Barack Obama 'to reject Afghanistan war options in favour of plan with clear exit strategy'

Telegraph ^ | 12 Nov, 2009 | Ben Farmer

[XHogPilot]

Barack Obama is to reject all of the options outlined for increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan in favour of revised plans which include a clear exit strategy, it has been claimed. The report came from a senior administration official close to the high-level deliberations Mr Obama is holding with his war cabinet over the refocusing of the Afghan war effort. The President is said to have raised questions at a meeting on Wednesday that could alter both the size of any possible troop increase and the length of time they are in the country before they can hand over to responsibility to the Afghan government. According to US reports, it is not the first time he has asked for the four options thought to have been presented to him to be rewritten and he is putting up considerable resistance to the strategy put forward by the Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US Nato commander in Afghanistan, to increase troop numbers by 40,000 for a counterinsurgency drive. Other options on the table include sending between 10,000 and 15,000 troops who will focus on training Afghan forces. The latest development came as it emerged that the US Ambassador in Kabul, Gen Karl Eikenberry, has told Mr Obama that a surge of troops was "not a good idea" unless the Afghan government suceeded in reining in the corruption which spurred the Taliban insurgency. Gen Eikenberry, a former military commander in Afghanistan, reportedly cited the erratic behaviour of Hamid Karzai, who was sworn in as President of Afghanistan after his rival Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of a second round of elections because of ballot-rigging concerns.

[agere_contra]

The heart of the country CAN be westernized, in the sense of “women being taught to read and wearing normal clothes”.

We’re not talking about turning it into Rome. We’re talking about stopping Afghanistan from becoming a country-sized Mogadishu.

Kabul and environs was doing sort-of-ok - not exactly a Pashtun Paris, but not breeding legions of crazy people either - until the Taliban invaded and put the women into burqas.

And that’s all we need Afghanistan to be. Sort-of-ok. We train and support their military, we help their fledgling democracy and we use Helmand as a place to kill crazies. We infect another Muslim country with the concept of liberty. This is the Bush doctrine (properly understood) and it is a good one.

What we don’t do is declare defeat just because we can’t make Afghanistan into a Utopia. Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good!

[marron]

We need to stay until the Afghan Army is capable of doing its own policing. Just keep doing what we’re doing. Keep the Talibs at the margins. Keep training Afghan units. Keep teaming up with them in the field until they get it.

Essentially, its the same strategy that worked in Iraq. It will take longer, because there is less to work with. No point in getting in a big hurry.

This part of Asia is bandit country; it will always be bandit country. There will always have to be some kind of militarized police force up in the hills chasing bandits. We “won” when we chased the bandits into the hills. Now we have to do the day to day maintenance work of keeping them there, and building the force that will keep them there when we’ve gone on to the next crisis.

[marron]

Good post.

[verity]

“Tell me again how this prick got elected?”

Blame all the dumbshits in our respective neighborhoods.

[agere_contra]

Excellent summary.

Indeed our problem in Afghanistan is NOT that “we’re locked in an unwinnable war”. We’re locked into unwinnable ROE.

Our troops may not shoot back if there is a ghost of a chance of a civilian being killed.

Our troops find it impossible to get arty or air support whenever there’s a ghost of a chance of a civilian being killed.

And the enemy are dressed as civilians, and routinely use real non-combatants as human shields.

I don’t think FReepers will have any trouble spotting the problem here.

[jaydubya2]

Afghanistan has "not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires". US President Barack Obama, 18 February.

"We've got to get the job done there," he said of Afghanistan. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." Aug 2007

“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.” –Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), in a speech Wednesday in Richmond, Virginia on national security policy.

[jimt]

We could not stabilize that part of the world if we spent another 8 years or 800 years, so long as Islam poisons their minds.

I'm sorry, I can't agree.

The surge worked in Iraq.

The Pakis are cleaning up their side of the border.

If Obummer would apply a little Chicago style pressure on our enemies so as to win, instead of on the US population to knuckle under to "Eine volk, eine Fuehrer", it's be over shortly.

[ErnBatavia]

delay, delay, delay

Dither, dither, dither....

[okie01]

This part of Asia is bandit country; it will always be bandit country. There will always have to be some kind of militarized police force up in the hills chasing bandits. We “won” when we chased the bandits into the hills. Now we have to do the day to day maintenance work of keeping them there, and building the force that will keep them there when we’ve gone on to the next crisis.

There is more good sense about Afghanistan in this thread than in anything that is likely to emerge from the National Security Council.

I'll add my two bits.

I agree with agere_contra's view that we shouldn't be looking for another Iraq. In Afghanistan, that's neither feasible nor necessary. "Sorta O.K." is a good way to describe it -- a semi-liberalized center of the country, with a bearable level of corruption, the countryside with a moderate level of banditry -- and a domestic security force capable of limiting both. All in all, that would be a modest -- and meaningful -- step forward for the country.

But there should be another equally strategic objective: ruthlessly exterminate the Taliban. Presently, we're fighting a disparate collection of factions and bandits. Fact is, while they might think they've got a beef against us, we don't really have a beef against them.

It is said that Afghan tribesmen can't be bought; but they can be rented.

Accordingly, I'd favor a plan that recruited (i.e., paid) the bandits to help us root out and ruthlessly exterminate the Taliban -- the guys we were originally after when he entered Afghanistan.

The benefit of such a policy would be that everybody would then be aware of what happens to crazies who dare to attack us. We will come halfway around the world to kill every one of them.

It makes a powerful point.

