White House Debate Led to Plan to Widen Afghan Effort

[babylonsister]

So President Obama is listening to everyone and compromising. Isn't that what we wanted?


White House Debate Led to Plan to Widen Afghan Effort

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington on Friday.

By HELENE COOPER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 27, 2009


WASHINGTON — President Obama’s plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan came after an internal debate in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned against getting into a political and military quagmire, while military advisers argued that the Afghanistan war effort could be imperiled without even more troops.

All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda, as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there.

snip//

Mr. Obama left a final White House meeting in the Situation Room last Friday signaling to participants that he was close to a decision, but that he wanted to get comfortable with what he was going to do. He mulled the issue while at the Camp David presidential retreat over the weekend. On Wednesday, he told his top aides that he had made up his mind.

In announcing a plan on Friday that could be his signature foreign policy effort, Mr. Obama said that he would send more troops — some 4,000 — but stipulated that they would not carry out combat missions, and would instead be used to train the Afghan Army and the national police. He left himself open to the possibility of sending more as the situation warrants.

The debate over the past few weeks offered a glimpse into how Mr. Obama makes decisions. In this case, he chose a compromise between his political and military advisers that some critics say includes some strategic holes, such as a reliance on the same sort of vague guidelines that proved difficult to carry out in Iraq. It also offers insight into the role of Mr. Biden and other members of a foreign policy team that includes many powerful figures vying for Mr. Obama’s attention.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/politics/28prexy.html?_r=3&hp

[Kdillard]

1. Thanks very much. I am glad that Joe Biden was the voice of caution. We do need to be very

careful in the way we go about this otherwise it could very easily get out of hand. It seems to me that this is the way President Obama has always made decisions listening to every viewpoint and trying to put in the best of all of those viewpoints.

[Windy]

3. That is what a true leader does. Take into account all opinions, weigh the pros and cons

and make a decision based upon the facts and intelligent, thoughtful debate. Its refreshing. We've not had that type of leadership in Washington for quite some time.

[Jennicut]

8. Me too. Joe has been to Afghanistan many times and really gets what is going on over there.

If he says to be cautious I believe it. I think Obama is trying to appeal to the moderate Taliban faction and get them to turn against the hardliners. We have to be very, very careful here.

[Windy]

2. Yes Babylon. This is what we voted for and Obama has always said that he would finish the job

in Afghanistan. This is exactly what we voted for and one of the issues that the man campaigned on. For people on DU to feign surprise is disingenuous.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. 'feign surprise'? no - I was against his position on this then and oppose it now.

I voted for Obama despite his positions on Afghanistan and on universal healthcare. I indeed knew what I was voting for and what I was going to get. I, like others here, will continue to voice opposition to policies I view as wrong.

[dipsydoodle]

4. And exactly what is the exit plan ?

:shrug:

[rug]

9. There is none.

[MadHound]

6. Wow, sounds more and more like the opening gambits in the Vietnam War

Not combat missions, but an advisory role. More and more troops going in. No exit plan. The prospect of a long war.

Why is this looking more and more like Vietnam redux?

We need to get the hell of Afghanistan, not continue to get ourselves into this quagmire.

[amandabeech]

10. On Friday, Tweety had a discussion about whether the new Afghanistan program

looked like the beginning of Vietnam. He was unwilling to commit a "yes" answer, but remained unease.

Also on Friday, and local PBS show, "Inside Washington," Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said the same thing with the same unease.

I share your and their unease.

When Tweety started talking about 4,000 advisers and additional troops, it sounded to me like Vietnam.

Remember, the Soviet's Vietnam was Afghanistan. The Afghans also stopped the British in the late 19th century.

Why should we be able to do what they couldn't?

[firedupdem]

7. I'm happy we have a leader that listens to all sides prior to making

a decision. I hate this war, but unfortunately this is where we find ourselves.

[Cha]

11. Rec'd~

This was interesting to read because I know we have a President and Experts who are looking for solutions and Peace instead of how to rape the land and the treasury.

<snip from your article>

"In the end the plan is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among his advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world.

All bush did was talk and not very well even using the evil telepromters.

[paulk]

12. not sure splitting the difference is the way to go

I don't think all situations call for compromise.

Sometimes you either have to go big or go home - and Afghanistan is such a situation, IMO.