E-Newsletter



*By answering this survey, you are subscribing to my newsletter.

Contact Us graphic (Left)

Bookmark & Share

Search

  • Search

Print

Obama lays out Afghan strategy

12/02/09

Washington Post

WEST POINT, N.Y. — Saying that "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama announced Tuesday night that he will send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer but also pledged to begin withdrawing forces in July 2011.

Addressing the nation from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama drew on the weight of war he has felt as commander in chief and on the national security interests at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan to explain his decision to escalate the 8-year-old conflict and to begin leaving it before his term ends. He said that "huge challenges remain."

"Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards," Obama said. "In short, the status quo is not sustainable."

The troop buildup will begin almost immediately — the first new Marines will be in place by Christmas — and it is estimated that it will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.

Obama concluded a three-month review of war strategy by placing extraordinary confidence in a strained U.S. military and applying fresh pressure on the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reform itself in months rather than years.

The 30,000 additional troops amount to most of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, requested at the end of August. But by setting a date for when he will begin removing U.S. forces, scheduled to number almost 100,000 by next summer, Obama is effectively holding McChrystal to the urgent timetable he laid out in his bleak assessment of the situation.

McChrystal wrote that the war probably would be won or lost in the next 18 months. Senior administration officials said that July 2011 — about 18 months from when the first batch of additional U.S. troops will arrive in Afghanistan — will mark the start of the U.S. withdrawal.

Obama is essentially gambling that Karzai, who was re-elected last month by default, will feel more pressure to reform the nation and that the Taliban won't simply try to wait out the United States.

"Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground," Obama said. "But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."

Obama's escalation of the war effort and presentation of an exit strategy reflects divisions that emerged within his administration and the difficult politics he faces in selling his plan at home and abroad.

Foreshadowing the debate over his strategy, Obama said, "Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort."

Lawmakers react

As details of his plan emerged Tuesday, some Republicans said Obama was aiding the Taliban by setting a date to begin a withdrawal, even though administration officials said the pace will be determined by the country's security and political stability.

"Setting a draw down date before this surge has even begun is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"Arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal ... are not a strategy for victory," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio.

"The Afghan population and tribal leaders must have confidence in the staying power of the United States," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin.

Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, said: "I support the president's surge proposal. I would prefer it to be with more troops, and that we were not announcing an arbitrary withdrawal date."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, also raised questions about the size of the deployment:

"The president is responding with fewer troops than the military commander requested, and he must be prepared to send additional troops if the need arises."

But Republicans generally gave Obama high marks for deciding to send the additional troops.

Democrats criticized Obama for an expensive, if time-limited, expansion of the conflict at a time of economic hardship at home.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, said: "I respectfully disagree that the path to peace and security can be found through a wider war that can be largely completed in a mere 18 months. The better exit strategy is to have fewer troops who need to exit."

"At this time, I remain unconvinced that the projected gain from sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan is the best use of $30 billion," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston.

But some Democrats said they stood by Obama's plan. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called it a "sensible plan, both short- and long-term, to empower the Afghan people and allow for U.S. troops to complete their mission and come home."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said, "I'll reserve judgment until I hear ... testimony." Top administration officials are to testify before congressional committees today and Thursday.

Focus on training

Many of Obama's political advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, had argued for a more narrowly focused counterterrorism policy that would accelerate Afghan troop training, step up aerial drone strikes against al Qaeda operatives and help shore up Pakistan against a Taliban insurgency inside its borders.

Karl Eikenberry, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, opposed sending additional troops, arguing that doing so would increase Karzai's dependence on the U.S. military and prolong the country's involvement in the war.

Although Obama decided to send more troops than Biden and Eikenberry had wanted, the specific timetable he set for the start of the withdrawal was a nod to their concerns, administration officials said.

"The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades," Obama said. "They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country."

Of the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that Obama plans to deploy, 5,000 will be dedicated to training Afghan security forces. A senior administration official said the goal for the Afghan army is to increase its ranks from 90,000 to 134,000 by the end of 2010.

All the troops are due to arrive by the end of May. Most of the combat troops will be used in the south and east, where the Taliban is strongest.

In his speech, Obama appealed to NATO allies, which under his strategy will be asked to contribute at least 5,000 additional troops. In many European countries, the conflict is even less popular than it is in the United States.

"We must come together to end this war successfully," he said. "For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility — what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world."

Obama reaffirmed that destroying al Qaeda is the chief objective of his strategy and emphasized that turning over government and security responsibilities to Afghans as quickly as possible is essential.

He called the region "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda" and warned that "this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity."