President Obama is expected to address the nation early next week, saying he will send a sizable force of additional troops to Afghanistan, sources tell NPR.
The tentative plan is for the president to make his announcement Dec. 1, followed shortly thereafter by testimony on Capitol Hill by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Also expected to brief Congress is the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
The central issue is how many more U.S. forces will be sent to fight a resurgent Taliban and train Afghan forces. There are now 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan.
McChrystal is pressing for an additional 40,000 troops. Sources say the president is expected to send a sizable force, though it's uncertain whether he will agree to the precise number McChrystal wants. If he makes a decision within the next week to send more troops, the forces likely won't arrive in Afghanistan until March.
Obama called his war council together Monday night in the White House situation room as he moved toward a decision.
The president has said he would announce his plans by year's end. He first called the high-powered national security team together in August as he began wrestling with a new plan for Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, where the al-Qaida leadership is believed to be hiding.
The White House said Obama could use Monday's session to lock in his long-awaited decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war.
McChrystal has said more U.S. forces were needed to head off a U.S. failure in the fight against Taliban militants in Afghanistan.
Military officials and others told The Associated Press they expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the eight-year-old conflict.
That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.
The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement — in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions.
As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it to reporters on Monday, it's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out."
Monday night's meeting included a large cast of foreign policy advisers, who were to go over revised information from war planners.
In a session expected to last 90 minutes, "they'll go through some of the questions that the president had, some additional answers to what he'd asked for, and have a discussion about that," Gibbs said.
The meeting was arranged for the unusual nighttime slot to accommodate both Obama's packed public schedule on Monday and the fact that many of his top advisers were leaving town for the holiday. No more war council meetings are on the calendar.
The presidential spokesman said it was possible Obama could lock in a decision at Monday's meeting or that it could come "over the course of the next several days." In either case, it will not be announced this week, he said.
The force infusion expected by the military would represent most but not all of the troops requested by Obama's war commander, for a retailored war plan that blends elements of McChrystal's counterterrorist strategy with tactics more closely associated with the CIA's unacknowledged war to hunt down terrorists across the border in Pakistan.
McChrystal presented options ranging from about 10,000 to about 80,000 forces and told Obama he preferred an addition of about 40,000 atop the record 68,000 in the country now, officials have said.
Obama has already ordered a significant expansion of 21,000 troops since taking office. The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.
According to officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity:
— Additional troops would be concentrated in the south and east of Afghanistan, the areas where the U.S. already has most of its forces.
— The effort already begun to help relieve Marines stretched to the limit by far-flung postings in Helmand province would continue, while the U.S. effort would expand somewhat in Kandahar.
— The increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent.
U.S. war planners would be forgoing the option of increasing U.S. fighting power in the north, a once-quiet quadrant where insurgents have grown in strength and number in the past year. But McChrystal's recommendation never called for a quick infusion there.
In the absence of large additions of ground forces, dealing with the north would probably require relying more heavily on air power, two military officials told the AP. Any such additional airstrikes would be more successful if, as U.S. officials hope, Pakistan turns up the heat on Taliban militants on their side of the border.
As originally envisioned by McChrystal, the additional U.S. troops would begin flowing in late January or after, on a deployment calendar that would be slower and more complex than that used to build up the Iraq "surge" in 2007. McChrystal's schedule for full deployment has it taking nearly two years, military officials said.
Said Obama in a television interview last week: "At the end of this process, I'm going to be able to present to the American people in very clear terms what exactly is at stake, what we intend to do, how we're going to succeed, how much it's going to cost, how long it's going to take."
Congressional hearings would immediately follow that address, including testimony from McChrystal.
On the topic of increased costs in Afghanistan, Gibbs said that the subject of a war tax, suggested by some leading Democrats on Capitol Hill, has not come up yet in the president's extensive meetings with his war advisers.
45 comments:
The Obama Administration needs to make a decision fast. It dosen't take that long. If McChrystal needs more troops to protect US forces and win the war, then send the troops. If, however, the administration feels that the war is not worth fighting for anymore, then come up with an exit strategy without deploying more troops. The price of goods and taxes are going up, and this situation isn't going to get better if you stall or leave it alone.
I don't know if I agree with a war tax, but with how expensive all these new troops sound, the government might need it. I think that Obama is being very wise in waiting until he can give us the whole picture before he gives us the plan. I also think that it is unfortunate that his ratings are dropping because of the war; he came into office in a tough economy and the middle of war. That’s not an easy position to make people happy with.
