Afghan War to Expand, but with "Endgame"

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49570

    Afghan War to Expand, but with "Endgame"

    Administration outlines Afghan war endgame
    Official: U.S. troops will start leaving region 'well before' end of first term

    NBC News and news services
    updated 1:35 p.m. ET, Tues., Dec . 1, 2009

    WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over six months, an accelerated timetable — with an endgame built in — that would have the first Marines there as early as Christmas, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

    U.S. troops are expected to start leaving the region "well before" the end of Obama's first term, the AP reported Tuesday. A senior government official told NBC contributor Col. Jack Jacobs that the president believes that a transition from American-led combat to Afghan leadership of the effort will begin in July 2011.

    With the full complement of new troops expected to be in Afghanistan by next summer, the heightened pace of Obama's military deployment in the 8-year-old war appears to mimic the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, a 20,000-strong force addition under former President George W. Bush. Similar in strategy to that mission, Obama's Afghan surge aims to reverse gains by Taliban insurgents and to secure population centers in the volatile south and east parts of the country.

    In a prime-time speech to the nation Tuesday night from West Point that ends a 92-day review, Obama will seek to help sell his much bigger, costlier war plan by tying the escalation to an exit strategy, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    By laying out a rough timeframe and some dates for when the main U.S. military mission would end, as well as emphasizing stepped-up training for Afghan forces, the president was acknowledging the increasingly divided public opinion over continued American participation in the stalemated war.

    "We want to — as quickly as possible — transition the security of the Afghan people over to those national security forces in Afghanistan," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told ABC's "Good Morning America." "This can't be nation-building. It can't be an open-ended forever commitment."

    With U.S. casualties in Afghanistan sharply increasing and little sign of progress, the war Obama once liked to call one "of necessity," not choice, has grown less popular with the public and within his own Democratic party. In recent days, leading Democrats have talked of setting tough conditions on deeper U.S. involvement, or even staging outright opposition.

    The displeasure on both sides of the aisle was likely to be on display when congressional hearings on Obama's strategy get under way later in the week on Capitol Hill.

    In his speech and in meetings overseas in the coming days, Obama also will ask NATO allies to contribute more — between 5,000 and 10,000 new troops — to the separate international force in Afghanistan, diplomats said.

    One official from a European nation said the troop figure was included in an official NATO document compiled on the basis of information received from Washington ahead of Obama's announcement. The NATO force in Afghanistan now stands at around 40,000 troops.

    The 30,000 new U.S. troops will bring the total in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 U.S. forces by next summer. New infusions of U.S. Marines will begin moving into Afghanistan almost as soon as Obama announces a redrawn battle strategy.

    The president's long-awaited troop increase had been envisioned to take place over a year, or even more, because force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make it logistically difficult, if not impossible, to go faster. But Obama directed his military planners to make the changes necessary to hasten the Afghanistan additions, said the official, who declined to be publicly identified because the formal announcement of details was still pending.

    Officials were not specific on the withdrawal date that Obama has in mind nor the changes the military will be required to make to get the troop deployments into Afghanistan on the president's new, speedier timeline.

    Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks of Obama's announcement, and would be in Afghanistan by Christmas. This initial infusion is a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly, military officials said.

    The new Marines would provide badly needed reinforcements to those fighting against Taliban gains in the southern Helmand province. They also could lend reassurance to both Afghans and a war-weary U.S. public.

    Obama's announcement comes near the end of a year in which the war has worsened despite the president's infusion of 21,000 forces earlier this year. He began rolling out his decision Sunday night, informing key administration officials, military advisers and foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls that stretched into Monday.

    Previewing a narrative the president is likely to stress, Gibbs told ABC that the number of fresh troops don't tell the whole story. Obama will emphasize that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own.

    "We're going to accelerate going after al-Qaida and its extremist allies," Gibbs said. "We'll accelerate the training of an Afghan national security force, a police and an army."

    In Kabul, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the new head of a U.S.-NATO command responsible for training and developing Afghan soldiers and police, said Tuesday that although the groundwork is being laid to expand the Afghan National Army beyond the current target of 134,000 troops, to be reached by Oct. 31, 2010, no fixed higher target is set.

    There is a notional goal of eventually fielding 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police, but Caldwell said that could change.

