Clear Mission In Afghanistan Eludes Obama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Trvlwanderer, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Miami Herald
    September 8, 2009
    Pg. 1

    Clear Mission In Afghanistan Eludes Obama

    Some troops in Afghanistan say they aren't sure what their objectives are because the White House and Pentagon still haven't spelled them out.

    By Nancy A. Youssef, Warren Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy News Service

    WASHINGTON -- As the Obama administration and Congress begin a heated debate about how many more American troops to send to Afghanistan, military observers, soldiers on the ground there and some top Pentagon officials are warning that dispatching even tens of thousands more soldiers and Marines might not ensure success.

    Some even fear that deploying more U.S. troops, especially in the wake of a U.S. airstrike last week that killed and wounded scores of Afghan civilians, would convince more Afghans that the Americans are occupiers rather than allies and relieve the pressure on the Afghan government to improve its own security forces.

    The heart of the problem, according to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and some officials in Washington, is that neither Barack Obama's White House nor the Pentagon has clearly defined America's mission in Afghanistan. As a result, some soldiers in the field said, they aren't sure what their objectives are.

    Officials and military officers who are wary of escalation refused to speak on the record because they aren't authorized to talk to the media.

    The administration's stated goals in Afghanistan have ranged from eliminating the threat posed by al Qaeda -- which is based in neighboring Pakistan, not in Afghanistan -- and building a stable democratic state, depending on which administration official is speaking and when.

    On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates attempted to define the administration's strategy. He said that before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Taliban not only provided al Qaeda refuge but also ``cooperated and collaborated'' with the terrorist group. Because of that, he said, the U.S. must ensure that a stable government exists in Afghanistan so the Taliban -- and ultimately al Qaeda -- can't return.

    The situation in Afghanistan, including last month's still-inconclusive election and a review by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, have made it hard for the president to speak out more definitively, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the center-left Brookings Institution who was in Afghanistan for the August election.

    Obama must do so soon, however, O'Hanlon said: ``He can't expect the country to continue to tolerate a mission that he himself has not explained.''

    Although recent polls have found public support for the war in Afghanistan ebbing, aides said the president is committed to the effort but aware of the need to avoid wading into a quagmire.

    ``Momentum is a terrible way to make decisions,'' said a senior White House official who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Obama will avoid decisions that ``will bind the country forever,'' he said.

    Obama, of course, inherited a war without a strategy. George H.W. Bush turned his back on Afghanistan after the Soviet Union withdrew; Bill Clinton never confronted the growing al Qaeda threat there despite a series of terrorist attacks; and George W. Bush chose to invade Iraq rather than concentrate on the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan.

    The White House is due to send a series of benchmarks for measuring progress in Afghanistan to Congress by Sept. 24, where support for the effort is eroding among liberal Democrats and even some conservatives.

    Officials, however, concede that no amount of additional American force can by itself ensure success.

    Even the limited goal of eradicating al Qaeda requires substantially more cooperation from Pakistan than the country has provided so far -- or than U.S. military and intelligence officials and diplomats privately say they expect.

    Critics worry that a likely middle course -- sending more U.S. troops to train and expand the Afghan security forces -- can't assure success, either, because those forces are controlled by a government that's riddled with corruption and more feared than respected by its people. Widespread allegations of fraud in last month's presidential election have only compounded the problem, officials conceded.

    Despite the Obama administration's decision to send 17,500 more troops and 4,000 trainers in this year, violence is at its highest level of the eight-year war. Attacks against coalition forces are at their highest, too, with at least 308 troops killed in 2009, which last month became the deadliest year of the war.

    Officials who have read McChrystal's assessment say doesn't ask for more troops directly, which is expected in a separate document later this month.

    However, they said, the U.S. commander spells out a dire scenario that all but says he needs more troops. The Afghan forces need more training, the assessment says, without specifying how many; the mission needs more civilians; and the coalition needs to move its forces out of remote outposts and toward population centers.

    The request could be for as many as 45,000 troops; a compromise would send about 21,000 more. There are now 62,000 U.S. troops and 39,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan.

    The addition of more troops, some U.S. experts and officers said, will mean more targets for the Taliban to attack. That in turn will likely produce more civilian casualties, which would fuel greater disdain for the U.S.-led military presence and the Kabul government, creating more recruits for the insurgents.

    The additional U.S. and allied casualties also would produce political consequences in Washington and other NATO capitals, which are already confronting rising popular opposition to the war. Those tensions in turn could further strain the already troubled trans-Atlantic alliance.
  2. EVERYTHING eludes Obama... except his own narcissistic, power hungry delusions.

    2008, End Of An Era

    2012 (sooner if we're fortunate), End Of An Error.
  3. Moving to Politics and Religion - not related to Wall Street.
  4. Ricter


    I guess your kneejerk occurred before you got to this:

    "Obama, of course, inherited a war without a strategy. George H.W. Bush turned his back on Afghanistan after the Soviet Union withdrew; Bill Clinton never confronted the growing al Qaeda threat there despite a series of terrorist attacks; and George W. Bush chose to invade Iraq rather than concentrate on the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan."

    Anyway, who was it who said, "Afghanistan is where empires go to die"?
  5. Afganistan is a dump. It is a landlocked, mountainous region which will never had much promise. It is a country with no bright future no matter what we do. We should stop sacrificing lives, money and time there. We should leave but continue to have armed drones patrolling the skies. Once a drone finds a group of terrorists it should drop a bomb on them and kill them all. End of story.
  6. did hell freeze over? we agree on something.
  7. fhl


    "Since the very start of his campaign, Senator Obama has...(said)... that he is... (not)...against war, he insists, just the "wrong" war. Iraq is the "wrong" war, Afghanistan the "right" war."

    Obama has played up his agreement to go to war in Afghan and to escalate it ever since he started his campaign, until......things go bad. Then, it's a war he inherited.
  8. of course its the war he inherited. at some point he will have to take ownership of it. that point is now.
  9. Do the liberals here even think Obama has the ability of delivering a clear objective to the troops? Seriously...

    What about the moderates?
  10. Ricter


    Since when did soldiers start thinking they should get their objectives from the CIC anyway?
    #10     Sep 8, 2009