I think this is a bad idea, if he's going to to send more troops, that they should be in different areas. If he puts them all in the same area, it just makes a bigger target for our enemies to hit. I support the war effort and dont mind him sending more troops, i mean, thats what all these guys signed up for, they knnew if this happened they would end up going some time. I also dont think he should send so many extra troops as the article says, 32-35 thousand sounds like way to many, unless these extra troops will relieve those currently on duty. I really dont knoe what else to say, i mean, i support the war and dont understand why some people are agngry at the war, but thats what they signed up for, why else would you go into the military.
First of all, I really really really like the fact that there is a man named Gibbs helping the country do whatever it's wanting to do. Just throwing that out there.
I think that if Obama's wanting to send out so many troups, he ought to be very prepared to have another huge "mob" of people after his throat. This war in the Middle East is becoming more and more like Vietnam, and I'm thinking the only way to win it is not with soldiers, but with alot of patient, determined, and skillful diplomats who are ready to back up their bluffs. By all means, let's keep the soldiers at the ready, but you just can't fight fire with fire. These people are going to do whatever they want, and a bunch of Americans aren't going to change that.
First of all I think it was devilishly clever of Obama to tell the American people during his campaign that he was against the war....in IRAQ. I noticed this little detail and wondered if people who were eligible to vote would notice. Clearly they didn't because this was not a major argument against Obama. I am a little iffy about having troups in Afganistan. While I don't believe that anyone who blows up buildings should be allowed to walk away, I still don't see any obvious change in the middle east other than an increasing body count. Part of Obamas plan in Afghanistan is to find Osama but I doubt that Osama is still in Afghanistan after years of people searching for him over there.
I have my doubts on whether or not the situation in Afghanistan has actually gotten better. This seems a little bit like how the Obama administration is handling the economic situation here in the states: throw money at it until it gets better. I don't think it's going to work on either front. Things don't look too good for Obama's re-election. The financial crisis, the insane health bill ratification, and now this? I just hope that Obama is able to fix the problems we've had lately; he still has 3 more years.
yes were going to wait a month to tell you that were going to wait another week to tell you what to do yeah thats a smart idea and the logic behind this is that its a decision that cant be rushed realy coming from someone who jamed healthcare cap and trade global warming down our throat i dont buy this for one minuit its him wasting time thats all that this is waisting time that our troops dont have hes a discrace you cant micro manage wars thats what your MILITARY COMMANDERS ARE FOR if you arnt going to let your generals do what you designated them to do fire them and get someone who will give the troops everything that they need inorder to fight in our name...
UNAPOLOGETICALLY AMERICAN
Obama's sending more U.S. troops in Afghanistan now? I really don't have anything to say, except that he's optimistic. But the reason that these troops are needed is to head off a U.S. failure in the fight against Taliban militants. So, in other words, the government has adopted the motto "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again". What also bugs me is that Obama is sending more troops NOW, and not three months before, when the army requested for more troops. It's almost like he used the decision to send more troops as a last resort. But I'm hopeful Obama will do the right thing, even if said right thing is poorly executed.
Obama's request for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan causes some uproar for many people. i mean october being the month with the most deaths frightens many people and raises the question if this is the right thing. things are getting worse and worse in Afghanistan making it more complicated for president Obama. all this talk of getting our troops out has been going on for years and we need it to happen i just hope we can do it soon.
They need to come up with a plan that will help win the war and win it quickly. Hopefully this move will be the right one to have a succesfull win over the Taliban and hopefully help get the country on the right track. Another problem they will run into will be, the Taliban hidding in the unstable parts of Pakastain.
We have 68,000 troops overseas already, and they want to add 40,000 more? This is ridiculous. While I believe it is a good thing for us to help other nations, this isn't our war to be fighting, and it's using our countries money. Tons of it. I'm pretty sure Obama said that he would attempt to end this war when he was campaigning, so why isn't he?
If Obama thinks they have a good strategy and very strongly "believe" that's where al-Qaida leadership is then maybe they should send more troops over there. Then on the other hand if they do tear down that leadership who is to say some other people won't start another.
Okay, I'm sorry. Obama has done something while in office to get him the Nobel PEACE prize: he has increased the troops in afghanistan by 21,000 and plans to add even more on top of that. What were these people that gave obama the prize thinking?? He has taken no action towards peace whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite.
Will sending in more troops end the war or prolong it? I would think his plan is to end the war but how is it going to end when more troops are being sent in? Shouldn't the plan be to get them out of there? How many troops will he send in? What are they going to do once they get there? I can't wait for President Obama to say "in very clear terms" what he's going to do because right now, it's about as clear as mud.
The first paragraph states that Obama is going to send more troops to the Middle East. Didn't he say that he wanted to bring soldiers home during his campaign for presidency? Maybe he is realizing that the troops are needed over there. I find it ironic how he campaigned so much against soldiers being over there and yet he is about to send even more. It is easier said than done.
