Obama Considers Strategy Shift in Afghan War(Biden is Figuring Out How to Get Out!!)

[tekisui]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday.

The options under review are part of what administration officials described as a wholesale reconsideration of a strategy the president announced with fanfare just six months ago. Two new intelligence reports are being conducted to evaluate Afghanistan and Pakistan, one official said.

The sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and still unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections and a dire report by Mr. Obama’s new commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Aides said the president wanted to examine whether the strategy he unveiled in March was still the best approach and whether it could work with the extra combat forces General McChrystal wants.

In looking at other options, aides said Mr. Obama might ultimately just be testing assumptions — and assuring liberals in his own party that he was not rushing into a further expansion of the war — before ultimately agreeing to the anticipated troop request from General McChrystal. But the review suggests the president is having second thoughts about how deeply to engage in an intractable eight-year conflict that is not going well.

Though Mr. Obama says he believes that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States, some advisers said he was also wary of becoming trapped in an overseas quagmire. Some Pentagon officials say they worry that he is having what they called “buyer’s remorse” after ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.

Mr. Obama met in the Situation Room with his top advisers on Sept. 13 to begin chewing through the situation, said officials involved in the debate. Among those on hand were Mr. Biden; Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; James L. Jones, the national security adviser; and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. “There are a lot of competing views,” said one official who, like others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said Mr. Biden had proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Obama is getting varied opinions and not letting anything get ram-rodded through. He is questioning the additional troops, both those that he called for and the ones yet to be requested. He is trying to be adaptable. And, Biden is giving excellent advice. The Taliban is Al Qaeda.

[Uzybone]

1. I hope Bidens argument wins out

[jesus_of_suburbia]

4. YES (nt)

[amborin]

57. +1 real problem is nuclear-armed Pakistan, with its ISI heavily infiltrated, etc...

[Jennicut]

2. I so hope he listens to Joe. I and many others who did not feel totally against

Afghanistan before are really against it now. I think its a war that cannot be won.

[tekisui]

3. I hope Obama realizes that, I think he does.

[Jennicut]

7. I am really heartened by his wanting to wait and assess the total report

from McCrystal and not giving into others who are pushing this war. I am far from the biggest anti war person on this board (although I detested the Iraqi war) so if you have lost me in Dem support you know its not going well. I do understand that issues in Pakistan cannot be ignored but more troops thrown at Afghanistan will not work....bottomless pit.

[tekisui]

12. I don't even like the drone attacks, but....

They are better than having 100,000 troops in the country. There is no way to maintain peace at the point of a gun in a foreign land. Our very presence disrupts. I am hopeful at this report. It is the first mention of anything resembling a plan for exit from Afghanistan.

I say declare bin Laden dead, capture or declare dead Al-Zawahari and bring everybody home.

I am as anti-war as I think is allowed, and I am encouraged by more people taking notice of the problems in Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Drone attacts run against International Law in Pakistan. We play judge, jury and executioner.

It's vile. Be careful what you wish for with regard to SECURITY, those drones could be turned against US, the unwashed masses, in the future. :wow: :scared:

The rule of law is not followed by Summary Executions via Drones NOR by illegal renditions.

Shame on US for such immoral and illegal tactics as the Worlds Strongest Super-Power.

No wonder the rest of the world is scared shitless of what we might CHOOSE to do next. :(

And yeah, they HATE our GUTS because it's all about US. :puke:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

16. You and I are about at the same place. What we're doing there isn't working.

In the end though it's about Pakistan.

[Uzybone]

5. yep. Forget the war...target Al Qaeda from above

but we don't need any more troops on the ground.

[Undercurrent]

6. I'm with Joe on this.

Hope he wins the day.

[LakeSamish706]

8. I think they need to do some serious house cleaning in the top military brass as well...! nt

[msongs]

9. cut the war budget in half n give the remainder to each afghani as cash lol nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Lemme see, Alexander the Great could not crack this nut

neither could Atila the Hun, or the brits twice, not counting this attempt, or the Ruskies...

Joe is going after getting the Al Qaida leadership and declaring victory and going home. It is that obvious.

