Obama vows to get the job done in Afghanistan

[Halaku Khan]

Obama vows to 'get the job done' in Afghanistan - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com

BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY, STEVEN THOMMA AND JOHN WALCOTT
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- In a preview of his speech next week announcing his plan to send more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, President Barack Obama Tuesday vowed that he'll "finish the job" of stabilizing the country and destroying the al-Qaida terror network.

" ... 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 those areas," Obama said. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks."

"After eight years - some of those years in which we did not have ... either the resources or the strategy to get the job done - it is my intention to finish the job," Obama asserted during a White House news conference with visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Obama on Tuesday declined to provide any specifics about his plan, including the size of a U.S. military build-up, how he proposes to pay for it or how he intends to end U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, which is now in its ninth year.

McClatchy Newspapers reported Monday that Obama and his national security team had finalized a plan to send an additional 34,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan in phases, beginning in March and ending at the close of 2010.

The plan contains "decision points" at which the administration will reassess the situation in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said. It could decide, depending on how much military or political progress had been made, to continue sending the additional forces, end the flow and adopt a more limited strategy, or begin planning a withdrawal, they said.

Obama said that in addition to the military campaign, his "comprehensive strategy" for Afghanistan also would include civilian and diplomatic components.

The strategy, the officials told McClatchy Newspapers, is to couple the troop increase with greater anti-corruption efforts, political reforms, redoubled aid programs and expanded Afghan security forces, in an effort to weaken the Taliban-led insurgency and to persuade some insurgents to negotiate with the Karzai government.

"There are some in Congress who will be receptive to the idea that we're seeking a political solution and open to encouraging negotiations," one official said.

Some officials, however, fear that linking the U.S. buildup to military and political benchmarks will encourage insurgents to spurn negotiations and wait for the inevitable withdrawal of U.S.-led international forces.

Taliban-led insurgents "just drag their feet, play for time, and then we go," said one U.S. official, who - like others who commented for this report - requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

"This is a completely magnificent muddle," another official said.

"If they get the idea that we're not committed for as long as it takes, but only for as long as we've got, they have no reason to negotiate with anyone," another U.S. official said. "Right now, they think they're winning, and so one reason to send more troops now is to disabuse them of that notion."

Militant leaders are likely to interpret Obama's vow to finish the war during his presidency as a sign that they can wait out the United States, as the North Vietnamese did in the Vietnam conflict; as Syria, Iran and Hezbollah did in Lebanon in 1984; and as Islamic militants did in Somalia in 1994, another U.S. official said.

A senior U.S. official said that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been reaching out to the Taliban and other militant groups with the tacit acquiescence of U.S. officials, and called the diplomatic efforts "strictly Pakistani and Saudi initiatives."

"If we ever get to the point where Karzai has some invitations to mail, it would be good to have some addresses to send them to," another official said.

The Pakistanis and the Saudis have their own reasons for trying to talk to militant groups, several officials said.

Pakistan, and especially its military and Inter Services Intelligence agency, "wants to make sure it has a say" in whatever happens in Afghanistan, one said, while the Saudis worry that a militant victory over the U.S. in Afghanistan could trigger an Islamist revolution in their country.

Nevertheless, one defense official said: "Encouraging this outreach ... may be a way to help the administration reassure Congress and the allies that it isn't betting all its chips on a military solution in Afghanistan."

Obama on Tuesday predicted that he'd turn around public opinion on the war.

"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," Obama said.

"It is going to be very important that the Afghan people are ultimately going to have to provide for their own security."

The president also defended himself against charges of dragging out his review of Afghanistan policy.

"I think that the review that we've gone through has been comprehensive and extremely useful, and has brought together my key military advisers, but also civilian advisers," Obama said.

On Monday, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that Obama has put troops in danger by dragging out the decision on whether to send more troops, first through more than 20 hours of meetings leading up to a ninth and final session on Monday night, and then by putting off announcing the decision until after Thanksgiving.

"The delay is not cost-free," Cheney told a conservative radio talk show host. "Every day that goes by raises doubts in the minds of our friends in the region what you're going to do, raises doubts in the minds of the troops."

 

[Halaku Khan]

U.S. to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan: Pentagon official

English_Xinhua 2009-11-25 14:03:07

BEIJING, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to send about 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, a U.S. defense official was quoted as saying by news agencies Wednesday.

The U.S. Defense Department official with direct knowledge of the process told media on Tuesday that there has been no final word on the decision, but planners have been tasked with preparing to send 34,000 troops.

The president is expected to officially announce the plan to the public "early next week."

Obama said earlier on Tuesday that he would announce his administration's decision on a buildup of U.S. forces in Afghanistan "shortly" at a joint news conference with visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The White House Tuesday also said that the president is expected to announce the Afghan decision "within days."

Obama ordered more than 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in March this year. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has reportedly called for up to 40,000 more to wage the counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban.

