RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Seeking Benchmarks and "Off-ramps," President Obama Sends Pentagon Officials Back to their Desks
November 12, 2009 4:46 PM
The president sent war council officials back to their desks to answer specific questions to which he has yet to hear the answers, senior administration officials tell ABC News.
For Pentagon officials, one official said, that meant "not just how many young men and women they want to go into Afghanistan -- but when they can go home."
The president has not yet heard "sufficient explanation of how we get out of Afghanistan and not simply just be signing up for another eight years, the official said. He wants to know where the "off-ramps" are.
The president is well aware that there is no easy answer about the way forward in Afghanistan, an official said, but before making any decision he is pressing for all planners to set benchmarks of what can realistically be achieved by US troops, by US civilians, and by the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- and plans for what to do next if those benchmarks are met, or if they are not.
The commitment of US troops in Afghanistan is not open-ended, the president has emphasized, and everyone involve needs to know that.
The president's eighth war council meeting, held on Wednesday, will almost certainly not be the last one, officials said.
Officials are now working on answering questions he has about all four of the possible strategies being debated -- two from Gen. Stanley McChrystal and two other strategies.
Another senior administration official says the President was greatly impacted by two classified cables sent by the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen. Karl Eikenberry (Ret.), who expressed in urgent terms his concerns about sending any more US troops until Karzai can be viewed as a credible partner.
Said one official, "Karl has warned throughout this process about the limits of what we can expect out of the Karzai government," but these cables were significant.
The lack of faith the Obama administration has in Karzai's government's ability to clean up corruption and provide basic services for its people is a major source of concern for the president, officials said. Officials are working on a compact to lay out benchmarks for the Karzai government to meet in those areas, as well as in training Afghan police and Afghan army forces.
Eikenberry arguably "knows Afghanistan better than anyone else in the US government," a senior administration official said. "He's basically been there non-stop since 2003 in a range of capabilities, at a range of times, and in range of assignments," having served as United States Security Coordinator for Afghanistan, Chief of the Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan and Commander of the Combined Forces Command.
As leader of the civilian diplomatic corps as Ambassador, Eikenberry is "lead civilian Big Dog in this fight," another official said. "The President really wants his unvarnished opinion."
The force structure in Afghanistan has already essentially been doubled since the president took office, with 13,000 troops already in the pipeline and 21,000 troops added by the President in March. There is no talk of withdrawing these forces as of now, but the president does not want to add more to their number without clear benchmarks and a timeline -- he wants to know "not just how to get in there, but how to get out," an official said.
The recent advice of Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.) for the president to "take (his) time," was important, officials said, and squared with advice given by others who had made major military decisions to get it right, and not to get it done quickly.
Senior administration officials rejected accusations that this process was "dithering," as Vice President Cheney called it, or anything other than constructive. Military sources have said that regardless of the strategy the first new troops won't arrive in Afghanistan until January 2010, so more time for the president to make his decision will not necessarily impact that timeline$
One official argued that "this process makes the decision more informed. We will make a better decision because of this process."
The president is taking very seriously, an official said, the fact that he is the "sole person who can order these young people into harm's way," in conjunction with the grave "situation in the world in the moment" regarding extremism.
- jpt
November 12, 2009 in Afghanistan, Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (63)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Isn't this the guy who said that the
Bush Administration
"took it's eye off the ball(Afganistan)
and wrongly pursued the Iraq War?
President Obama has done nothing to
improve the situation in Afganistan
since he took office and he's already
looking to get out?
Sounds like he won't even take the
time to look at the ball no less keep
his eye on it!
If Mr Obama wants to "cut and run"
which is the usual foreign policy
option offered by the Democrats then he
should stop wasting time and pull our
troops out now before another of our
brave soldiers loses his or her life!
All of this nonsense about the Afgan
elections appears to be an excuse for
a pull-out.
So please Mr President make a decision.
Either give your hand-picked
General, McCrystal, the troops he needs
to start winning the war or pull-out
before we lose more lives for nothing!
Posted by: reaganfan | Nov 13, 2009 4:03:47 PM
Posted by: harry | Nov 13, 2009 1:21:03 AM: “ By the way, has anyone seen / read the brilliance Obama demonstrated during his college years? Any project papers, any thesis, any literary gems comparable to two best sellers he wrote in his adult life?”
So, Harry, you think Obama should be judged on the basis of his college writings? How about a comparison: drag out good ole GW’s college work for us – LOL. Or better yet ! How about Sarah Palin or bottom-of-his-class Senator McCain's college work?
How old are you? People grow and their thinking evolves AFTER college! Take off your hate blinders.
Posted by: CenterOne | Nov 13, 2009 1:42:58 PM
TParty4USA | Nov 12, 2009 9:33:16 PM posted “Obama is "just now" learning of his own ambassador's views on troops?”
Just in case you hadn’t been keeping up with current events, Afghanistan recently had an election saturated with fraud.
For almost a decade the United States has propped up Hamid Karzai in a position that enriches himself and his warlords. It is a perfect example of George Washington’s warning about "entangling alliances" in his farewell address.
Just because President Bush’s administration embarked on a preemptive war in Afghanistan, then basically ignored funding it properly under a puppet government, doesn’t mean US involvement must continue on the same path.
Posted by: CenterOne | Nov 13, 2009 12:41:10 PM
Sunshine Future | Nov 12, 2009 8:43:37 PM posted: “True leaders make their decisions, take ownership of the results, and move on.”
So, what about the "leadership" decisions that put Afghanistan on the back burner for the past 7 years?
Even before President Obama took office, previous "leadership" decisions about Afghan policy either failed or were overtaken by changes on the ground.
Violence by militants in Afghanistan rose by 30 % in 2008. And the Bush Administration admitted that any policy in Afghanistan must consider the security and economic conditions in neighboring Pakistan.
This isn't about making "decisions on less than 100% certain information". It's a complex quagmire that involves more than Military action.
Posted by: CenterOne | Nov 13, 2009 12:28:05 PM
Buy now he only wants to triumph if it can be done by a certain date?
__________________________________
You would prefer the war went on forever in Afghanistan? You don't think it's smart to have an exit strategy?
Posted by: tierra | Nov 13, 2009 10:34:23 AM
Wait- Obama said all through the campaign, after the election in March and then again in August that Afghanistan was the good war and he'll never let the Taliban and al-Qaeda triumph.
Buy now he only wants to triumph if it can be done by a certain date?
Clearly everything he said up until August were just liberal talking points (Guantanamo, Iraq= bad, Afghanistan= good) that he accepted as fact with no actual thought or strategy required.
Posted by: treeamigo | Nov 13, 2009 7:04:16 AM
A child from a broken family, a product of affirmative action quotas, groomed by a bunch of Chicago radicals and trained by Chicago machine politics, the only thing Obama knew well was grievance mongering - basically a polished Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton. Posted by: harry
Bush, product of a political family, they bought his way in and through everything, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, never started a biz on his own without family intervention, and foreign nationals economic support..... alcoholic, drug abuser, cheerleader, would have ended up in an alley if not for the wealth of his family. Enjoyed making fun of inmates on death row. Cardboard cowboy, all hat and no cow as 'they' say. Liked to start wars without planning how to win them so he could look tough and talk tough. A perfect example of a puppet on a string, and the neo-cons were the ones pulling the strings.
the outcome: near collapse for America
now there's a mission accomplished if there ever was one
Posted by: Ouch | Nov 13, 2009 3:47:40 AM
Of course, the "abandonment" was such
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
of course, nothing you've said disproves the fact that 'W's policy failure continued in Afghanistan for 8+ years, until the very second he left office.
Pelosi wasn't making strategic war policy decisions for Bush in Afghanistan, maybe Bush didn't make them either... where's Cheney? lest ask him.
Posted by: exGov Moose from Alaska | Nov 13, 2009 3:36:58 AM
With Obama, he can not utter two coherent sentences without a teleprompter!
___________________________________
Right away you reveal your lack of credibility. Many, many televised interviews with experienced journalists prove the current President is very bright, very mentally focused,very well spoken, has a very impressive grasp on any issue he's asked to address - NO TELEPROMPTER.
What a pathetic right wing lie - you oughta be ashamed.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 13, 2009 2:15:21 AM
Seriously though, can he sink the moral of the troops any lower after a week like this? First they find out that nobody gave a rat's #### about their safety in their own base. That diversity and the fear of being insensitive was more important than protecting them. That the FBI, who apparently is in charge of homeland security now failed to investigate a terror threat because they were looking at it like a bunch of lawyers instead of a security issue and a possible threat. And on top of that a commander in chief who doesn't seem to know what our benchmark is or even that he is the one that is supposed to define them but never fear, he is going to stay at a Holiday Inn during his Asia trip.
Posted by: Ferrari5858 | Nov 13, 2009 1:54:34 AM
Obama is a Child-king.
He was probably angling to garner a name-recognition in 2008 election cycle so that he can mount serious run for 2012 or 2016.
Combination of factors - such as Media's desire to witness historic first of a black President, Disdain for Hillary in some Democratic quarters, hatred for Bush, and weak Republican Presidential ticket - put Obama on a Presidential throne.
A child from a broken family, a product of affirmative action quotas, groomed by a bunch of Chicago radicals and trained by Chicago machine politics, the only thing Obama knew well was grievance mongering - basically a polished Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton.
Devoid of any real life experience - not experienced to run even a corner gas station - he learned quickly how to avoid hard decisions by voting "present".
Sadly, that option is not available to US President. Hence, he is flailing, hoping for a way out from the current mess in Afghanistan. Not after he made Afghanistan "a war of necessity" and installed hand-picked General to guide him!
