President Obama convened a last-minute meeting of his national security team tonight to discuss the language that his administration will use to describe its new strategy for Afghanistan. Two administration sources confirmed that the meeting, which began at 5:00 pm, included cabinet officials like Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The officials would not describe the meeting and said that no other news organizations were being given any background briefing. That suggests that the meeting was akin to a pre-game rally session by the commander-in-chief: he wants to get everyone from Gates to Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the same page before his Tuesday speech.
Before young officers at West Point, Obama will announce his decision about Afghanistan to an increasingly skeptical nation and a Democratic Congress that is threatening to condition its budgeting on identifiable off-ramps and timeframes. Obama is expected to announce that he'll order several Army combat brigades to Afghanistan -- about 30,000 troops in all, most of them to be tasked with more rapidly standing up Afghanistan's indigenous army. His speech, as described in broad terms by advisers last week, will be short and serious. His challenge is to persuade Americans that the war in Afghanistan is winnable, as Americans tend to give their presidents significant leeway so long as they believe that the president is confident in his strategy. Officials said last week that while would outline a clear exit strategy, he would not tie troop withdrawals to any specific political developments in Afghanistan, which might run into opposition from Democrats in Congress, who are demanding benchmarks. Nor is the President likely to impose direct conditions on Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. An official said that Obama plans to try explain the interconnection between the the stability of Pakistan and the nexus of terror in Afghanistan. An explanation that the American people would accept has proven elusive.
cabinet officials such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to nitpick
I think his challenge is less to convince Americans that the war is winnable than it is to convince Americans that the best course isn't something that can be called "winning" in traditional terms. Some of the language in his Fort Hood speech along those lines will probably be echoed on Tuesday. Americans aren't turning against the war because they don't think we can win, but because we don't see what the point of trying to win is, or know why and when we would leave.
It isn't winnable, and we're planning to withdraw, so we'll increase the number of troops there?
Maybe the Soviets will invade again.
"Before young cadets at West Point," to nitpick. (You might even omit 'young'.)
the war might be winnable, but the ANA is a disaster, and will not be ready for any sort of independent combat operations for years to come.
pretending that this deployment is a short surge-type operation is fantasy, and i dont think that obama believes it.
this deployment may be stretching the armed services too far- we just do not have enough people. already, many army brigades are leaving their heavy equipment and becoming light infantry units for their deployment to afghanistan. ironically, the two war strategy that the military has stuck to for decades has been shelved in the 2010 quarterly defense review, but we are going to have enough troops and equipment deployed to fight both of those wars.
I guess I am sick of seeing BHO flying all over for photo ops. Was Annapolis booked (I know it can be argued that Afghanistan is not a navy war, but Marines go there as well).? Wouldn't a speech at the Pentagon have been just as effective?
Why do people keep saying that Americans don't know what the mission is?
Attacked on 9/11 by Al-Qaida which was supported, sheltered and defended by the Taliban.
Destroy, degrade, deny them sanctuary and diminish the two organizations worldwide.
What's so hard about that? Or should we settle for picking body parts off the sides of crumbled buildings?
The best answers to this questions occur after research. There is nothing that will substitute for an informed source.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndianaGreen/140
The big lie of Afghanistan
My country hasn't been liberated: it's still under the warlords' control, and Nato occupation only reinforces their power
Malalai Joya
The Guardian, Saturday 25 July 2009
You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.
For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.
In the constitution it forbids those guilty of war crimes from running for high office. Yet Karzai has named two notorious warlords, Fahim and Khalili, as his running mates for the upcoming presidential election. Under the shadow of warlordism, corruption and occupation, this vote will have no legitimacy, and once again it seems the real choice will be made behind closed doors in the White House. As we say in Afghanistan, "the same donkey with a new saddle".