[RC2]

I would prefer that the military pull back to a safe area, then ask the President what he wants to do. Go to war and fight it the way a war is supposed to be fought....to win.....or bring the troops home? Two choices, nothing more.

[darkside321]

unfortunately i´m not that confident. Believe me if you would compare Iran with afghanistan for example.Even Iran would look like the land of the free compared to afghanistan. have been there in 2005 and believe me they will never change. there is not much difference between the taliban and the current "democratic elected" (btw. democracy for afghanistan is a joke anyway) regime. they are all a bunch of religious fanatics who threat their woman worse then cattle. so you say kabul is doing OK? here are some impressions of Kabul "where we still have the controll" in 2005 (when the situation was more stable then now). do you notice the burkas? believe me nothing really nothing in the behavior of the mass of this people has changed in this country since we invadet it. the first pic shows daily street life in Kabul and the second just the normal behavior "nothing special happened" during a soccer game (where no woman are allowed to watch of course).

[TexasRepublic]

I’m sorry too, we will have to disagree. If/when we pull the troops from Iraq, that country will collapse into civil war between the Sunnis and Shi’ites. Those groups having been deadly enemies for 1,200 years. We are not going to change that. Islam rots the brain.

[swarthyguy]

>>So why did the douchbag escalate in the first place?

Because he had to calm the waters, make himself look credible with the military and by doing the 21K, enabled him to delay and procrastinate till public opinion turned, which it has and voila! Mission Accomplished.

FWIW, this piece smells more real than anything else so far.

If he wanted to go with McChrystal’s strategy, he’d have done so by now.

[usshadley]

Well we are bankrupt...that’s gonna change a lot of things.

[swarthyguy]

You are dead on.

What people don’t know is that at least from WW2 onwards, Kabul and Afghanistan were relatively benign.

In the 60’s, the US built dams, USAID competed with Russian projects as the King dealt with all, the country was safe, relatively secularized in Kabul at least, and the mountaintop gardens of Kabul were redolent with the aromas of flowers, grilled kebabs and plentiful fruit trees.

It can be done again, and I’ve really come to despise the sheer chicanery, twotiming, hypocritical lying arrogance of the Obamawallahs.

If he had said this out loud last year, well, considering the adulation heaped on him, doubt it’d have made a difference anyway.

What a victory for JIHAD.

[jacknhoo]

I am amazed and disappointed at all the comments above...what a bunch of weenies with no endurance or resolve and such short memories and such lack of comprehension of what Afghanistan is all about.

Here is one person who seems to understands some of the repercussions at least, masspoguy:

"The Killing Fields will be back. The Taliban will kill whole villages that backed us. They will kill every woman/girl who learned how to read."

And, mojito, understands the purpose:

"Option Surrender Monkey, thy name is 0. "

And, organicchemist, understands what should be:

"In the past century, the best examples of enemies reconstructing to form stable societies are WW II Japan and Germany (West). What they have in common is that, at the end of hostilities, there was no doubt who was defeated. Anything short of that seems to miss the point of a war."

agere_contra, has a very realistic view of what the win looks like:

"And that’s all we need Afghanistan to be. Sort-of-ok. We train and support their military, we help their fledgling democracy and we use Helmand as a place to kill crazies. We infect another Muslim country with the concept of liberty. This is the Bush doctrine (properly understood) and it is a good one."

And, marron, has the understanding of what patience we need to have here:

"This part of Asia is bandit country; it will always be bandit country. There will always have to be some kind of militarized police force up in the hills chasing bandits. We “won” when we chased the bandits into the hills. Now we have to do the day to day maintenance work of keeping them there, and building the force that will keep them there when we’ve gone on to the next crisis."

We are on the verge of two nations being muslim extremist with nuclear weapons, Iran and Pakistan. This is a grave threat to the whole world.

It is incomprehensible how persons in power can let this happen, for political gain.

If we pull out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will have Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The extremist Taliban will use them.

Iran is building their nuclear weapons now...they will have them soon if they don't already.

They are only looking for the correct time to use them...it is not if, but when, with these nutcases.

All the weenies with their wimpy little, "Our people are way too precious for that."

And, the ridiculous misleading statement:

"They are worth far too much to waste them on bullshit like this."

And the extremely understating and riduculously unvisionary comment,

"Let the large northern cities and West Coast metropolis’ deal with the aftermath."


Jeez, are the Axelrod astroturfers on here or what?

[a fool in paradise]

If we pull out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will have Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons

Press Secretary Gibbs was already floating the concept of negotiating with the Taliban last month. He said that not all of the Taliban are bad.

Obama is just dragging his heels and letting good men die in the meantime.

[Gaffer]

You have a right to your opinion and your resolve. It is not your place to judge the resolve of others and to cast aspersions about being Axlerod Astroturfers, whatever. Christians don't do that.

I'm about as conservative and hawkish as they come and I've come to the conclusion that this, Afghanistan, just isn't worth it. You can choose to not accept that, but stop the casitgation newbie.

[La Enchiladita]

This is a great post. I think you’re right. Gee, I wake up thinking about this stuff, crazy huh. But then, someone on radio this a.m. was talking about how he’s diddling, and it’s a signal of surrender. One thing you do not do in war is hesitate, or at least you don’t show the hesitation. Deliberate, yes, but not hesitate. Every decision is fraught with risks and can go wrong. War is unpredictable. But one thing you do not want to do is appear weak to the enemy and that is what Barry Soetoro is doing in his so-called “foreign policy.”

[La Enchiladita]

Catch-22