Now Al Qaida IS NOT the Taliban... the Taliban are local, Al Qaida is not... important detail.

[tekisui]

13. Exactly.

That is the fact that has been whitewashed in our media and to often by our representatives. Everyone is blanketed as 'Taliban'. What are called the Taliban is local organizations, some benign. Al Qaeda is largely disrupted in Pakistan. They are still in a no-man's land. Not quite welcome anywhere, except Somalia(our next adventure). Target Al-Q, knock out a few leader, Al-Zawahari is who they are after, and come on home.

[tekisui]

35. I just realized I left out the NOT for Al Qaeda and Taliban.

I made a critical typo last night, and now can't change it.:banghead:

[ieoeja]

64. Alexander the Great conquered that region with relative ease.

He ran into trouble much further south in modern day India. And Greeks continued ruling Afghanistan for centuries afterwards.

The Greeks were kicked out of Afghanistan ... by the Persians.
The Persians were kicked out of Afghanistan ... by the Arabs.
The Arabs were kicked out of Afghanistan ... by the Mongols.
The Mongols were kicked out of Afghanistan ... by the British.
The British were kicked out of Afghanistan ... by the Afghans, but with a LOT of Russian help.
The Soviets were kicked out of Afghanistan ... by nobody. They realized their Afghan allies were idiots and, with the Cold War coming to an end, decided to leave them hanging in the wind.

[Clio the Leo]

11. As long as they can keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban away from Pakistan's nukes.....

..... I dont care WHERE the troops are.

Oh and since Joe is invovled with this I must add the obligatory "that's hot!"

[Cha]

14. At least the people in charge

like VP Biden and PO are not there to feed the military complex..and are striving for the best strategy for getting it done.

"The sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and still unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections and a dire report by Mr. Obama’s new commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Aides said the president wanted to examine whether the strategy he unveiled in March was still the best approach and whether it could work with the extra combat forces General McChrystal wants."

"New Commander"? Did he replace someone..how did he come to be "the new Commander"?

[DCKit]

15. "...Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics." FAIL.

We'll make no headway whatsoever if we continue to blow up wedding parties and children.

It's time to stop recruiting for Al Qaeda by bringing the peace, not the hate.

Here's a gimme: start handing out $$$ to the people who are suffering and exclude politicians, tribal leaders and other thugs from the process. Pay the farmers market value for the poppy harvest, then burn it and hand out seeds for vegetable crops. Build safe camps for women and children, and give the women micro-loans to develop businesses.

Above all, don't tell people if they help the U.S. military, you'll pay them then turn your back. That shit only works for two minutes, then you've handed A.Q. another recruit, possibly an entire family, maybe an entire village.

How can these guys still be getting it so wrong?

[psychopomp]

18. I don't think your gimmies will work

After nightfall, when people with guns come around and the USA is very, very far away, every one of those plans will fail by the hands of those who have an interest in seeing US plans for Afghanistan fail.

Our covert intelligence have been working with the thugs and warlords for precisely this reason: there is no getting around them.

[Undercurrent]

22. The war lords and other thugs

would just steel the money in the dark of night. And kill anyone who tried to stop them.

Just like they stole the food we dropped for the people.

[ShortnFiery]

27. "How can these guys still be getting it so wrong?"

It's elementary my dear Watson?

Everything is going according to plan.

Love, The Masters of War

[timo]

42. ??

no triple canopy patches?
why do these people remain on the payroll? Youd think as saavy as Obama is he wouldve shit canned them right off the back!

[Colobo]

17. Good news- Obama and Biden are responsible leaders.

[watercolors]

19. I hope it works and we don't deploy more troops

My grandson spent 18 months in the hell hole, said no way in hell are we going to make a differance there. He explained that is is another Vietnam. He has been home for 15 months now and just found out he is to go back in Dec for 6 months, he is AF and not too pleased. He has another 16 months to go before he will be discharged or re-up. He just became a father a few months ago and is so anguished over this. He will be in Kubal , not the so safe a place. I am so worried.

[SeaLyons]

20. I agree with Joe....

if we stayed 50 years, it would be no better than it is today.

