Obama Rejects all Military / Nat Security Options

[warpedskydiver 0]

Official: Obama wants revised Afghan war options

President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, a senior administration official said, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country one day.

Obama's stance comes as his own ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, is voicing strong dissent about a U.S. troop increase, according to a second administration official.

Eikenberry's misgivings center on a concern that bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan could make the country more reliant on the U.S., not less. He expressed them in forcefully worded cables to Washington just ahead of Obama's latest war meeting Wednesday.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations.

The developments underscore U.S. skepticism about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government has been dogged by corruption. The emerging administration message is that Obama will not do anything to lock in an open-ended U.S. commitment.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that she is concerned about Afghanistan's "corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance (and) absence of the rule of law."

"We're looking to President Karzai as he forms a new government to take action that will demonstrate — not just to the international community but first and foremost to his own people — that his second term will respond the needs that are so manifest," Clinton said during a news conference in Manila with Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo.

Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort.

He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy — troops are just one component — and probably will do so shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends Nov. 19.

Yet in Wednesday's pivotal war council meeting, Obama wasn't satisfied with any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, one official said.

The president instead pushed for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government. In turn, that could change the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that McChrystal prefers, according to military and other officials.

The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul and a former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation.

The options given to Obama will now be altered, although not overhauled.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

"The government of Afghanistan has to accept greater responsibility for its own defense," Clinton said Thursday. She had no comment on the Eikenberry memos.

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and troop levels by U.S. allies there.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Manila, Philippines, and Pamela Hess in Washington contributed to this report.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Obama is a darker version of LBJ.

Rejecting the recommendations of his top military experts reeks of his lack of respect and lack of experience in thse matters.

[TrophyHusband 0]

this is really irritating me that he hasn't made a decision yet. if he is unwilling to give his generals what they need to accomplish the mission, he needes to change the mission. that may be what he's doing, but he needs to hury up and do it. i've heard it said that the region could suck up 200,000 troops and it still wouldn't do any good. if that's the case, lets bring everyone home. if the job can get done with 60,000 more troops, then give send them. whatever he dicides, he need to hurry up and make that decision.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

I think it actually needs a different approach, and it is one that has been offered but not spoken about.

Think in terms of when we first went in.

It gives them nothing to hit back at and really puts a stick in their spokes.

[DanG 1]

Do you believe in civilian control of the military? Or should the civilian Commander in Chief just do whatever the Generals tell him to do?

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

I'm not aware of the "winky emoticon" option. Care to elaborate?

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Rejecting the recommendations of his top military experts reeks of his lack of respect and lack of experience in thse matters.

Lincoln followed McLellan's advice, and it almost lost the Union the war.
I might also point out that Jesus Christ didn't always follow the advice of His apostles, either.
O ye of little faith.

[warpedskydiver 0]

When the POTUS has no experience in these matters it is best to listen to what the professionals say and choose wisely from those options.

I know for a fact that someone within the loop has offered what I would recommend, but that would get rejected because it is playing by a "win by any means" set of rules.

I think you are going to disagree with me but I also will point out that anything geared towards massive troop deployments, partitioning, coalition building with the Taliban, and just about anything else will fail.

There are a few people on these forums that know what I am talking about and many of the rest will not be able to cope with what needs to be done.

Think in terms of the Malayan campaign.

If that occurred these days the Obama administration would call everyone war criminals.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Less is more, when your power is great you need to appear to be weak or in this case absent.

It is like playing whack a mole, only you never see who has the hammer.

[DanG 1]

You might be suprised at what I would agree with.

On the other hand, you'd probably disagree with me when I say that killing a bunch of baddies won't fix what's wrong with Afghanistan. Not that we shouldn't kill baddies, we should, but we have to do other things, too.

And cut out the secret squirrel crap, what is it you propose?

- Dan G

[warpedskydiver 0]

No secret squirrel, just don't care to elaborate on here.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Removing the threat and letting the country prosper via tourism, marketable crops, trade, education for all and freedom of oppression will go a long way

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I know for a fact that someone within the loop has offered what I would recommend, but that would get rejected because it is playing by a "win by any means" set of rules.

Spectre is that you?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Whatever, I guess you don't have any former coworkers.

Do you have anything to contribute?

Or do you merely intend on trying to irritate or demean others?

Troll away...

[warpedskydiver 0]

The simple fact is that the course of action I mentioned would obviously be offered as a solution.


But you have nothing to say, in fact all you do is attempt to fuck with others, I think there is a sticky on your behavior.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Removing the threat and letting the country prosper via tourism, marketable crops, trade, education for all and freedom of oppression will go a long way

What crop would you propose they farmers start growing in stead of poppies for opium? What crop would give them the same yield?

On tourism, do you have any suggestions on sites or experiences that would make Afghanistan stand out from other tourist destinations?

Who is going to pay for the education for all?

Who exactly is the threat in your opinion, and how do you propose to remove it completely?

How would you propose we deal with hundreds of years of tribal existence, without a strong central government and inter-tribe struggles?

Let's have that contribution from you.....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

this is really irritating me that he hasn't made a decision yet. if he is unwilling to give his generals what they need to accomplish the mission, he needes to change the mission. that may be what he's doing, but he needs to hury up and do it. i've heard it said that the region could suck up 200,000 troops and it still wouldn't do any good. if that's the case, lets bring everyone home. if the job can get done with 60,000 more troops, then give send them. whatever he dicides, he need to hurry up and make that decision.

He's just posturing. He can't change anything radically until HC gets passed for fear of alienating votes. Get HC passed and he pulls out - just watch.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I know for a fact that someone within the loop has offered what I would recommend, but that would get rejected because it is playing by a "win by any means" set of rules.

There ya go, make em a glass parking lot and now we're Hitler. I'm sorry this county is going the opposite way that you want to see it. Let's just say you guy woke a sleeping giant: millions of people sick of Reaganomics, youth, minority, all my friends

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

fear of alienating votes.

Aliens can't vote. I'd have thought you'd know that.

[Andy9o8 2]

Anyhow, to summarize the thread so far:

-The president is not really Commander in Chief.
-Secret decoder rings.
-Aliens.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

fear of alienating votes.

Aliens can't vote. I'd have thought you'd know that.

Which aliens? Illegal or the kind with spaceships? I wouldn't harass the latter with hanging chad BS, they might vaporize you!

[Andy9o8 2]

Even legal aliens with green cards cannot vote here. And if the kind with spaceships don't have visas, they're illegal. This is pretty basic stuff.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

The simple fact is that the course of action I mentioned would obviously be offered as a solution

You mean the course of action you didn't mention.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The situation here in Canada is similar. Our commitment ends next year and the gov is pussyfooting around what our role will be. Essentially I think the PM is waiting to see what US will do, mumbling about education and (non-combat) security roles. Yesterday the top General ordered all commanders to begin preparations for a complete pullout saying there is no such thing as a non-combat security role in Afghanistan.
The price the PM would pay to recommend extending the mission if US is not going ahead with the surge would be to high; it would cost him his government. He cannot move until Obama does.
If the west does not push forward I predict Pakistan will fall. The Taliban will simply move out of P until they are out of ambition, and then move right back in. Just like they did in the other direction seven years ago. The Pakistanis will feel betrayed (rightly so) and make a deal. They really won't have a choice.

[billvon 3,116]

>Removing the threat and letting the country prosper via tourism,
>marketable crops, trade, education for all and freedom of oppression
>will go a long way

Exactly. While the country was under the rule of the Taliban, it was peaceful, they had an awesome marketable crop (heroin) and they had full freedom of oppression.