The fact of the matter is that we should not be sending more soldiers to fight a war that is already won on our end. We should be in memorium for those who's lives have already been claimed overseas. Why don't the politicians pull their heads out of their asses and get smart! We need our soldiers to be home and with their families, not fighting for a skewed justice.
I feel like McChrystal is a little pushy because he is asking for 40,000 additional troops, when there is already 68,000 troops there in Iraq. Do we actually need those troops. We have to also consider what the White house press secretary, said that it's not all about getting troops there but getting them out as well. When Obama went to office he had already increased troops and the war hasn't been getting better. There has been more deaths and lost of support from the nation. So would increasing the troops even more help at all.
I like Obama and all but make some decisions that will actually help end the war and bring everyone home instead of sending more people over there. It's been eight years and now the death toll is rising to it's highest..obviously something needs to change.
If General McChyrstal and Marines insist on having more troops then I don't see too much of a problem with it. We must do what is neccesary to clean things up. Lets just hope for this to end soon.
Well if McChrystal is right in sending in MORE troops and if thats what it takes to stop this war great. But haven't they said things like that already? Like "yeah we need more troops and this war will be a success" but i mean it just never stops there.
Anyways, depending on this well thought strategy Obama is formulating, again we're just gonna have to wait and see in time whats to come. Hopefully though this strategy for sending in the troops where they're needed and plotting a way to bring them back will be safe and secure and im very sure Obama will figure this out because i know i cant!
And think about it, this strategy is going to be big huh? It will have a great effect on us the people as well as the troops because of the price and the debts that are just inevitably waiting.
Either way, us as Americans need to be prepared for what this war is going to do and what it has in store ahead of us.
well as a person that has a brother and a step dad that are both in active duty it worries me that 40,000 new troops could very well be sent to afghanistan. But on the other hand if we are going to fail over there than I believe that it is necessary to send the troops needed. If we fail then it would be a total waste of the past 8 years.
This is a very big step,in my opinion, in Obama's presidency. This could be one of those decisions that could "make or brake him" due to the fact that is over one of the most contrevesial subjects of today in the U.S. He is being pressured to put 40 more thousand troops in harms way in a country that has proven to be very difficult to fight in. And he is risking putting those 40 thousand in places where many americans do not believe that we should be in. Any ways i think Obama better think about this one long and hard before he makes his decison.
I had two Thanksgiving meals. One Thanksgiving meal and a post Thanksgiving meal. By the way, if we start sending 40,000 additional troops, some of us may not have enough for Thanksgiving come later years. Nevertheless, Obama needs to make a decision fast. He either listens to McChrystal or come up with a withdraw plan. Whatever he needs to do, he needs to do it now.
This is STUPID! I read the first paragraph and new this would be wack. How are you going to say in your campaign that he is going to withdrawal troops and then SEND more to Afghan?!?! If Obama does send 40,000, that puts over 100,000troops in Afghan. Thats rediciulous. He is scheduled to speak Dec, 1...but wont do anything till March. Thats so stupid, i dont understand why we are fighting someone elses war.
More troops. He said that he was suppose to take them out in his campaign. Oh well everyone breaks promises. Put in more troops to bring them put sounds strange doesn't it. But a good thing for this is that their stretches will be shorter.
We shouldn't sent too many troops to Afghanistan. End of story We should maintain the troops we have there and help the Afghan officials get hold of there country. Sending more troops is not going to help them anymore than we already our and its also going to just increase our taxes. We need to create a plan that actually brings back our troops without having to send more.
...So, w're sending more troops over there?! I don't think we need to send too many more soldiers over there, that will further prolong our stay there. we need to finish what we started, and get the heck outta there. I mean, what will sending more troops over there do? Its gonna cause more hostility to de directed toward the US, and that is the last thing this nation needs right now. But, I guess we'll see what happens when President Obama makes his speech.
Oh no. I support the troops and all but I am having difficulty in believing that engaging in Afghanistan is the best choice. Increasing the troops in Afghan has me wondering what have we been doing in Iraq this whole time. We have sacrificed so many soldiers to make a waste in this war. So many have lost their lives in order to keep America safe and it will be highly disrespectful to let their noble sacrifice go to waste. Going into Afghanistan should be a stratigic movement towards the victory over Al-Qaede and not just a way to gain power in politics or in oil. If we do need troops, lets not let their valiant effort go to waste.
whoa! Obama is planning on sending way too many troops to Afghanistan. I know that it is impossible for him to pull any troops out due to the fact that it would just make things worse for that country being that our main goal was to make things better there, but we shouldn't need to send MORE troops. Obama has some explaining to do. And its ironic that when Obama was running for office, he promised Americans that there would be no more sending of American troops to Afghanistan.
