chakra
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
WASHINGTON: The disclosure of a six-year archive of classified military documents increased pressure on President Obama to defend his military strategy as Congress prepares to deliberate financing of the Afghanistan war.
The disclosures, with their detailed account of a war faring even more poorly than two administrations had portrayed, landed at a crucial moment. Because of difficulties on the ground and mounting casualties in the war, the debate over the American presence in Afghanistan has begun earlier than expected. Inside the administration, more officials are privately questioning the policy.
In Congress, House leaders were rushing to hold a vote on a critical war-financing bill as early as Tuesday, fearing that the disclosures could stoke Democratic opposition to the measure. A Senate panel is also set to hold a hearing on Tuesday on Obama's choice to head the military's central command, Gen James N Mattis, who would oversee military operations in Afghanistan.
Administration officials acknowledged that the documents, released on the internet by WikiLeaks, will make it harder for Obama as he tries to hang on to public and Congressional support until the end of the year, when he has scheduled a review of the war effort. "We don't know how to react," one administration official said on Monday. "This obviously puts Congress and the public in a bad mood."
Obama is facing a tough choice: he must either figure out a way to convince Congress and the American people that his war strategy remains on track and is seeing fruit — a harder sell given that the war is lagging — or move more quickly to a far more limited American presence.
As the debate over the war begins anew, administration officials have been striking tones similar to the Bush administration's to argue for continuing the current Afghanistan strategy, which calls for a significant troop buildup. Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said the Afghan war effort came down to a matter of American national security, in testimony before the foreign relations committee two weeks ago.
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, struck a similar note on Monday in responding to the documents. "We are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11," Gibbs said. "Ensuring that there is not a safe haven in Afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned. That's why we're there, and that's why we're going to continue to make progress on this relationship."
Several administration officials privately expressed hope that they might be able to use the leaks, and their description of a sometimes duplicitous Pakistani ally, to pressure the government of Pakistan to cooperate more fully with the United States on counterterrorism. The documents seem to lay out rich new details of connections between the Taliban and other militant groups and Pakistan's main spy agency, the directorate for ISI.
Three administration officials separately expressed hope that they might be able to use the documents to gain leverage in efforts to get more help from Pakistan. Two of them raised the possibility of warning the Pakistanis that Congressional anger might threaten American aid.
"This is now out in the open," a senior administration official said. "It's reality now. In some ways, it makes it easier for us to tell the Pakistanis that they have to help us."
But much of the pushback from the White House over the past two days has been to stress that the connection between the ISI and the Taliban was well known.
"I don't think that what is being reported hasn't in many ways been publicly discussed, either by you all or by representatives of the US government, for quite some time," Gibbs said during a briefing on Monday.
The disclosures, with their detailed account of a war faring even more poorly than two administrations had portrayed, landed at a crucial moment. Because of difficulties on the ground and mounting casualties in the war, the debate over the American presence in Afghanistan has begun earlier than expected. Inside the administration, more officials are privately questioning the policy.
In Congress, House leaders were rushing to hold a vote on a critical war-financing bill as early as Tuesday, fearing that the disclosures could stoke Democratic opposition to the measure. A Senate panel is also set to hold a hearing on Tuesday on Obama's choice to head the military's central command, Gen James N Mattis, who would oversee military operations in Afghanistan.
Administration officials acknowledged that the documents, released on the internet by WikiLeaks, will make it harder for Obama as he tries to hang on to public and Congressional support until the end of the year, when he has scheduled a review of the war effort. "We don't know how to react," one administration official said on Monday. "This obviously puts Congress and the public in a bad mood."
Obama is facing a tough choice: he must either figure out a way to convince Congress and the American people that his war strategy remains on track and is seeing fruit — a harder sell given that the war is lagging — or move more quickly to a far more limited American presence.
As the debate over the war begins anew, administration officials have been striking tones similar to the Bush administration's to argue for continuing the current Afghanistan strategy, which calls for a significant troop buildup. Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said the Afghan war effort came down to a matter of American national security, in testimony before the foreign relations committee two weeks ago.
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, struck a similar note on Monday in responding to the documents. "We are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11," Gibbs said. "Ensuring that there is not a safe haven in Afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned. That's why we're there, and that's why we're going to continue to make progress on this relationship."
Several administration officials privately expressed hope that they might be able to use the leaks, and their description of a sometimes duplicitous Pakistani ally, to pressure the government of Pakistan to cooperate more fully with the United States on counterterrorism. The documents seem to lay out rich new details of connections between the Taliban and other militant groups and Pakistan's main spy agency, the directorate for ISI.
Three administration officials separately expressed hope that they might be able to use the documents to gain leverage in efforts to get more help from Pakistan. Two of them raised the possibility of warning the Pakistanis that Congressional anger might threaten American aid.
"This is now out in the open," a senior administration official said. "It's reality now. In some ways, it makes it easier for us to tell the Pakistanis that they have to help us."
But much of the pushback from the White House over the past two days has been to stress that the connection between the ISI and the Taliban was well known.
"I don't think that what is being reported hasn't in many ways been publicly discussed, either by you all or by representatives of the US government, for quite some time," Gibbs said during a briefing on Monday.
Last edited: