President Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, prefers, U.S. officials said.
Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander's broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option's scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal's ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as "McChrystal Light."
Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he has asked for atop the current U.S. force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press.
Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because Obama has not announced his decision, said the troop numbers under the narrowed scenario probably would be lower than McChrystal's preference, at least at the outset. The officials did not divulge exact numbers.
But that pared-down approach would reflect a shift in thinking about what parts of the war mission are most important and the intense political domestic debate over Afghan policy.
A majority of Americans either oppose the war or question whether it is worth continuing to wage, according to public opinion polls dating to when Obama shook up the war's management and began a lengthy reconsideration of U.S. objectives earlier this year.
Any expansion of the war will displease some congressional Democrats, while Republicans are likely to accuse Obama of failing to give McChrystal all of what he requested.
A stripped-down approach would signal caution in widening a war that is going worse this year than last despite intense U.S. attention and an additional 21,000 U.S. forces on Obama's watch.
1. Evincing a characteristic cast for compromise, our courage-challenged Commander in Chief is reportedly on the cusp of calling for a middle course approach to the tactical crisis that is Afghanistan.
2. Unable to say "no" to his generals, compositionally incapable of executing an all-out war, Obama will typically embrace the resort of least resistance when he finally DECIDES TO DECIDE what to do with HIS hopeless hotspot in the mountains on the moon.
3. He'll give his homegrown general on the ground about HALF the troops the experts estimate are mandatory for triumph in the theater that the then candidate called the "right war."
4. McChrystal Lite, reportedly, is Obama's outlet.
5. More warfare, less results.
6. Lacking the courage to decamp, yet not committed ultimately to success, Obama, after months of public hair pulling and procrastination, adopts a "Yes, we can, No, we can't, Maybe, we'll see" strategy.
7. Either way, casualites are almost certain to increase with the combatant count.
8. Meanwhile, any chances of our succeeding are scant in the region which gutted Gorbachev.
9. The Russians warred with a WILL unknown in Washington, 200,000 ruthless Soviet soldiers slaughtered civilians for ten years.
10. Obama does NOT want to be there.
11. How can we win with such weak kneed, half hearted headsmanship?
12. Politics impel the president, not interests of United States security.
13. American lives must be sacrificed for salubrious survey results in USA Today.
14. And yet the war is pessimisticly unpopular across our entire landscape, except amongst neocons.
15. Obama's liberal base is outraged.
16. And anger will only augment with each meaningless massacre.
17. October was our meanest month, 55 unfearing fighters fell.
18. Twenty two more this week.
19. The enemy was alarmingly active in Kabul, assaulting a UN guesthouse.
20. Karzai is as corrupt as he ever was.
21. And then there's his brother, the poppy pusher.
22. Obama is at open odds with McChrystal, the Pentagon, the cabinet.
23. The great general weighs resignation.
24. This is OBAMA'S WAR, it is HIS problem.
25. It is KILLING him, politically.
26. And it will only get worse.
The Prof
Care to post a link that supports the title of this thread?
He can post one, but I read this same assertion in several reputable news sources yesterday.
It's legit.
Sources close to the President are claiming that he's leaning toward a moderate troop increase, one much smaller than McChrystal is asking for.
The President, as of yesterday, was insisting that he's made no definite decision on the matter yet.
Good I would agree with that decision and I would agree with a major shift on what the purpose of the mission has been for years now.
Are you saying you support Obama's War?
mcchrystal lite is the worst of all options
either fight to win or bring our boys and girls home
afghanistan is killing this president, and it's only going to get worse
mcchrystal lite is the worst of all options
either fight to win or bring our boys and girls home
afghanistan is killing this president, and it's only going to get worse
Without knowing the overall strategy going forward, it is impossible to say what is the best or worst option.
Without knowing the objective one can't intelligently choose a strategy.
Tell me what do you think President Obama should do given the current situation?
Remember you have to totally remove all issues that have to do with Republicans having any responsibilty for what is going on there today.
Please offer some suggestions and how they might affect our future?
It sure does seem to me that you are just chawing at the bit and praying that President Obama will be as big up a **** up as Bush...
You will have to wait and see before you can make that claim with any validity what so ever.
In terms of politics, it seems like this is the worst option. Obama and his advisors are smart enough to figure this out. The fact that they know that and are still leaning toward this plan seems to indicate that they think this is the best plan in terms of war strategy, without taking the political issue into consideration. Since they are the ones who are in the best position to make this analysis, I'm confident that it is the best plan.
I know I shouldn't be surprised when a politician makes a decision based on what they think is right as opposed to what they think will play best in the media, but it's nevertheless pleasant whenever it happens.
the general has been mcchrystal clear on what he thinks is winning strategy
indeed, the general said anything short will "likely result in failure"
mcchrystal's secret assessment, written aug 30 and delivered to the prez, leaked to woodward by unknown insiders and published in the post, sept 21, a day after obama blitzed five sunday talks and indicated he was still awaiting a top-to-bottom review and had not yet received requests for reinforcements:
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com
pray for our president, our troops and their people, our nation
and perhaps, if you are like minded, pray even for our foes, that they will find peace and peace of mind
they too are fathers and sons and mothers and sisters...
unfortunately, afghanistan is going to kill this presidency
cliff
My gut reaction is that the exact opposite of this is true. By increasing the troop levels, but only doing so to a limited extent, it seems to me like they're trying to appease both sides in a sort of compromise.
Whether it's a sound strategy or not... we'll have to wait and see. Ditto to its political implications, although I think it is a massive assumption that "Obama and his advisors are smart enough to figure this out".
i don't know how much more a community organizer from chicago and the ivoried halls of harvard law with very little mind for martial matters might know about the military realities in the mountains on the moon than the careerist soldier who's reached the ranks mcchrystal has
He can post one, but I read this same assertion in several reputable news sources yesterday.
It's legit.
Sources close to the President are claiming that he's leaning toward a moderate troop increase, one much smaller than McChrystal is asking for.
The President, as of yesterday, was insisting that he's made no definite decision on the matter yet.
How about the Secretary of Defense? The JCS? The people whose job it is to advise the president? Those are the ones who are actually crafting the strategy. Obama is responsible for the results, but his ignorance of military matters(like most of the people posting on this) is not the reason for his decision, whatever it might be.
Tell me what do you think President Obama should do given the current situation?
And it's retarded, McChrystal the counterinsurgent expert has already calculated the number of troops it will require to provide adequate security and hold territory and yet the Harvard lawyer and 1 year Senator thinks he knows how better to fight a war than the head general that he himself appointed.
Obama is getting his advice on Afghanistan from John "war criminal" Kerry. And the idea that the Secretary of Defense or Joint Chiefs know more about what's going on in Afghanistan than the lead General on the ground is ****ing asinine.
Listen to the counterinsurgency expert and lead general in Afghanistan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?