[Beetwasher]

21. But He's Just like Bush!!

Bush's third term, in fact. :sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

23. Just wait for it? We'll send more troops - without a doubt. :(

They'll manufacture some FEAR and then CONSENT for more troops and our spineless weasels in Congress on both sides of the aisle will support the act.

What are we, unwashed masses going to do about it? After all the poor bloody military only constitutes less than 1% of the Great American Populace. Who cares if they are over-extended and abused to the point where they are suffering from various flavors of PTSD when they return to being civilians?

Who cares if veterans are one fourth our homeless population? Isn't the old adage "Being in the military helped me matrue" TRUE?!? Or is "Being in the Military" far too often a perscription for future mental anguish and/or illness?

Yeah, who cares?

We'll send the troops. Auntie (Obama Administration) is just going through the motions to provide the pretense of thoughtful discussion.

Everyone KNOWS Master-Blaster (Pentagon) RUNS Barter Town. :grr: :puke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgq4w4dqKsU

[Beetwasher]

24. Thank You Nostradumass!

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

26. Yes, it's easier to degrade the messenger, rather than consider the validity of

my arguments.

Keep sleeping but don't whine when it gets so bad that you will be forced to send YOUR OWN son or daughter over to the Middle East or Latin America (remember we're building new bases in Columbia?) to fight in the endless "oil wars."

Act now and make Obama behave via DEMOCRATIC principles OR risk that we will soon have an entrenched right wing Neo-Conservative Government in 2012. All three branches Neo-Conservative will ensure endless war and a restriction of chocolate rations. :evilgrin:

Has anything truly changed since the over-reation of our Military Industrial Complex after 9/11?

[Beetwasher]

28. It's Easy To Throw Out Bullshit W/out Backing It Up W/ Facts-You Have NO Valid Arguments

When did Obama increase troop levels? Huh, jeenyus?

You're one of those whiners who post crap that Obama is just like Bush. Frankly, that just makes you an idiot.

[ShortnFiery]

29. The arguments are valid. We continue Drone Summary Executions in Pakistan

and renditions. There's no sign that GitMo is going to be shut down anytime soon and we're increasing troop strength in Afghanistan.

To be honest, with regard to the amount of war profiteering funds between the two GIVEN to the blessed Military Industrial Complex, NOTHING has changed since the reign of BushCo.

Nothing! You know that to be true, don't you? Civilian contractors outnumber the military in Afghanistan now ...

Follow the MONEY ....


US Federal Budget Outlays Pie FY 2008 (source: warresisters.com)

[phleshdef]

30. Of course we are still spending money on wars. We are still at war!

And there has been TONS of movement on Gitmo prisoners, thats just an outright LIE!!!

You are just denying everything that has changed and hoping that nothing else changes because people like you would rather confirm your own self serving skepticism than actually see the right thing done.

[ShortnFiery]

40. We are occupying two nations. WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

Obama is going to do EXACTLY what The Pentagon tells him to do.

Wait and see? Then I'll be gracious enough to not throw in your face "I told you so."

As I mentioned above, "Wait for it?"

[Beetwasher]

33. Pathetic

Here's a story about Obama considering drawing down troops in Afghanistan and you keep up your whining that nothing's changed. That will accomplish so much.

Pathetic beyond belief. No one takes your idiocy seriously. But keep it up so we can continue to laugh at you.

WHEN DID OBAMA INCREASE TROOP LEVELS, EINSTEIN?

[tekisui]

34. Obama ordered a troop increase of some 20,000+ in March.

But, I am with you. I see this as hopeful. I really hope Biden wins this and we start talking about an exit strategy. This is the first I have heard of the administration even considering something that approaches drawing down.

[Beetwasher]

36. Yeah, But That's Not What The Poster Is Talking About

This language is encouraging, yet this jeenyus chooses to shit on it.

[ShortnFiery]

38. We are spending MORE this year FY 2009 on our Military Industrial Complex than the 711 Bn in 2008!

That's not change - especially when there's programs HERE in the USA that 700 Billion dollars could benefit those in need.

Instead of bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, how about we split the difference and send AID and the rest to DOMESTIC programs, not on weapons of death and destruction.