By the way, has anyone seen / read the brilliance Obama demonstrated during his college years? Any project papers, any thesis, any literary gems comparable to two best sellers he wrote in his adult life? I wonder why not? I have heard many great speakers - who graduated from non ivy-league colleges - spread magical spell with mesmerizing words. With Obama, he can not utter two coherent sentences without a teleprompter! Still he is a boy -genious! More appropriate label for Obama would be "proficient parrot"
Posted by: harry | Nov 13, 2009 1:21:03 AM
"especially the ones in Afghanistan, abandoned by Bush and the republicans these 8 years"
Of course, the "abandonment" was such that in April, 2005 Nancy Pelosi was able to declare that "the war in Afghanistan is over."
and it was not George Bush who sent those additional 17,000 troops there this year. It was not George Bush under whom the three bloodiest months of the war have just occurred.
And it is not George Bush who is now the commander-in-chief, with troops in the field effecting the grand new strategy that he himself announced on March 27, sitting for more than three months on his hand-picked commander's plea for reinforcements.
The troops understand. Ultimately, this man will pay dearly for this.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 13, 2009 1:08:05 AM
One extra minute for our troops to be hung out to dry in harm's way is ABSOLUTELY UNCONSCIENABLE...The Commander-In-Chief is responsible for the WELFARE OF THE NATION AND OUR TROOPS. Period.
Posted by: Geez Louise
which makes the wasted 8 years in afghanistan due to Bush/Cheney all the more remarkable in that it didn't make a bit of difference to the right or republicans while while they held the White House.
Posted by: exGov Moose from Alaska | Nov 13, 2009 12:34:23 AM
The troops know. Brother, do the troops ever know.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
especially the ones in Afghanistan, abandoned by Bush and the republicans these 8 years waiting for a cogent policy and plan.....
too many died waiting...... too many wounded, and then the denial of support for more troops by Bush.. shameful..
but hey.... the Iraq war will pay for itself....
Posted by: exGov Moose from Alaska | Nov 13, 2009 12:31:01 AM
"When you're under attack, minutes can make a huge difference."
I'll repeat the question, since this poor fellow has gone to such great lengths to avoid it: what, exactly, should the president have done differently in those seven minutes? And what difference would have been made if he had done whatever it is you think he should have done?
On the other hand, anyone with a shred of human compassion can think of much that should have been done in lieu of a two-minute "shout-out" to a "Congressional Medal of Honor winner" who in fact had not received that award.
The troops know. Brother, do the troops ever know.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 12, 2009 11:09:15 PM
Seven minutes. How about 7 hours, 7 days,7 weeks, 7 months.Also Sprach Obama.
Posted by: Nephron | Nov 12, 2009 10:40:43 PM
IF I HAD A SON, DAUGHTER, HUSBAND, FATHR, MOTHER THERE IN Afghanistan, I would be writing and phoning 24/7, demanding they be relieved of duty immediately, and sent home to Safety, at least until the Top Brass figured out what the plan was.
One extra minute for our troops to be hung out to dry in harm's way is ABSOLUTELY UNCONSCIENABLE...The Commander-In-Chief is responsible for the WELFARE OF THE NATION AND OUR TROOPS. Period.
REMEMBER HARRY TRUMAN? He could make a decision--and not only that, he could call a SPADE a SPADE, and the sign on his desk said, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE".
Imagine That!!!
Posted by: Geez Louise | Nov 12, 2009 10:38:42 PM
I never have quite understood what else he was supposed to have done during that seven minutes, nor how the "delay" affected national security at all.
----------------------------
He's the Commander in Chief - the United States was under attack.
When you're under attack, minutes can make a huge difference. You don't sit there reading a goat book.
Posted by: Billy Davenport | Nov 12, 2009 10:29:23 PM
"Let's see... Bush took 7 mins too long before exiting the room whilst reading to school children (not too mention a national news cam was filming) so as not to create a panic on the morning of 9/11."
I never have quite understood what else he was supposed to have done during that seven minutes, nor how the "delay" affected national security at all.
On the other hand, the consequences of Obama's paralysis are palpable, and are revealed to us every day. The most recent heart-rending event was the mother of the fallen soldier, tearfully pleading with the president to for God's sake make a decision. (He really doesn't know how. He never has.)
Small wonder that the only goofball cheerleaders who bother to show up on this topic are the very dumbest among them.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 12, 2009 10:15:41 PM
Remember, Obama has been contemplating Afghan strategy since his election over a year ago.If he doesn't know what to do now, he never will.I find it amazing that someone who is supposedly so intelligent still doesn't know what to do. And folks, he doesn't have a clue.He is a classic affirmative action case- advanced repeated because of what he is,not because of what he knows.Let's face it, despite the press continuously spouting out nonsense about his brilliance the truth is coming out, if people are willing to look.For instance, last week claiming that an individual was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor when he actually received the Medal of Freedom. Even worse was that Mr. Obama PERSONALLY awarded it to him!Talk about dense-if Bush had done that the press would still be talking about how dumb he is.Or believing that the citizens of Austria speak "Austrian". Or believing that American soldiers liberated Auschwitz.Or claiming that Martin Luther King learned nonviolence from Gandhi on a trip to India in 1959.It is becoming abundantly clear why he will not release his transcripts from Occidental and Columbia-they stink.
Posted by: Nephron | Nov 12, 2009 9:58:26 PM
Post a comment


