11/12/2009
Obama Rejects All Options on Afghanistan, Asks for New Plans
Obama has rejected several options given to him on next steps in Afghanistan, and told advisers to return to the drawing board, after deciding none of their plans would do.
NYT: "General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces. This low-end option was one of four alternatives under consideration by Mr. Obama and his war council at a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon. The other three options call for troop levels of around 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, the three officials said."
Also in question is the effectiveness of the U.S. relationship with President Hamid Karzai.
Watch Rachel Maddow's report, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 8:42 AM EST by Andy Towle in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
OMG! Let's hope all the women (as well as all others the Taliban liked to kill and torture) escape the country before it's retaken - even to Pakistan or Iran.
Honestly, I don't get it. We'd rather spend billions annually separating North and South Korea instead of maintaining a consistent humanitarian mission in Afghanistan? Wrong move, Mr. President.
Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 12, 2009 9:17:59 AM
Rodney: Very few people want an open-ended war/occupation in Afghanistan. Obama is taking Afghanistan far more seriously than Bush did; he's not withdrawing all the troops on a dime, it just sounds like he's rejecting the idea of pouring bodies into a dead-end war WITHOUT a clear exit strategy.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Nov 12, 2009 9:51:03 AM
I disagree. I don't characterize it as a war. I see it as peace mission. The troops' very presence gives unprecedented freedom to millions living in the Afghan cities. All that will crumble away when we leave.
But, we've ignored Darfur and Ethopia, so might as well ignore this too.
Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 12, 2009 10:01:07 AM
Our troops were put into Afghanistan to find, capture, or kill Osama bin Laden. We've been there for eight years. It is very unlikely he will be found at this point.
Our troops were not sent there as part of a humanitarian mission, and frankly, if we sent troops to every country with humanitarian troubles, we'd run out of troops very quickly.
I don't want to see one more American life sacrificed in Afghanistan or Iraq. Bring the troops home now.
Posted by: Hank | Nov 12, 2009 10:18:23 AM
"World Policeman" is a role that usually ends in defeat for us, Rodney, and no one believes we have anything but ulterior motives when we occupy.
Two words: "blowback" and "quagmire"
Posted by: Mike | Nov 12, 2009 10:18:23 AM
That the President doesn't like any of the proposals placed before him I can understand...BUT, for the Ditherer-in-chief not to any plan of his own is troubling. How many more months of uncertainty before there's an agreed-to battle-plan?
As for Karzai, he should be told in no-uncertain-terms that either he cleanes-up the worst of the corruption...or his resignation-letter will be delivered by a USMC sniper up-close-and-personal.
Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Nov 12, 2009 10:35:41 AM
Yes, by all means guys. Because we can't help EVERYONE, we should help NO ONE.
Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 12, 2009 11:07:18 AM
"General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week..."
A "cable?" No wonder newspapers are dying an undignified death. Who sends a "cable" anymore?
Posted by: PatrickPATRICK | Nov 12, 2009 11:16:56 AM
Mr. President, Barack, baby. (Pick the salutation.) Love you madly, but you have GOT GOT GOT to have a press conference or an address to the American people SOON, and explain why you're starting from scratch. I appreciate you taking your time to figure out the right course (especially after the inbred moron who preceded you), but you've got to explain your thinking process to the nation. If we stay and escalate troops, they're gonna need to know why we're spending blood and treasure on an ill-defined mission when we could be taking care of problems at home. If we leave, we need to explain what we've done to prevent Al-Quaida from rising again and colluding with the Taliban. If you don't communicate with the U.S., it gives credence to the (unfair) accusation from the Repubs that you're "dithering" and becoming Jimmy Carter Part II.
Posted by: Dback | Nov 12, 2009 12:32:33 PM
Obama doesn't want to make a decision? Shocking.
Posted by: Cyd | Nov 12, 2009 12:55:53 PM
rodney, I think it's very sweet that you believe US foreign policy is based upon humanitarian priorities. Should I hold my breath for the liberation of Saudi women and gays?
Posted by: Mike | Nov 12, 2009 1:08:10 PM
Mike: Not 'based on', but 'part of'. It's a better reason than oil or economics right? Why can't just one guy stand up and say that?
Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 12, 2009 3:22:02 PM
If it's not in our interest (I mean that narcisistically), than everyone else will have to just go suffer on someone else's dime.
THAT is our foreign policy, right?
Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 12, 2009 3:25:19 PM
"If it's not in our interest (I mean that narcisistically), than everyone else will have to just go suffer on someone else's dime.
THAT is our foreign policy, right?"
Yup. That's exactly right. Just because we don't like doesn't mean it's not true.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 12, 2009 8:24:11 PM
The last thing we want or need is the Taliban getting their hands on the nukes that are right next door. We have go to control them!! The President needs to understand this.
Posted by: -roy | Nov 12, 2009 8:36:45 PM