Thanks to the USA, Military Spending throughout the world is "a growth industry."

Military spending sets new record

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8086117.stm

[Beetwasher]

43. WTF Does That Have To Do W/ This Thread, Jeenyus???

Absolutely nothing. You keep spouting your idiocy.

[ShortnFiery]

46. No, by extrapolation it suggests that President Obama is going to do exactly what

the Generals in the Pentagon tell him to.

Wait for it? You'll see that our yearly "money pit" that is military spending will continue to be OVER 711 billion dollars/year.

[Beetwasher]

48. No, It Suggest You Have A Pathetic Agenda

That's clear to pretty much everyone.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Let me guess, you were the class bully?

:eyes:

p.s. by "agenda" you mean that I want the USA to stop spending so damn much on weapons of death and destruction ... then YES. If that's what you also term "pathetic" ... Yes, I'm guilty.

[Beetwasher]

51. Pathetic

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

53. You're not a quitter ... I'll give you that: We clearly disagree.

It's time to leave it at that ... but you won't. :evilgrin:

[Beetwasher]

55. I Ain't No Palin

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

39. p.s.

You've lost an argument when you repeatedly degrade your opponent via name-calling, etc.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[Beetwasher]

44. If You Keep Looking Like An Idiot

I'll keep telling you you're an idiot. You just post inane crap that serves nothing except to attack Obama. You're transparent.

[ShortnFiery]

45. No, your crass behavior reflects on you.

I post thoughtful opinion and facts.

Some part within YOU is too immature to handle my opinions supported by these complementary facts.

The result of your intolerance is omnipresent within each of your childish retorts above.

I hope you feel better soon.

[Beetwasher]

47. You're Bullshit Reflects On You

It's constant and everyone sees it. Sucks for you.

[ShortnFiery]

49. That's just sad. Your rudeness stands for itself within these posts.

Just because I have an opinion, does not make me anti- President Obama.

Get help. :(

[Beetwasher]

52. LOL! You Use ANY Opportunity To Bash Obama

But no, you're not anti-Obama! :rofl:

Uh huh. Pathetic.

[ShortnFiery]

54. You obviously have not been paying attention. I have complemented Obama on several occasions.

Believe it or not, you can respect and admire someone, YET believe that there are forces that constrain even Our President into a No-Win situation.

Honestly, this INTENSE loyalty to one person is sort of creeping me out.

No, ask others here if you wish? I do not have ANYTHING against, Barack Obama, the man or the President.

I shouldn't have to defend that on a DEMOCRATIC site, but you seemingly wish to have us take loyalty oaths to President Obama before Our Party or Our Country. NOW that is pathetic. :(

[Beetwasher]

56. It Doesn't Appear That Way To Me

And it's not loyalty to Obama, it's calling out people who only see fit to bash him. What creeps me out is people who post on this board who, no matter what the story is, (like this one for example, which is a GOOD story), still reach for any negative thing they can come up with. That's creepy.

[ShortnFiery]

58. That's a shame, because it's, IMO, wasted effort.

I used it to highlight the fact that IF we don't lower our TAX DOLLARS for "War and Destruction" via the Military Industrial Complex, we will continue to keep within low level intensity conflicts.

It is an APT criticism of the ENTIRE SYSTEM. President Obama can't change it overnight. How in hell you saw my posts as Anti-Obama is way beyond me.

WE, must change the system ... it will take time and with the election of more LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE democrats in position of power. Why? Because moderate democrats are neo-liberals and, in general, pro-war.

MY POINT: President has NO OPTION but to follow the Generals in the Pentagon until WE elect representatives less beholden to the War Machine.

I wish you'd spend half of your efforts fighting right wingers than attacking me. However, there's no need to LIE TO OURSELVES - we will send more troops because the MI complex is too large of a beastie to go up against without stronger representation within our Legislative and Judicial Branches.

Believe it or not, I am part of the democratic team. ;) :hug:

[Beetwasher]

59. Here's A Great Story, About Obama Listening To Some Good Advice

No decisions have been made, but this is hopefully a good signal. You come in and shit on the thread throwing negatives aspersions around about Obama. I call it the way I see it.

