Thread: Obama Orders Surge in Afghanistan

Sources: Obama to add US troops in Afghanistan

Concerned about the faltering war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama plans to dispatch thousands more military and civilian trainers on top of the 17,000 fresh combat troops he's already ordered, people familiar with the forthcoming plan said Thursday.

Obama also will call for increasing aid to neighboring Pakistan as long as its leaders confront militants in the border region. The president plans to lay out his revamped strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on Friday.

Several sources told The Associated Press the strategy includes 20 recommendations for countering a persistent insurgency that spans the two countries' border, including sending 4,000 military trainers to try to increase the size of the Afghan army.

"It is an integrated military-civilian strategy," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters in Monterrey, Mexico. "We are convinced that the most critical underpinning of any success we hope to achieve, along with the people and government of Afghanistan, will be looking at where civilian trainers, aid workers, technical assistance of all kinds can be best utilized."

Clinton declined to go into details to avoid pre-empting Obama's announcement.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs also would not discuss specifics of the plan, but said Obama is beginning to discuss its findings with members of Congress and others. Obama's top military advisers briefed key lawmakers Thursday.

In broad terms, Obama will define U.S. objectives as eliminating the threat from al-Qaida to undermine or topple U.S.-backed elected governments or to launch attacks on the United States, its interests and allies, the sources said.

They described the recommendations on condition of anonymity because the final wording was not complete. The new plan identified al-Qaida as the target in a larger network of insurgents who threaten U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, often from sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan.

The written outline of Obama's plan describes a "strategy for success," as opposed to an exit strategy, but the goal is the same: Stability on both sides of the border that would allow a reduction and eventual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan. To do that, Obama proposes a greatly expanded commitment to improving and enlarging the Afghan army and Pakistan's frontier forces.

The additional 4,000 troops devoted to training and advising the Afghan armed forces would head to Afghanistan this spring and summer. They come on top of about 17,000 combat and support troops Obama wants in place by the end of the summer.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the training group is needed because there aren't enough U.S. military advisers there now.

"We've got to increase the size," of the Afghan army more quickly than contemplated, said Levin, D-Mich. "The trainers are the key to that."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said it seemed like a viable strategy as long as the manpower is there.

"I know we need more than the 17,000," he said.

As a candidate, Obama said the Afghan war should have been the U.S. priority all along, and that the Bush administration wrongly diverted U.S. attention and resources to the war in Iraq. As president, Obama has been under pressure to say how he plans to address the sharp increase in violence in Afghanistan while prodding anti-terrorism ally Pakistan to deal with the militant threat on its soil.

"I'm comfortable that key policy makers on all levels are not minimizing the difficulties and are not missing anything," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. "What I'm less confident about is that there is a solution to this problem."

He added that Congress cannot shrink from a long-term commitment, including providing money.

A pillar of the strategy for Afghanistan will be greater engagement with local and provincial leaders, as opposed to a focus on the central government, according to officials familiar with the document.

Officials said there will be a directed campaign to focus attention on tribal and provincial leaders across the expansive country. With the bulk of the population living outside urban centers in small, far-flung villages, U.S. officials believe it will be more productive to build support, foster development and break down extremist ties district by district.

The plan will not abandon the central government in Kabul, said officials, but it will also not rely on bolstering efforts to govern from the capital.

Levin said the strategy will identify benchmarks to measure success in Afghanistan. "Uncertainty is not the kind of commitment they need to succeed."

The forthcoming White House review also says the U.S. will add hundreds of civilian advisers to those already in Afghanistan. The so-called civilian surge would concentrate on improving life for ordinary Afghans, and would include experts in agriculture in a country where subsistence farming is the norm. The civilians are also meant to help extend government services and the administration of justice.

The plan notes that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan still wants some 10,000 or 11,000 additional U.S. forces next year, but does not say whether Obama intends to fulfill that request now, sources said. That decision would come by the end of this year.

The plan also broaches dramatically increasing the size of Afghanistan's security forces. It calls for a study to determine the size of the police and military force capable of securing the country. Several defense officials said that could entail doubling the Afghan security force to almost 400,000. However, the strategy review does not recommend any specific figure.

In fact, the Obama strategy document deliberately avoids specific numbers and timelines, a senior defense official said. He said the intent is to set goals and a new direction, with specifics of implementation to be worked out in coming months.

The plan strongly backs legislation by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that would triple humanitarian aid to $1.5 billion to Pakistan for five years. The bill had been proposed last year by now Vice President Joe Biden.

Kerry, who took over for Biden as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he also supports placing conditions on military aid to Pakistan. Biden's original bill threatened to cut military funding for Islamabad unless the government did more to fight Taliban forces.

