President Obama's ninth and final meeting of his war cabinet has given him the information he needs to make a decision about Afghanistan strategy, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said in an e-mail late tonight.
"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," Gibbs said.
National Public Radio reported that the president intends to announce his decision next Tuesday, but a White House official said that no plans had yet been made. A speech was likely, as is the testimony of senior defense officials.
Step one after making the decision will be to brief NATO allies. That hasn't happened yet. In recent days, though, Obama
aides have given reporters a peak at the president's thinking. They
said they expect the commander in chief to approve north of 20,000 additional troops, but that
he would probably not ask for all 40,000 requested by Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, the Afghanistan theater commander, pending the decision of
other NATO countries to send more troops of their own.
The strategy announcement will be replete with references to various
off-ramps and benchmarks, and the commanders will be responsible for
regularly certifying compliance with them. If the benchmarks, such as
they are, are not met, Obama may well draw down American troops. He has
been advised privately by former Gen. Colin Powell to design and
implement an exit strategy.
For weeks, his commanders have had a rough sense of where his mind was,
although Obama has continuously pushed them to scale down their
ambitions. It's probably safe to say that, at the beginning of the
press, convincing the president to send any more troops to the region
was a tough sell; he is closer today to his war commanders' points of
view than where he was. But his own national security team, led by Gen.
James Jones, feels it has succeeded in convincing the commanders that
time is not on their side, that the troop increase is, in essence, the
last hard power maneuver in the U.S. playbook, and that external
factors beyond the performance of U.S. troops would dictate the
future. The commanders, in other words, do not have a free hand: they must utilize the troops to achieve the goals laid out by political leaders in Washington.
Obama faces extreme pressure from Democrats in
Congress to impose conditions on the troop increases, and he is likely
to at least partially satisfy those Democrats. Unclear, at this point,
whether his political base supports his decision because of the lengthy
process he undertook to make it, or whether their skepticism about an
unending, undefined conflict in the region pushes them to push congressional Democrats to stave off Obama's request for additional
troop funding.
Americans are skeptical of the wisdom of fighting in Afghanistan. And the challenge for the White House now is to persuade them that the president is fully behind whatever strategy he is chosen. His aides believe that a half-hearted political communication campaign will place significant constraints on the mission itself.







If he's buying some time for a way to reach a negotiated path out, it may be worth the lives of those killed until that happens. Yes, that's a cruel calculation, but those are the facts.
If he actually believes we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan on top of a nation of desperately poor hardscrabble farmers divided along strong tribal lines, and without the help of Pakistan, which wants a Kabul not friendly to India, he never was or no longer is the person many of us voted for.
Obama's speech and his 'supposed' decision about Afghanistan will reveal far more than the war strategy in Afghanistan. For those who watch with careful eyes it will reveal EMPIRE.
The decision will be voiced through the mouth of Obama to be sure --- but the decision was already made before he was president, in fact before he even ran, and the decision itself was made by the EMPIRE.
America, our country, is now part of an arrogant, unresponsive, un-democratic, but quite sophisticated 'Vichy' Empire ---- which only pretends to allow the people to have any influence over any choices, directly, or through their supposed representative government.
This fact of sophisticated and guileful Empire manipulation and trickery of the people was well documented in 1994 by Thomas Frank in his "What's the Matter with Kansas" --- showing how contrived social 'values' manipulation was used by the Empire-controlled 'Republican Party' to trick stereotypical anti-intellectual conservative Kansans into voting against their own interests.
But now the coin has been flipped, and we need Frank to write a new book, "What’s the Matter with Massachusetts" in which he would lay bare how the Empire-controlled 'Democratic Party' tricked stereotypical self-described liberal and supposedly highly educated intellectuals into voting for a second well educated (and now post-racial) president promising different 'values', but singing the same songs about "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" and waving banners of 'hope' and 'change' --- which have now been ignored with the same level of contempt and impunity as the last several Empire-controlled Republican and Democratic shills --- who did exactly NOTHING they promised!.
When such obvious contradictions to a government structure of supposed democracy occur many times in a row, but with both supposedly different political parties, and with differing levels of sophistication employed to fool dull and bright voters, the issue is not 'values' but one of deep 'government structure'. And the only conclusion to be made is that we are dealing with a deep and deadly problem of ‘government structure’, which Ben Franklin would have immediately recognized as his fear of Empire supplanting a democratic Republic.
"The problem is not with our stars, Dear citizens, nor with this Obama, nor the previous Clinton nor Bush nor Reagan, nor even with ourselves, but with EMPIRE”
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine