"Afghan War Debate Now Leans to Focus on Al Qaeda (in Pakistan)"

[Clio the Leo]

Afghan War Debate Now Leans to Focus on Al Qaeda

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

As Mr. Obama met with advisers for three hours to discuss Pakistan, the White House said he had not decided whether to approve a proposed troop buildup in Afghanistan. But the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials on Wednesday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.

It remains unclear whether everyone in Mr. Obama’s war cabinet fully accepts this view. While Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has argued for months against increasing troops in Afghanistan because Pakistan was the greater priority, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have both warned that the Taliban remain linked to Al Qaeda and would give their fighters havens again if the Taliban regained control of all or large parts of Afghanistan, making it a mistake to think of them as separate problems.

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has argued that success demands a substantial expansion of the American presence, up to 40,000 more troops. Any decision that provides less will expose the president to criticism, especially from Republicans, that his policy is a prescription for failure.

The White House appears to be trying to prepare the ground to counter that by focusing attention on recent successes against Qaeda cells in Pakistan. The approach described by administration officials on Wednesday amounted to an alternative to the analysis presented by General McChrystal. If, as the White House has asserted in recent weeks, it has improved the ability of the United States to reduce the threat from Al Qaeda, then the war in Afghanistan is less central to American security.

(more)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08prexy.html?hp

Pakistan's Nuclear Facilities....

[karynnj]

1. This is good news

This backs those who pointed to Obama's stated goals as being to deny Al Qaeda sanctuaries and to avoid destabilizing Pakistan.

McChrystal's counterinsurgency really is more suited to a neo-con agenda - and their believes that they can create a state in Afghanisatn with western like values. Glad to hear that the Biden/Kerry et al faction is winning the argument there.

[Jennicut]

6. So, so hoping this is the eventual strategy. McChrystal's way involves

would mean an unlimited, prolonged war.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. K&R.

[mvd]

3. Good. Hope this shifts the focus from occupation to

actual terror cells.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Sounds like the Biden approach that was "off the table" yesterday

[Cha]

7. Yeah, makes you wonder where that

news came from? It had a poster writing, "Fuck Obama".

Oh, it was the "timesonline"..isn't that a rw Rag?

<snip>


Obama Rejects 'Biden Option' on Afghanistan
Source: Times Online

President Obama has made it clear to key congressional power-brokers that his administration's rethink of US military strategy in Afghanistan will not see a significant reduction of troop numbers and a narrower counter-terrorist focus on al-Qaeda.

Mr Obama met key Republican and Democrat leaders in the White House State Dining Room last night to discuss a request from his top commander on the ground for up to 40,000 extra troops to help defeat the Taleban insurgency.

The meeting, on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the first US air strikes against al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan, were an attempt to make clear that the decision Mr Obama faces is one that transcends normal party politics.

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8687978

[AntiFascist]

5. So, the Administration still has to anwer to Republicans....

"Moreover, Mr. Obama’s commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has argued that success demands a substantial expansion of the American presence, up to 40,000 more troops. Any decision that provides less will expose the president to criticism, especially from Republicans, that his policy is a prescription for failure."

Imagine how laughable this would be if it were the Bush Administration worrying about criticism by the Democrats.

[Clio the Leo]

8. The admin has to answer to the American people....

.... which happens to include Republicans.

One mistake THIS President is NOT going to make is failing to bring all sides to the table on this very important matter.

[AntiFascist]

9. The president enjoys his pie...

and we know how much pie the military-industrial-complex brings to the table.