Barack Obama

Five Things The President Will Say Tonight About Afghanistan

By Michael Scherer | @michaelscherer | December 1, 2009 | +

White House officials just briefed reporters on President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan. Here is the top-line takeaway:

1. He plans to increase troop strength in Afghanistan by 30,000 Americans, making the total U.S. troop count 98,000. These forces will be in place by the summer of 2010. A senior administration calls the addition of new troops a “surge.” (When Obama came into office, there were 35,000 troops in Afghanistan.)

2. In July of 2011, Obama will “begin transferring” troops out of Afghanistan, but the pace and end date of that withdrawal will depend on conditions on the ground. In other words, while Obama will say that the U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan is not open ended, he will not set an end date for the U.S. military commitment.

3. The goals of the U.S. Afghan campaign remain unchanged: Prevent a Taliban overthrow of Afghan government, and prevent safe haven for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

4. The top development goal in Afghanistan will be agriculture. There will also be a major focus on training Afghan troops to take over for the U.S. forces after 2011. But there are no fixed numbers for the end size of the Afghan police and military force.

5. This is an aggressive military approach, according to Obama aides. One senior administration official claimed that the force option Obama chose sends more forces to Afghanistan quicker than any other option presented to him. That said, Obama was presented with other options that called for more total troops to be committed to Afghanistan.

Related Topics: Afghanistan, Barack Obama

  • Latest on Swampland

    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

    From our Partners

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Must Reads May 25, 2012

    Morning Must Reads: Haunted

  • shepherdwong

    “The goals of the U.S. Afghan campaign remain unchanged: Prevent a Taliban overthrow of Afghan government, and prevent safe haven for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”
    .
    The 9/11 attacks were planned by Saudis in Germany. Al Qaeda doesn’t need a “safe haven” in Afghanistan. Besides, they have one next door in nuclear-armed Pakistan.
    .
    I should also point out that the Taliban are mostly Afghans. Do you think that we should invite in someone’s army to make sure that Republicans don’t “overthrow” our government any time soon? Come to think of it…

  • http://tinselwing.wordpress.com/ nicteis

    Thanks for a succinct and useful summary.
    .
    Alas, policy bullet (3) is a guarantee of endless war. Rather than defining an exit strategy, Obama is promising that we will not exit until we can prove two negatives: Al Qaeda no longer exists (since as long as it exists at all, it can conceivably find a safe haven once we leave), and the Taliban no longer exists (since as long as it exists, once we leave it will find enough sympathizers to recoup and pose an eventual realistic takeover threat.)
    .
    It is impossible to prove a negative. It will therefore prove impossible for Obama to leave Afghanistan, at least until he concocts a more forgiving exit condition than this one.
    .
    I feel great sympathy for the quandary imposed on Obama by his predecessor, but, in the classical words of Han Solo, “I have a bad feeling about this.”

  • jcapan

    Malalai Joya:

    “Like many around the world, I am wondering what kind of ‘peace’ prize can be awarded to a leader who continues the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starts a new war in Pakistan, all while supporting Israel?”

    Orwell man, Orwell

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Some other things you can expect him to say are: I,I,I.Me,ME,ME Letmebeperfectlyclear. uh, uh, uh….pokiston, tolibon.

    Words least likely to be spoken are: War on terror, terrorists, and victory.

  • Cliff

    I’m sorry, you seem to be reading from the February script. Please see your local Teabagger Team Leader for the latest talking points.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Ah, my dungbeatle trap worked perfectly!

  • Cliff

    senior administration [official] calls the addition of new troops a “surge.”
    .
    according to Obama aides. One senior administration official claimed that”
    .
    Who told you these things, goddammit? What possible reason could there be to keep these people anonymous?

  • Cliff

    dungbeatle

  • Cliff

    Prevent a Taliban overthrow of Afghan government, and prevent safe haven for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
    .
    How does this square with reports that the Taliban has a permanent presence in 80% of Afghanistan?

  • Cliff
  • michaelfury

    Did he forget to mention the gas pipelines?

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

  • formerlyjames

    Yes, he said that. And a lot more. It is not open ended, it is not Viet Nam, time has been wasted by the fascists Bushy neocons, we do not seek to dominate the world (unlike the Bushies), and he spoke reason (unlike the Bushies). It was a brilliant speech far beyond the sterile MS prognostication. I am opposed to the Afghan continuation, but he gave me pause for thought and reflection (again, unlike the Bushies).

  • abdullah69

    I would have thought that the parents of serving soldiers would be the last people to treat a decision like this with frivolity.

    Maybe twothirds is not convinced they are in fact his children.

  • abdullah69

    After an equivalent length of time, the Soviets were mostly back over the Friendship Bridge and their withdrawal was almost complete.

    The US continues to pour in troops, however.

    While it is harder for democracies to get into wars (at least until Bush), it is also harder to get out of them. Too many special interests at work.

blog comments powered by Disqus