    "Although that is a goal and where we think it could eventually go to, it's not a hard, firm, fixed number," he said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

    He indicated that one reason for avoiding a hard-and-fast commitment to those higher numbers is the expected cost. So his orders are to reach the targets of 134,000 soldiers and 96,800 police by next October. He intends to hold annual reviews, beginning next spring or early summer, to determine whether the notional higher targets of 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police — for a combined total of 400,000 by 2013 — are still the right goals for Afghanistan.

    "If you grow it up to 400,000 — if you did grow all the way to that number, and if it was required to help bring greater security to this country — then of course you have to sustain it at that level, too, in terms of the cost of maintaining a force that size," he said. Nearly all the cost of building Afghan forces has been borne by the U.S. and other countries thus far.

    Obama also will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan and, especially, Afghanistan.

    The Afghan government said Tuesday that President Hamid Karzai and Obama had an hourlong video conference. Obama was also going to speak with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

    In Afghanistan, rampant government corruption and inefficiency have made U.S. success much harder. Obama was expected to place tough conditions on Karzai's government.

    Obama was spending much of Monday and Tuesday on the phone, outlining his plan — minus many specifics — for the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, India, Denmark, Poland and others. He also met in person at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

    A briefing for dozens of key lawmakers was planned for Tuesday afternoon, just before Obama was set to leave the White House for the speech against a military backdrop.

    Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


    GoogleAP
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49570

    #2
    The endgame should be now...

    Comment

    • FORD
      ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

      • Jan 2004
      • 59656

      #3
      Obama should have been the new FDR.....started out as the new Clinton....and is about to morph into the new LBJ.
      Eat Us And Smile

      Cenk For America 2024!!

      Justice Democrats


      "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

      Comment

      • kwame k
        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
        • Feb 2008
        • 11302

        #4
        Good analogy, FORD......I'm afraid you're right
        Originally posted by vandeleur
        E- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place :D

        Comment

        • lesfunk
          Full Member Status

          • Jan 2004
          • 3583

          #5
          I always thought Obama would be a 1 term President. (If he doesn't appoint himself Dictatator first).
          Now I'm wondering If he'll make it to be a 1/2 term President before he's run out of town on a rail.
          He's proving himself to be a big nothing, Angering, and alienating both the right, the left, and the moderates.
          That's what we get when we elect a President with no core values , Just another career politician with different colored skin (which is the big reason he was elected in the first place).
          http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

          Comment

          • FORD
            ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

            • Jan 2004
            • 59656

            #6
            Originally posted by lesfunk
            I always thought Obama would be a 1 term President. (If he doesn't appoint himself Dictatator first).
            Now I'm wondering If he'll make it to be a 1/2 term President before he's run out of town on a rail.
            He's proving himself to be a big nothing, Angering, and alienating both the right, the left, and the moderates.
            That's what we get when we elect a President with no core values , Just another career politician with different colored skin (which is the big reason he was elected in the first place).
            Sad to say, he was still the best of the available choices. Including the priamries (Hillary would have already obliterated Iran by now)

            Candidate Obama sounded great. Senate candidate Obama sounded even better back in 2002. He opposed dumb wars and wanted single payer health care.
            Eat Us And Smile

            Cenk For America 2024!!

            Justice Democrats


            "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

            Comment

            • lesfunk
              Full Member Status

              • Jan 2004
              • 3583

              #7
              Originally posted by FORD
              Obama should have been the new FDR.....
              He may still yet cuntsidering that FDR didn't end the Depression, WWII did. He merely extended the depression.
              started out as the new Clinton....
              like or dislike Bill Clinton, at least he wasn't on a mission to Puposefuly destroy his country
              and is about to morph into the new LBJ.
              LBJ was a crooked twat . The only thing he should be remembered for was Murdering JFK.
              http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

              Comment

              • FORD
                ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                • Jan 2004
                • 59656

                #8
                Originally posted by lesfunk
                LBJ was a crooked twat . The only thing he should be remembered for was Murdering JFK.
                No, that was the BCE.
                Eat Us And Smile

                Cenk For America 2024!!

