed to asking us to stay)
* Poppy cultivation in full swing
* We are not trusted and lack needed intelligence
* China is funding our adventure and driving up our debt

I think it is reckless to just pull a plug and jump out, but this can't continue for years forward.
07:50 AM on 11/25/2009
Well put., spot on, and depressing in that that will not be our direction. What you say is so obviously right.

On this alone I say Obama (normally I say President Obama but not this time) has destroyed all hope for a different America.

He will rue the day he made this decision and so will we.

History lesson: LBJ in many ways was a giant of a President - what he accomplished with civil rights and taking care of citizens was herculean, noble, outstanding, and real change. But his war destroyed him - and over shadows his legacy forever. Without that war we'd be a much different (better) Country. We blew it in the 1960's because of a wasteful unnecessary war and we're repeating the same mistake.

Voting in Rethuglicans is no answer - it would be if they were the Republicans in my past (Ike, etc. - even Bob Dole) - but not these RWA dogma promoting charlatans. However if Obama does this and some other things like this war stuff - and kowtows more to big business - well we'll be voting for lesser of two evils again and that is sad - sickening even.
07:54 AM on 11/25/2009
This comment I thought was attached to jsarets comment below ..

jsarets made excellent summary of situations (others here have too)
06:42 AM on 11/25/2009
We shaved our legs for THIS !?

Too bad politics and centrism trump strategy, history, common sense and lives.

Now it will be HIS war.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:21 AM on 11/25/2009
l've lost interest in Obama

his bushco style leads nowhere.

after a year, he has nothing to show for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pleneras
07:53 AM on 11/25/2009
What have you accomplished in 1 year? Nada.
05:34 AM on 11/25/2009
I believe that on this issue, the President is 100% wrong.

Get out of Afghanistan - get out of Iraq - close down all the "Extraordinary Rendition" centres - bring to task, the people responsible for dragging America into this quagmire.

Regain the moral high- ground, Mr. President.

Do what is right.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:30 AM on 11/25/2009
Dear Mr. President, the 2010 elections are going to be costly due to your failure to end these wars.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
EmmaJ76
Web Designer, Wife, Cat Mom, Politics Nerd
06:39 AM on 11/25/2009
What the fact that there is a withdrawal process going on in Iraq right now and that his policy on Aghanistan has been around since at least March and is clearly stated on his website seemed to pass you by. I mean the very fact that he has started the withdrawal process in Iraq and has a plan for an exit strategy from Afghanistan makes his policies much more favorable imo.

I mean what did you want? Day one in office, "everyone out" and by day two "everyone back home"?