That's all. Nothing personal.

[ShortnFiery]

60. No, you're needlessly brusque. It's inappropriate and stifles dissent and further discussion.

But you keep on thinking that you're providing a public service and I will resist the temptation to call you names. My mother taught me better than name calling an opponent. No matter how asinine and rude they may behave, one's opponent is still are a thinking and feeling HUMAN being who deserves basic civility and respect.

I can't control your behavior but I'm saddened by your need to place yourself in a censorship role.

[Beetwasher]

63. LOL!!! You Think I Think I'm Providing A Public Service??? What Fucking Planet Do You Live On?

I'm a fucking asshole. I make no bones about it. You're the person who somehow think they're "providing a public service" by constantly attacking Obama. How, I dunno, but you think you're doing something worthwhile apparently. Well I got news for you, it's not only not changing anyone's mines, it's just patently pathetic and obvious you carrying out some agenda.

Me, I'm just being a fucking asshole and calling you out on your bullshit.

[ShortnFiery]

65. I'll let your post speak for itself. eom

[Beetwasher]

66. As Does Your Negative Spewing

n/t

[Jennicut]

61. Obama does not need to follow the Generals in the Pentagon.

There is no law requiring him to do so...only the guts needed to throw their push for more troops back at them with facts that we most likely cannot "win" this war...whatever winning means anyway. I think you jumped to conclusions when there has not been a decision on what Obama may do. Last time, the VP's argument lost out to Clinton and Holbrooke. It may not this time.

[ShortnFiery]

62. As I mentioned way way back: Wait for it? We must spend that 711 Billion dollars ...

and those bombs are not going to blow themselves up. :shrug:

Obama will increase the troop strength in Afghanistan, I'm 95% convinced.

[high density]

31. That's a good development

Obama talked a lot about expanding the war in Afghanistan while he was running for office. I'm very happy he's starting to reconsider his views here.

Although Mr. Obama has said that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States, some advisers said he was also wary of becoming trapped in an overseas quagmire. Some Pentagon officials say they worry that he is having what they called “buyer’s remorse” after ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.

Hopefully Biden's view will win out.

[slipslidingaway]

32. I sure hope so. knr nt

[TheKentuckian]

37. If there is a tangible and organized threat then eradicate it and move on.

I don't care about drones in context. They are effectively the same as a manned fighter doing the same thing except they are cheaper to replace and don't put a pilot in any danger. The pilot is significantly more "there" at 50,000 feet than he is operating a remote control system. I see no big jump in the chance to avoid hitting the wrong targets or anything that makes a real difference in the use of manned vs. unmanned craft to perform the task at hand. If the task is the argument then that is a different conversation, I see little to get caught up in the idea of using drones, they are just and means to the same end as manned craft.

I do not feel we can police internal politics but we can inflict serious destruction and even hit specific targets that damage or destroy capability to organize enough to be serious threat in tandem with isolation. The cheapest way to deal with organized terror in dollars and blood might be to hit run. If a government gives harbor then they should be isolated, hammered, and isolated until the native populations overthrow the regimes and put less threatening leadership in place at which time they would be rewarded with access to products and grants. At some point the choice between the stone age with fire from the sky or chilling out and getting paid off would seem easy. I figure it will work as well as what we are doing and a hell of a lot less expensive.

We could also see what Pakistan needs for their nukes. It should be worth a trillion or so and some consessions to the world community to defuse the high level tension that is really underlying this situation. Allowing vagabond theocratic extremist nuclear weapons is off the fucking table because there is little weight to the deterrent factor with such people.

[ShortnFiery]

41. We can't KILL THEM ALL as al Quaeda is all over the world. Sooner or later

we, as a nation, must give up dreams of ABSOLUTE hegemony.

We must learn that might does NOT make right.

No matter how many drones, bombs or SF special ops we send into foreign lands, we will NOT kill them all.

We need to LOOK TO PEACEFUL ways of solving the UNSTATED problems:

"Ignorance and poverty." ... those are the antecedents to the catch-all degrading title *TERRORIST.*

Sooner or later, we, as a nation, must realize that it is NOT all about US.