Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan

[avaistheone1]

By Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79380.html





Obama Plans 34K More Troops for Afghanistan
Plan to Be Announced on December 1

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/24/white-house-afghan-escalation-to-be-announced-on-dec-1/




Obama is set to be a one-termer for sure. How does that Peace Prize feel around your neck now Mr President?

[uponit7771]

1. "....U.S. officials told McClatchy...." I like McClatchy but I'll wait for confirmation

[tekisui]

6. You'll get it on Dec. 1st.

It's been obvious for months.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. Roget's Thesaurus. Syn. for Vietnam = Afghanistan, is seems. Tragic move, if true.

[uponit7771]

13. I've seen other "obvious" news and it has been false before, I'll patiently wait before.

[AndyA]

2. Bush's ILLEGAL and UNNECESSARY and EXPENSIVE war is now Obama's.

One term President for sure.

He should give the Peace Prize back. He doesn't deserve it.

How many more will die, Obama? Their blood is on your hands now.

This isn't the change we voted for. This isn't change.

[Baltoman991]

27. Thats your wish right?

That he be a one term president.

You see, those of us that listened to him know he said this was going to happen. We knew he was going to focus on Afghanistan. The Peace Prize committee knew as well and he still won.

[katandmoon]

28. The Nobel Peace Prize committee is forever tarnished. They made the award meaningless when they gave

it to someone who so clearly didn't and doesn't deserve it.

[Baltoman991]

30. LMAO!!!!

Nothing this man accomplishes will be good enough for you.

Seeing that you feel the way you do about the Peace Prize makes me know even more that they made the right decision.

[katandmoon]

49. And apparently nothing this man "accomplishes" will be BAD enough for you to admit that he is

becoming more Bush-like by the day.

[Baltoman991]

53. This man is

nothing like Bush no matter how many times you or the rest of the anti-Obama posters on DU scream it.

[katandmoon]

60. Keep telling yourself that.

[liquid diamond]

70. Another Bush comparison.

Man these are really stacking up.

[Splinter Cell]

75. Get a life.

[AndyA]

61. No, that is not my wish.

Neither is a continuation of Bushco policies.

Change, remember? :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

46. Pres. Obama is ending BushCo's war in Iraq. He never promised to end the war in Afghanistan.

He deserved the Nobel Peace Prize and will be a two-term president. :)

[AndyA]

63. Barack Obama - 10/27/07 quote

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war.... you can take that to the bank."

So I guess he was talking only about Iraq and his statement had nothing to do about Afghanistan. :eyes:

I call that a flim flam man.

[Splinter Cell]

76. ?

Uh, yes that's exactly what he was talking about. "Flim Flam"? It's not Obama's fault that you expect something he never promised you.

[liquid diamond]

69. When we leave

Afghanistan, that will be change. Show a little patience.

[Undercurrent]

77. Really?

quote:

This isn't the change we voted for.

Who did you vote for then? Obama was clear all through the primaries, and the general that he would finish the job in Afghanistan.

I voted for him knowing this.

[tekisui]

3. We should remember--When Obama took office there were

47,000 troops in Afghanistan. With his initial surge and the upcoming surge, he will have committed 55,000 more. He will have more than double the force size to 102,000.

[treestar]

42. Well one set of people that is going to be happy

Is that 47,000

[tekisui]

43. What makes you think so?

A lot of them are saying the same thing as Eikenberry--Get out.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. I guess that the quicksand of the quagmire feels pretty good...until it sucks you in completely.

I fear that this is not going to end well, if it indeed ends at all. Well, Obama's presidency may end due to decisions like this, and many other American servicemen's lives will end, too.

Oh, the tangled webs and messes Dubya weaved....

[LWolf]

5. War is peace. nt

[avaistheone1]

8. And it is "change" too.

:wtf:

[tekisui]

9. Surge is withdrawal.

This one is going to be a helluva spin.

[LWolf]

10. Yep. nt

[ClayZ]

39. Peace groups declare National Call-In Day to oppose escalation of war in Afghanistan

http://www.examiner.com/x-27874-Alameda-County-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Peace-groups-declare-National-CallIn-Day-to-oppose-escalation-of-war-in-Afghanistan




Peace groups across the country, including Veterans for Peace and United for Peace & Justice, have called on citizens across the country to take the next three days, November 23rd through 25th, as call-in days to oppose the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. This call comes as President Obama faces critical decisions regarding the war effort, and against the backdrop of continued NATO casualties. 2009 has been the deadliest year for United States troops since the war began.

snip>

[LWolf]

40. I'll call. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

11. Will not vote for him again under any circumstances

He can't be this stupid.

So he must be bad.

[Peacetrain]

12. Did you vote for him last time? This is exactly what he said he was going to do

[krawhitham]

14. +1

[avaistheone1]

17. Well Obama should get himself a newspaper, He should read it

and find out no one wants this damn war. Then he should go and read the nation's budget and discover we are fucking bankrupt.