As the public is turning negative toward the Afghan war and his fellow Democrats are increasingly vocal in their opposition to a troop buildup in Afghanistan, the upcoming decision is regarded as one of the most critical moments to shape Obama's presidency.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Obama Weighs the Cost of an Afghanistan Military Surge - TIME

By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009

There was a new face at the table when President Barack Obama conducted his ninth war council on Afghanistan shortly before Thanksgiving: Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget. And the appearance of the Administration's chief bookkeeper at what is likely to be the final meeting of a war cabinet assembled to make the key decisions on the future of the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan sends a signal of growing concern over the cost of sending some 30,000 more troops into the fight.

The war is now in its ninth year, and public support is waning. But Obama on Tuesday repeated his belief that neither al-Qaeda nor its allies can be permitted to flourish in Afghanistan. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks," he said. "It is my intention to finish the job."

Obama's fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill appear to have other ideas, however, and are talking of levying a war tax to highlight their opposition to reinforcing the 68,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan. "If this war is important enough to expand and fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for," Representative David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, tells TIME. "If we don't, we run the risk of devouring every dollar that would otherwise be used to rebuild our own economy." He argues that the domestic initiatives of both Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson stalled because of the wars in Korea and Vietnam. "We don't want that to happen again," Obey says.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also favors a tax to cover the war's cost. While the idea has little chance of passing in either chamber, the fact that it has been proposed demonstrates the depth of opposition among some Democrats to continuing the war. And the pressure on Obama from Capitol Hill is likely to grow if sending reinforcements doesn't yield quick progress on the ground.

Just how much putting extra troops in Afghanistan will cost is in dispute. Orszag pegs it at $1 million per soldier per year ($30 billion annually for 30,000 more troops), which is twice as much as the Pentagon's figure. The number varies depending on how many new weapons and other materiel are cranked into the calculation. But a new study underscores the extra costs of fighting in a landlocked country where the Taliban has shut down much of the meager road network. For example, every U.S. soldier in Afghanistan requires 22 gallons of fuel a day — and the cost of a gallon of gas bought and shipped to the deepest corners of Afghanistan averages $45. A study by the international accounting firm Deloitte puts the cost of fuel for the additional troops at nearly $1,000 a day per soldier — more than $350,000 per year.

Beyond the financial cost of getting fuel to the thirsty trucks and aircraft is the danger that comes from tanker trucks traveling along increasingly heavily mined roads. More troops will need more fuel, which will require sending more fuel convoys into harm's way. The study warns that stepped-up operations in Afghanistan could lead, by 2014, to more than double the 5,400 U.S. casualties (including 927 killed) so far.

The escalating cost in blood and treasure of a war that has already cost America $150 billion and has no clear end in sight is the reason Obama faces a tough sales job when he finally rolls out his Afghan strategy next week after nearly three months of debate. Following the President's anticipated speech to the nation, General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, will testify before Congress along with other Obama national-security heavyweights. They'll have to convince skeptical Americans — as well as NATO allies at a Dec. 7 meeting — that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a solid partner in the war effort. That's a daunting task in light of allegations of corruption enveloping him, including the disputed August election that gave him a second five-year term.

The sales job, at least in terms of cost, might be eased by Orszag's presence at that latest Situation Room session. "Wars have a way of crushing sound budgeting," says Gordon Adams, who handled the Office of Management and Budget's military account during the Clinton Administration. "It's a good idea to have the budget chief around when you decide to do that — especially if you have to sell it to a reluctant majority on the Hill."



Read more: Obama Weighs the Cost of an Afghanistan Military Surge - TIME

 

[Awesome]

34,000 now thats a much better number, 50 would've been par though. Anyway better than 5000, 3000 that we've seen in the past.

This would too be effective. At least another wave of 34,000 people should do the trick against the Taliban.

This move, if not only rhetoric, then I respect.

 

[S-2]

Asim,

Just in the last year we've gone from 38,000 U.S. troops to 68,000 and a total of nearly 100,000 NATO/ISAF troops (including the above U.S. figures). I can't recall when we've introduced only 3,000-5,000 troops in theatre as you indicate.

As to the numbers proposed now, these figures of 30,000-40,000 additional forces (thus again raising U.S. troop levels very near or just over 100,000) have been common knowledge since McChrystal's assessment was made public last August.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The White House (Gibbs) also said this today:

"On Wednesday, Mr Gibbs said: "We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years."

So that is the time-line and deadline I take, though I suppose it could be extended depending upon the situation in Afghanistan at the time. An Afghanistan where the security situation is stabilizing, and is improving economically and politically will be an easier sell in terms of maintaining a limited presence in support of the ANA.

On the other hand, NPR had a spot today that quoted 'sources' in the military and administration that the mission in Afghanistan and/or the Karzai government had six months to show improvement in either the security situation or governance, or else the US would reconsider its mission.