Among Obama Aides, Debate Intensifies on Troop Levels - NYT

[Bozita]

Source: NYTimes

November 13, 2009
Among Obama Aides, Debate Intensifies on Troop Levels

By MARK LANDLER and JEFF ZELENY


WASHINGTON — The disclosure that the United States ambassador in Kabul has expressed written opposition to deploying more American troops to Afghanistan lays bare the fierce debate within the Obama administration over the direction of the war, even after weeks of deliberations and with the president on the verge of a decision.

The public airing of Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry’s reservations bolsters the case of those in the president’s circle, notably his vice president and some of his top political advisers, who remain skeptical of a request for 40,000 troops by the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, several officials said Thursday.

In meetings in the White House Situation Room, and in confidential cables, the ambassador, a retired Army lieutenant general who once was the top American commander in Afghanistan, has argued that the administration needs to move away from a debate over numbers and confront a more basic issue: the risk that sending more soldiers will deepen the dependence of the Afghan government on the United States.

Public disclosure of his views has heightened existing tensions between senior military officers and General Eikenberry, who left the military in April to become Mr. Obama’s emissary. Several military officials complained bitterly that his latest cables were part of a skein of pessimistic and defeatist memos he has sent since taking over in Kabul.

At a National Security Council meeting on Wednesday, however, Mr. Obama picked up on General Eikenberry’s arguments about growing Afghan dependence, according to a senior official. The president, he said, was far more assertive than in previous sessions, pressing his advisers about the wisdom of four proposals for adding troops. The change in his tone, from listening to challenging, was palpable, officials said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/world/asia/13eikenberry.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

---

My bolding.

[FVZA_Colonel]

1. I don't want to try and read Obama's mind, but it does seem that he is becoming more skeptical of a

major escalation. I'd say it's encouraging.

[DallasNE]

2. McChrystal Does Not Have An Exit Strategy

McChrystal’s troop increase request is missing two key words: EXIT STRATEGY.

While polls show the public wanting Obama to listen to his General’s they are also saying no more troops for Afghanistan. Apparently the public wants Obama to hold fast on current troop levels but to let the General’s decide how to best use those troops. That seems like what is happening today, but with little success. The public has not been polled on how important it is to have an exit strategy and I have to wonder why.

What ever happened to the Biden plan? A compromise was once floated that was McChrystal in the large population areas and Biden in the countryside. While that sounded overly simplistic it seemed to make more sense than the plans on the table to increase troops anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000, especially since all of these plans are incomplete since they lack an exit strategy.

At a high level, this should not be rocket science. What is the goal. Is that goal achievable. How might it be achieved. What resources are required, both civilian and military. What are the chances for success. How might those chances for success be improved. When and how will we know our level of success. How do we transition to Afghanistan control. How and when do we exit. Why have we not measured these items before. This war effort has been mismanaged from the beginning. Think not, why was bin Laden allowed to escape when cornered at Tora Bora.

[jaysunb]

3. You're pretty damn smart !

Seriously. :thumbsup: