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. |
Never mind whether he’s going to commit more troops. He isn’t ready to commit to whether he’ll commit to commiting more troops. This part is fun: |
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 Classic Obama Dilemma: which action results in the least amount of increase in my Obama Hate Stats??? |
| Send 40,000 troops to General McChrystal as he ask for?
Don’t Send any more troops “at this time?”
Send 20,000 troops and tell the folks we need more cooperation from the UN?
Divert attention by releasing the GITMO Photos?
Attack FOX News and Glenn Beck some more?
Play golf with a woman?
Kiss a dead soldier’s Mother and slip her some stimulus money?
Campaign for Bill Owens for NY 23rd seat? Oh wait I have Republican Dede Scozzafava doing that for me with her robo-calls! |
Decisions Decisions…. woo is me… woo is me… what decisions do I pick that yields the least amount of political hatred? And, will it back fire and yield even more hatred that the other choices? woo is me… woo is me…. |
Perhaps I should go pray with Rev Wright… he will know what will generate the least amount of hate…. hate generation is his game! |
The military chiefs have been largely supportive of a resource request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, that would by one Pentagon estimate require the deployment of 44,000 additional troops. But opinion among members of Obama’s national security team is divided, and he now appears to be seeking a compromise solution that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers. |
How about one that involves winning? I was under the impression that Gen. Stanley McChrystal had given the president several troop level options, between 10,000 and 40,000, but apparently he needs options on his options. |
Maybe more important than an Oval Office signoff on every last bullet, bean and soldier, is the basic objective, and apparently the president’s no closer there, either: |
| Before he can determine troop levels, his advisers have said, he must decide whether to embrace a strategy focused heavily on counterinsurgency, which would require additional forcesRead more at www.julescrittenden.com |
| UPDATE: Bingley says, and probably quite rightly, that I shouldn’t use a pic of this solemn ceremony to score “cheap points,” but I believe this is Obama’s way of saying McChrystal isn’t getting his 40k troops for Afghanistan. Obama said he wasn’t interested in victory over Iran on the nuclear issue, but I think he’s not much interested in victory at all, unless it’s against his perceived domestic enemies. |
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,
increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own
governments to commit more military and civilian resources to the
mission. |
“What we did today was to discuss General McChrystal’s overall
assessment, his overall approach, and I have noted a broad support from
all ministers of this overall counterinsurgency approach,” said NATO’s
secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. |
| Although the broad acceptance by NATO defense ministers of General
McChrystal’s strategic review included no decision on new troops, it
was another in a series of judgments that success there cannot be
achieved by a narrower effort that calls for not increasing troop
levels substantially and focuses more on capturing and killing
terrorists linked to Al Qaeda.Read more at justoneminute.typepad.com |
| What is the life of an American soldier worth? |
| President Obama apparently values it as little as he values defeating our enemies in Afghanistan. The gap between President Obama’s thinking on Afghanistan and that of his chosen commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has grown from a crevice to a canyon. Unless President Obama is quickly brought to understand the need to defeat the Taliban decisively, he will make a decision on strategy and troop reinforcements that will be catastrophic to our national security. |
| Obama has already wasted more than a month of the year McChrystal characterized as decisive, seeking a new strategy that will avoid both a troop surge and responsibility for losing Afghanistan and, in turn, nuclear-armed Pakistan. … Obama disdains victory. |
A viable war strategy. Only for some reason, he hasn’t said boo about that Bush legacy. Cheney at Fox: |
| Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that the Bush administration had developed a new strategy on the war in Afghanistan before leaving office — |
In a speech to the Center for Security Policy, Cheney said the Bush administration handed Obama’s transition team a policy review of the Afghan war conducted last fall to meet the new challenges posed by the Taliban. |
“They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt,” Cheney said. |
Cheney’s comments countered a recent claim by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the Obama administration had to form an Afghan war strategy from scratch because the Bush administration hadn’t asked any key questions about the war and left it “adrift.” Read more at www.julescrittenden.com |
Paks, unintimidated by the past week’s attacks, have launched their assault on South Waziristan. NYT. |
Meanwhile, still waiting to see whether Obama plans to wack the mole on his side of the board. The administration has denied a BBC report that Obama has told the Brits and the Afghans that he is planning to announce this week that he will meet the full McChrystal recommendation of 40,000-plus troops. |
Mr Gibbs said the president had “not made a decision”. |
He added: “I think that you can assume that the BBC will not be the first outlet for such a decision.” |
“Obviously, the British people and those that serve there have borne an enormous price in casualties. Obviously, we’re thankful for a strengthening of the coalition,” Mr Gibbs said. |
There when you need ‘em. Box up another set of classic DVDs. Welcome news all around, denials not withstanding. Maybe Obama saw this Newsweek cover: |
The article about Afghanistan policy in today’s Washington Post is full of snide, self-confident, anonymous criticism of General Stanley McChrystal, the man Obama chose to lead U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The tone of the criticism is consistent with the arrogance of the Obama White House. |
But in this case, it’s also counterproductive. Not just because it’s bad form to mock your lead wartime commander in news articles, but because in several cases McChrystal is making arguments that the president himself made — almost verbatim — in recent months. |
For instance, according to the Post: |
One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, “A lot of assumptions — and I don’t want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions — were exposed to the light of day.” |
| Among them, according to three senior administration officials who attended Wednesday’s meeting at the White House, is McChrystal’s contention that the Taliban and al-QaedaRead more at www.weeklystandard.com |
A US counter-intelligence Marine and his translator meet with local villagers in Kirta, Afghanistan Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images |
Move is separate from Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal’s request to increase troop levels |
The extra 13,000 is part of a gradual shift in priority since Obama became president away from Iraq to Afghanistan. |
The White House and the Pentagon both announced earlier this year that the number of US troops in Afghanistan was to be raised by 21,000, bringing the total at present to 62,000, with the aim of 68,000 by the end of the year. |
But the Washington Post, based on conversations with Pentagon officials, said that on top of those an extra 13,000 “enablers” are also being deployed. They are mainly engineers, medical staff, intelligence officers and military police. About 3,000 of them are specialists in explosives, being sent to try to combat the growing fatality rate from roadside bombs. Read more at www.guardian.co.uk |
|
Advance To The Rear!