I didn't think Obama could be this much of a loser.

[AndyA]

20. Obama said he was going to double the number of troops in

Afghanistan during his first year? :eyes:

Please provide a link.

[rollingrock]

23. He also said there would be no insurance mandates

and promised there would be no corporate lobbyists in his administration, didn't he?

so what happened to those promises?

[IndianaGreen]

66. and he chided Hillary for supporting mandates during a TV debate

What a hypocrite!

[IndianaGreen]

65. He also said he was going to repeal DADT and DOMA

He has done nothing on DADT, and he has his DOJ defend DOMA in the courts.

[uponit7771]

15. pay attention during election much? TIA

[avaistheone1]

22. Pay attention to the will of the people and the budget?

We need our dollars and our resources invested here in the US desperately.

We can not afford Obama's fantasy war in Afghanistan.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[monmouth]

16. I'm paraphrasing here but I believe the President asked us not to

believe anything until we hear it from him. That's what I'm going to do.

[avaistheone1]

18. See you here December 1st.

Betcha the announcement is that Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan.

[IndianaGreen]

67. Betcha the Kool-Aid brigade will defend the war

and attack the antiwar posters.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[avaistheone1]

24. McClatchy Newspapers doesn't do bullshit journalism.

See you here Dec 1.

[Cha]

38. That's nice..wherever the OPs got their info from last

week didn't make any difference to the faux rage around.

[CK_John]

25. Too few, too late. Needed 200,000 yesterday, we also need a draft. n/t. n/t

[backscatter712]

26. Depressing. I hope his strategy has more in it than just sending more troops...

My bet is that he's trying to replicate the events around the surge (or more correctly, the Anbar Awakening) in Iraq (yes, I know the George Bush Surge in troop numbers had little to do with the decrease in violence in Iraq - it was the Anbar Awakening.)

So the question is whether Obama has a strategy to engineer an awakening movement in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the old strategy seemed to assume that the Karzai government was worth a shit and worth rallying people around, which it isn't. And also, Afghanistan is not Iraq, so there's no guarantee that an "awakening" can come together at all.

IIRC, I saw an article a couple weeks ago that indicated the Obama administration may be working on the strategy of buying off warlords in Afghanistan - giving money for "development" to various factions in exchange for playing ball with us. It could work to turn the violence down a notch or two and push the Taliban out of various places, but I see that as a short-term band-aid, not a long-term fix.

But the point is that we need an exit strategy. Ideally one where the Taliban's pushed out of power entirely, the Afghans themselves have the motivation to keep their government going and maintain order, and enables us to pack up and go home.

For now, it appears the military-industrial complex is winning - they've got a cash cow they want to keep milking...

[katandmoon]

29. At least he is keeping ONE of his campaign promises!!!!

[avaistheone1]

36. Yeah, the one he certainly should have dumped!!

[Hutzpa]

31. Funny how they're pushing this shit out before

the actual announcement, its like trying to direct the narrative, same ol' fuckin playbook.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

32. oh hell no.

exactly what are we doing still in Afghanistan? The majority of the people in the U.S. can see what has been clear: that is that we need to get out now.

[Avalux]

33. Before I fly into a rage, I'll wait to hear from Obama.

I want to hear his strategy on this very complicated mess; want to hear the facts. Some advice others should follow.

[rollingrock]

35. His own VP is strongly opposed to it

you know, Biden? the guy Obama chose specifically for his foreign policy expertise and because he knows a lot more about Afghanistan than he does.

[Avalux]

41. I am well aware of Biden's opinion. I'll wait to hear from Obama. n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

44. Yep Biden just wants to use predator drones to bomb the

shit out of them.

[rollingrock]

50. That will be very hard to do

predator drones are almost useless without ground support and having the troops on the ground to spot the targets.

[SIMPLYB1980]

51. Yes but it would take far less troops.

Biden is not for a pull out from Afghanistan only a smaller scope.

[rollingrock]

54. If that's the case

they're both wrong and Biden's position is merely the lesser of two evils.

[SIMPLYB1980]

55. That is the case.

But I don't see either option as evil.

[rollingrock]

56. Not evil?

so you wish to maintain an indefinite troop presence? for what purpose, if any? so more and more of our soldiers being away from their families, or coming home maimed or in body bags does not bother you? that's not evil to you?

[avaistheone1]

64. Defense Dept: Pentagon preparing to send 34,000 troops to Afghanistan, official says

Washington (CNN) -- The Pentagon is making detailed plans to send about 34,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in anticipation of President Obama's decision on the future of the eight-year-old war, a defense official said Tuesday.

Obama held a lengthy meeting with top advisers Monday night and said Tuesday that he would announce plans for Afghanistan after the Thanksgiving holiday.

A Defense Department official with direct knowledge of the process said there has been no final word on the president's decision. But planners have been tasked with preparing to send 34,000 additional American troops into battle with the expectation that is the number Obama is leaning toward approving, the official said.

