Posted on 11/23/2009 8:13:54 PM PST by kristinn
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.
As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.
In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan — to which the U.S. has long been committed — and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate...
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
Beginning in March!!!????? Another 4 months away?????
Another reason to leak troop buildup.
Hussein featured this PM at his state dinner tonight.
yitbos
I recall reading when the McChrystal plan first came out that he said that 40,000 was his bare minimum. That even that only gave a moderate chance of success. Anything less was a sure failure. But to really have a good cahnce you needed at least 80,000 or so.
Nice to see Obama taking the cheap way out. And the 34000 is misleading because it includes 4000 trainers and this 7000 strong divisional HQ which isn’t really a combat force. He’s basically adding 20000 or so combat troops.
Nice.
Interestingly, if you read the General’s report, completed back in June, he says that if momentum is not regained within the next yr, defeat is a very real likelihood.
Well, now we find out the troops won’t even get there till March(9 months)and it will take a few months to get up and running. So, his yr deadline will have passed.
Also, as reputable an outlet as CBS News reported in October, that he really wanted at least 50K. That the WH convinced him to lower it to 40K and that 40K was his absolute bottom line:
AP) Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted to ask President Obama for 50,000 more troops for Afghanistan on top of the 68,000 already stationed there, but he was convinced to lower the request to 40,000, reports CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.
Sources tell Reid that McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, considers the lower number to be a firm bottom line McChrystal believes “anything short of 40,000” increases the risk of failure, Reid reports.
34,000. Way to go, Mr President.
<< ... the (once) white House is incensed by leaks .... that didn’t originate in the (once) white House ... >>
Working evil secretly. Or the pretense of what presently passes as a “presidency” by insidiousness.
These are the same morons who had no problem being in favor of an $787B porkulus bill that they knew couldn't work, a $1.2T and counting health care "reform" that they know will not work, 0bama's budgets that are going to bankrupt the country to the tune of >$1T per year, and a cap-and-tax program that will crush our economy and income tax base.
These troops are largely already being paid. What they will expend in ammunition, and plenty of it I hope, and other costs of being on a war footing may amount to a total of $5B for the duration. We will blow that on bribing 2-3 senators on the health care fiasco before we're done.
Hypocritical b@st@rds!!
That’s a better number than I thought he would come through with. Perhaps as troops are able to leave Iraq, they will be transferred to Afghanistan.
Wondering what Geneal McCrystal is thinking right now.
Maybe, but even the 34000 is inflated as not all are combat troops.
Here’s ABC News back in October:
ABC’s Martha Raddatz reports: Among three different troop options currently before the President and his national security team, General Stanley McChrystal , the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, as first reported here yesterday, favors an increase of some 40,000 more troops. A source familiar with the document says that’s the minimum McChrystal believes is needed for a chance for success in Afghanistan.
So the 40000 was the absolute minimum not need to win, but merely for a chance at winning.
And Obama wastes 5 months and eventually says “Ok, General, I’ll give you 340000”
He’d never do this on heath care. If they said we need to insure 30 million, he’d never say “ok, we’ll only insure 25 million” or if they need to spend 400 million, “ok, we’ll only spend 340 million”.
It’s clear he just doesn;t care about this.
He will “send” 34,000 troops...or he will not “bring home” 34,000 troops that otherwise would have been brought home?
Just like the supposed sameness of “creating” a million jobs or “not losing” a million.
It’s all smoke, mirrors, and semantics with this guy.
I have yet to read the replies on this thread, but I find it very easy to believe this decision was timed to be announced after his first victory with healthcare this weekend.
I’m afraid that photo wasn’t taken on Veterans Day. Snopes has the video showing that photo was taken while the band was playing “Hail to the Chief”. :(
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/veteransday.asp
Thank you ..
The pic I referenced is explained here
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/veteransday.asp
Not sure if there was another occasion
besides the old one with Hillary where
he did not follow with the overt measure
of national allegiance.
Or...
We owe them our fullest support. They are not just photo ops!
I found the thread I was looking for, check this out—link is on the forthood archive.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2391353/posts?page=35#35
The last Picture gets me every time.
Gordon Brown bit the bullet last month to send 500 more British troops. Brown has left wingers and Muslims who don’t like the idea to deal with.
At the time, the BBC reported that Obama had already decided to send more troops. The White House denied the report, but it all made sense to me.
Gordon Brown would not have gone out on a limb to have sent more British soldiers without knowing Obama planned the same. His people leaked that info to the BBC because it would help him politically for Britons to know Obama was doing the same thing.
But Obama has been keeping his announcement back for the right political timing.
Obama needed to keep his left wing happy through the election in November and through the recent health care votes.
With his popularity down, now is the time to look tough, talk tough and send troops.
The announcement of his decision delayed and timed for maxiumum political benefit.
The Republican claim he was dithering in making a decision was inaccurate. The real deal here is that Obama uses the decision making and public announcement process for his own political benefit.
He already decdided to send more troops and Gordon Brown knew it.
Its just that Obama has to play politics with announcing his decision.
Unless they change the ROE all they are doing is adding 34,000 new targets.
Don't be so quick to criticize.
It takes a lot of time to weigh the relative values of losing anti-war supporters vs not losing other blocks; and taking enough polls to see just exactly what level, if any, of troop increase will result in the fewest lost donations, votes, and photo-ops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.