Kerry said he planned to introduce next week an updated version of the measure that would slightly increase the $1.5 billion.

Just keep wasting America's blood and treasure while idiot partisans continue to cheer on Obama's imperialism.

Still waiting for the anti-Iraq war crowd to tell us how many civilian deaths in Afghanistan/Pakistan will be "to many", where is the line.

How many US military casualties mark the line of "not worth it"?

Those were the measures they used against Bush, so what are we looking at here, when is "it not worth it"? When do we become murders of innocent civilians?

This is Obama's war now, how are you going to measure him leftest?

Originally Posted by Stinger

Still waiting for the anti-Iraq war crowd to tell us how many civilian deaths in Afghanistan/Pakistan will be "to many", where is the line.

How many US military casualties mark the line of "not worth it"?

Those were the measures they used against Bush, so what are we looking at here, when is "it not worth it"? When do we become murders of innocent civilians?

This is Obama's war now, how are you going to measure him leftest?

you probably won't get a response because the set up for your question is all wrong. you're asking how many deaths WILL be too many, meaning you're asking people to make a prediction about future deaths. not many people, if any, at the start of the iraq war were saying "if we have 1,000 dead soldiers 2 years form now, that will be too many!"

that stance was taken up after considerable time had passed, and looking back over what was accomplished, and what was sacrificed, people formulated opinions over was the sacrifice worth what we got in return.

Abd they all mysteriously work bipartisanly when it comes to unprovoked invasion.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

you probably won't get a response because the set up for your question is all wrong.

Once again Nick would rather argue style over substance.

you're asking how many deaths WILL be too many, meaning you're asking people to make a prediction about future deaths.

Nope

The anti-Iraq crowd 100 was too many, 1000 was too many and now cite the 4000 as not worth it and too many.

OK let's hear the benchmarks for Obama's war.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Once again Nick would rather argue style over substance.

no, i'm arguing that your substance is wrong. if you'd like to wait a year, or two, or three, and ask the same questions, they will be perfectly legitimate, because people can look back and see what was accomplished, and what was sacrificed, and formulate an opinion on whether the accomlishment was worth the sacrifice. that comparision can't really be done as a predicition. i mean it CAN be, but then it will just be a total predicition, a guess, of future events.

The anti-Iraq crowd 100 was too many, 1000 was too many and now cite the 4000 as not worth it and too many.

yes, they said that AFTER those numbers were reached, looking back at what was acomplished with those sacrifices.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

no, i'm arguing that your substance is wrong. if you'd like to wait a year, or two, or three, and ask the same questions, they will be perfectly legitimate, because people can look back and see what was accomplished, and what was sacrificed, and formulate an opinion on whether the accomlishment was worth the sacrifice. that comparision can't really be done as a predicition. i mean it CAN be, but then it will just be a total predicition, a guess, of future events.

Did have to wait when we were fighting in Iraq. Why did I not see you making the say case in Iraq?

What is the goal in Afghanistan and how many lives is it worth? How man lives to accomplish our goals there, and can you even clearly stated what they are at this point?

yes, they said that AFTER those numbers were reached, looking back at what was acomplished with those sacrifices.

They'be been saying it since day one of the invasion. At each new benchmark.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Did have to wait when we were fighting in Iraq. Why did I not see you making the say case in Iraq?

speaking for myself, i was on board with the iraq war at the beginning. the longer it went on, the more that was sacrificed for the less we got in return, the less i supported it. i personally from day one never made claims that FUTURE events in iraq will not be worth "X" number of soldiers or "X" number of dollars.

What is the goal in Afghanistan and how many lives is it worth? How man lives to accomplish our goals there, and can you even clearly stated what they are at this point?

as i said, i did no such thing with iraq as personally i would not be comforatable making such a statement. i would not be comfortable saying "accomplishing abc is worth the lives of two thousand soldiers". but maybe other people will be willing to do that.

They'be been saying it since day one of the invasion. At each new benchmark.

right, at each benchmark, once its been reached, and then looking BACK over what was accomplished up until that time. you're now asking for FUTURE predictions.

I was for sending troops to Afghanistan, but dead against sending them to Iraq. Afghanistan is where our focus should have stayed. Instead Iarq took front stage while the situation got worse in Afghanistan. Another reason to be glad Bush is gone. At least Obama has his focus adjusted properly.

Originally Posted by CRUM

I was for sending troops to Afghanistan, but dead against sending them to Iraq. Afghanistan is where our focus should have stayed. Instead Iarq took front stage while the situation got worse in Afghanistan. Another reason to be glad Bush is gone. At least Obama has his focus adjusted properly.

Sorry but the decission to remove Saddam perdates Bush and the reasons had not only not changed they had grown. And Obama has Bush to thank for not having to worry about Saddam or Iraq.