                Justice Democrats


                "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                Comment

                • lesfunk
                  Full Member Status

                  • Jan 2004
                  • 3583

                  #9
                  Originally posted by FORD
                  Sad to say, he was still the best of the available choices. Including the priamries (Hillary would have already obliterated Iran by now)

                  Candidate Obama sounded great. Senate candidate Obama sounded even better back in 2002. He opposed dumb wars and wanted single payer health care.
                  That's the trouble with candidates. They almost always sound great.
                  No One gets to be Pres. without being bought and paid for. Sorry for the cynicism. That's just how I feel.
                  http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

                  Comment

                  • lesfunk
                    Full Member Status

                    • Jan 2004
                    • 3583

                    #10
                    Originally posted by FORD
                    No, that was the BCE.
                    LBJ.... BCE.... KKK... AMA... DNC... Same thing...
                    Last edited by lesfunk; 12-01-2009, 04:11 PM.
                    http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

                    Comment

                    • Seshmeister
                      ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                      • Oct 2003
                      • 35762

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                      With the full complement of new troops expected to be in Afghanistan by next summer, the heightened pace of Obama's military deployment in the 8-year-old war appears to mimic the 2007 troop surge in Iraq,
                      Operation Enduring Bribes.

                      You take money from hard working American taxpayers and give it to murderous militia men to bribe them not to shoot your troops and call it a surge. At the same time you employ a bunch of mercenaries for $100k a year and let them lay waste to the place. This minimises the US troop casualties because it's then contractors that get killed. Of course all the mercenaries are ex US military that you trained but now have to pay much much more money to be less disciplined.

                      Then after a while and another trillion spent you pretend it's a victory for the politicians and get the fuck out and let them get back to raping their women and killing each other.

                      It's just a very expensive way to create another generation of people who hate you.
                      Last edited by Seshmeister; 12-01-2009, 04:10 PM.

                      Comment

                      • kwame k
                        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                        • Feb 2008
                        • 11302

                        #12
                        Call me an Obama apologist but the guy hasn't been in office a year yet. I deplore some of the decisions he has made and I am totally pissed off at the Demo's for squandering their majority. Some of Obama's appointments have been suspect at best and although he did state he was going to increase troops in the "Afghan Conflict", and I do respect his cautioned approach to the conflict.......Get all your facts together and by all means don't make a decision just to look like you're doing something but the guy's putting too much on his plate.

                        As far as troop increase, it's not too much of a surprise and another type of "Surge" may actually shorten the time we need to be there. When Dubya focused all our attention on Iraq he lost all the headway we made and now it's almost like starting over again. 8 years into this conflict and there's no foreseeable end in sight......no matter what their "End Game" is and how much the experts predict an end, there's no way of knowing how this will play out....look at the history of Afghanistan, can't remember who said it but, Afghanistan is the place where Super Powers go to get a lesson in humility. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan thinking we would be greeted as liberators and by going in under that premise we overlooked the important facts like their cultures.

                        I'm all for an overhaul of Health Care and I'm all for getting us out of Afghanistan with a stable government in place but at some time you have to focus on one thing. I feel he's trying to fix everything right now. Our government doesn't work that way and given the massive scope of our economy some things will take years to fix. We don't like those type of answers but that is the truth. The Microwave Mentality that everything will be fixed in months doesn't play out in reality.
                        Originally posted by vandeleur
                        E- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place :D

                        Comment

                        • Kristy
                          DIAMOND STATUS
                          • Aug 2004
                          • 16751

                          #13
                          Originally posted by lesfunk
                          Just another career politician with different colored skin (which is the big reason he was elected in the first place).
                          For fuck's sake, find a new card to play.

                          Comment

                          • LoungeMachine
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Jul 2004
                            • 32576

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Kristy
                            For fuck's sake, find a new card to play.
                            He will....

                            Just as soon as Rush or Hannity tells him what it is....

                            Originally posted by Kristy
                            Dude, what in the fuck is wrong with you? I'm full of hate and I do drugs.
                            Originally posted by cadaverdog
                            I posted under aliases and I jerk off with a sock. Anything else to add?

                            Comment

                            • lesfunk
                              Full Member Status

                              • Jan 2004
                              • 3583

                              #15
                              right.... Limbaugh is a Billionaire Bush Butt buddy and I'm cuntvinced that Hannity has less education than a 5th grader. I didn't even know Glen Beck existed until I read his name in a FORD post.
                              You guys give me much too much credit. I'm not a pundit or a follower of pundits. I simply have my own opinion and every once and a while I voice it.
                              I don't expect Lounge, Ford, Kristy, or Nick to agree with me.
                              If my opinion sounds like some radio guy you hate so be it.
                              I mean, I don't accuse FORD of parroting the Mike Malloy radio Guy.(even though I secretly suspect he often does exactly that.
                              I don't like Obama and I doubt I ever will. I'm not against giving him props if I feel he deserves it.
                              http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

                              Comment

                              Working...