The thing that frustrates me about the war is that when we went in to it Bush told us that it was not going to be an overnight fix but it was going to take a while and it would be expensive, but since everyone was still going on about vengence against those who attacked America on 9-ll with out much thought about later on down the road, America went ahead and took action. In doing so we committed our selves to attempting to destroy terrorism in the middle east and then rebuilding the society we were planning to tear apart in the process. If we leave now we'll only make the Taliban angry and the rest of the middle east because we left them in ruin for the most part. By sending a large amount of troops in, yes it would be expensive, but it would help the current number hold their own against the taliban and Al-Quida and etc,. At least that's what I think.
I don't think Gen. McChrystal would ask for more troops in Afghanistan if he didn't think it would be necessary. I think that the idea of finding a middle ground (sending 32,000-35,000 troops instead of 40,000) is a good compromise. The General is an experienced military leader and I'm pretty sure that he knows what he's talking about/ asking for.
While I can see why more troops are needed in Afghanistan, I think the government needs to make up its mind about sending and pulling troops. The government consistently says one thing, and then does the other. Didn't Obama say he wanted to pull all the troops out when he was running for presidency? A consistent plan needs to be enforced for this to work.
If the U.S. thinks we need more troop then i believe they know more about the war than i do. What does question my mind though is the fact that we've been over there so long and considering all the casualties we've had, it could be a wrong move. I believe that is why people question if this is right or not
Why would more men mean success? People seem to think this but is it a real solution? I'm not in charge so I don't really know and if they were my relatives, I wouldn't be excited about sending them. However, you're either in or you're out. Our President needs to decide.
...What?More troops? i understand him not drawing out troops IMMEDIATELY...but adding another 40,000? In 2007, Obama said, "If the troops aren't home by the time I am president, that will be the first thing I will do. I will bring home our troops, I will end this war, and you can take that to the bank. "...and now he's sending more??..I'm so confused..
SO, i think obama should think on sending more troops and discuss it, because theyre saying that there is u.s. people dying in Afghanistan. So thats a good enough reason to send more troops to Afghanistan. Unless more people would die, i agree.
I understand the logic behind Washington's decision, but I do not agree with it. I feel like although this has the intention of taking a step towards getting everyone out Afghanistan, its really just a step in the wrong direction especially if things are getting worse over there. Its not like all we need is one last push. I feel like these troops coming in are more like reinforcements and less like a surge to bring the conflict to a halt. Then again, I know very little about waging war, and I know that those guys should have the publics best interest in mind. I guess this could simply be labeled a necessary evil.
Yay wait a month to tell when your going to tell us the final decision just waist time that's all he's done that's all he's going to do. Give the troops everything they need to do what needs to be done
I think that it is good the Obama is listening to the commander and sending more troops in as recommended. Especially since the war has apparently worsened.
Pres. Obama finally decided to give figures on the size of the troop increase. Even though he said he would bring the troops home he realized that if he just pulled them out it would cause even more chaos. Even though the US General asked for more troops than those that are being given, this is still a good move for not messing up our hard work of 8 years.
I think Obama needs to get his ducks in a row before promising the American people this huge endeavor. Bottom line, war is horrible; always has been, always will be. If additional troops are necessary, the process should be drawn out and closely monitored. Under the Obama administration, the war efforts have only worsened. It's time that he gives the people some concrete answers and explanations. Americans want their loved ones home for good, so Obama better have some tangible reasoning for any future departures.
I think president Obama should certainly stick to his initial plan of ending the war and bringing troops back home. Obama sending more troops to fight could potentially be detremental to the american people, because it could give reson for some Obama voters to regret their vote and cost him reelection.
Are you serious?? More troops? I am not trying to dog or put down Obama but this decision,in my opinion,is going to put America in a bit of a problem. I think we should really asses this problem and not send more fathers,sons, or loved ones out into the war zone. It was even stated that this war is getting worse, maybe we should cut down on the troops being used and focus on the methods that should be used! More troops equal more blood shed and more hurt,why put our country through more turmoil? I really believe that if this war desicion goes through there may be a chance at impeachment that will follow.I myself have loved ones in the forces,and I would rather have them home safe rather in the war infested place of Afghanistan.Protecting our country means to protect our people,hence keeping the troops home.We should establish peace not war,and now that the prime minister is in America,we should try our hardest to keep war out of the question.-Isaac Everett
Obama need to make a decision fast. I just wish he was quik to judge on Afganistan as he was. Obama need to help the sodiers. He needs to send the help or bring them home.
Obama need to make a decision fast. I just wish he was quik to judge on Afganistan as he was.
How long does he wait when are soldiers call for help. He needs to send the help.
Post a Comment