Obama ordered more than 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in March. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, reportedly has called for up to 40,000 more to wage a counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban, the Islamic militia originally ousted by the U.S. invasion in 2001.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/us.afghanistan/index.html


Another confirmation and a defense official there being called out as the source. It looks like a sure thing.

[DonkeyHoTay]

74. Good advice... From his lips only...

I hope President Obama courageously resists the incredible pressure he is under. If, as C-in-C, he signs off on the McChrystal surge, then the War in Afghanistan belongs to him forever. The inevitable defeat (or shall we euphemistically say "the Afghanistanization and US exit from the conflict zone") will be his legacy for the history books.

American high school students in years to come will be assigned essay topics such as "Compare Nixon's and Obama's handling of Vietnam and Afghanistan". I would never ever want to see such an unthinkable Nixon = Obama scenario come to pass.

[Owl]

34. Are these troops moved over from Iraq?

[Cha]

37. No, President Obama will do what he thinks is right and

your taunting him is not going to make one whit of difference.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Another MSM story with unnamed sources to try an pump up another Outrage of the Day?

[karynnj]

47. Wait until Monday - then we will get the answer

Until then, these are all rumors - maybe true, maybe not.

This sentence is incredibly circular:
"The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House."

translated

Unnamed people are leaking because the WH is angry about leaks that don't originate in the WH.

I take that to mean that they are implying the WH wants the information leaked by themselves - cause they don't want to say it on record.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Monday night the Kool-Aid drinkers will be out in force

demanding loyalty oaths from the antiwar posters.

[karynnj]

59. I hope not

It does concern me that the Republicans have succeeded, via leaks and positioning, to have tried to create a trap for Obama.

They have socialized many in teh country by repetition of all the emptyheaded cable news people saying that if McChrystal got 40,000 troops he could "win the war". This is actually quite unlikely. (Now, I don't know what win means in this context.) In the SFRC, when the pro COIN people spoke of what McChrystal/Petraeus et al had earlier claimed was needed for this this type of endeavor might be closer to 400,000 troops. Now all of those would not be American. In addition, as Senator Kerry pointed out as McChrystal's comments, there are two other pieces. We need good governance and we need Afghan security people capable of moving into the areas secured and retaing them.

Why is this a trap, assume that 34,000 is correct. They are sent and Afghanistan is still a mess. What will many people in unision say - that if he sent 40,000, we would be winning - McChrystal, they will say said it couldn't be done with less. Here, for many - the contrast will be a path not taken (40,000) that they believe as an axiom would have "worked" vs the reality.

Now, what if he sends 40,000. That will mean that 61,000 (21,000 + 40,000) of the 108,000 (68,000 + 40,000) were additional troops that Obama sent. Obama would have escalated the war from 47,000 to 108,000. If he has them take on McChrystal's goals, the problem is that there likely are many places where we will be in a situation like Vietnam - where American lives were sacrificed to fight in one area - that immediately returned to the VC after they moved to the next place.

As to how lacking Afghan services are - one expert told the SFRC that if they provided significant development aid for 30 years, they could possibly attain the level that Pakistan is at. This was startling having heard arguements of why development aid was needed for Pakistan.

The Obama administration has used a lot of Kerry's words and reasons ("to test the assumptions") to defend the analysis. I hope that they listen to Kerry's concerns with the McChrystal goals. I think Kerry's flat out comment that we would not be there if it were not next to Pakistan.

[jenmito]

48. Obama said leaking is a fireable offense. He also rejected all four previous plans since none had

an exit strategy.

[jenmito]

52. Obama today-"It's my intention to FINISH the job." n/t

[IndianaGreen]

57. and so will the Taleban!

What hubris!

[Dr Robert]

62. you know a little about hubris, don't you?

[closetliberal]

68. If he could make a decision he could send more troops...

[skepticscott]

71. It would help

if everyone, including Obama, would stop referring to what's going on in Afghanistan as a "war". If it ever was one, it hasn't been for a long time. It is an occupation (ditto for Iraq), with absolutely no definable and achievable purpose. Afghanistan will look the same in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years, no matter how many more troops we send, and it will descend back to the same mess whether we leave now, six months from now, or 10 years from now. The only question is, how long are we willing to stand there as targets while we hold our finger in the dike?

[LittleBlue]

72. This had better not be true. I can't believe he wants one term so badly

I don't want Sarah Palin.

[jeanpalmer]

73. He could be following the Nixon strategy

Escalate the first two years of his presidency, vietnamize the whole operation, then withdraw troops leading into the election. It worked for Nixon bigtime.

[Honeycombe8]

78. I heard. Eh. Whatever. No one really knows what should be done.

But I DO know who NOT to listen to: People who say THEY know for sure what should be done (pull out...for sure! beef it up there...for sure! maintain status quo there....for sure!)

One thing is certain about Afghanistan: NOTHING is certain about Afghanistan!