WORLD  
comments_image -

'What is the End Game?': Why Obama Rejected a Bigger Surge in Afghanistan

Obama refused to send the full 30,000 troops requested by his generals because they had no plan for how to use them.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (IPS) -- President Barack Obama decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to a White House source.

But Obama is likely to be pressured by McKiernan and the Joint Chiefs to approve the remaining 13,000 troops requested after the completion of an Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review next month.

Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war. Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The request for 30,000 additional troops, which would bring the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan to more than 60,000, had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before Obama's inauguration. A front-page story in the Washington Post Jan. 13 reported that Obama was ready to "sign off" on the deployment request.

On Jan. 30 Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops would "probably" be sent to Afghanistan and the figure would "tend toward the higher number of those two."

But on Feb. 9, Mullen indicated that the Pentagon would soon announce that three brigades, or about 16,000 troops, would be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming months.

What had changed in the nine days between those two statements, according to a White House source, was that Obama had called McKiernan directly and asked how he planned to use the 30,000 troops, but got no coherent answer to the question.

It was after that conversation that Obama withdrew his support for the full request.

The unsatisfactory response from McKiernan had been preceded by another military non-answer to an Obama question. At his meeting with Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon Jan. 28, Obama asked the Joint Chiefs, "What is the end game?" in Afghanistan, and was told, "Frankly, we don't have one," according to a Feb. 4 report by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Obama had also learned by early February that earlier assurances from Petraeus of an accord with Kyrygistan on use of the base at Manas had been premature, and that the U.S. ability to supply troops in Afghanistan would be dependent on political accommodations with Russia and Iran.

The rationale from the military leadership for doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, even without a strategy or a concept of how the war could end, had been to "buy time" for an effort to build up Afghan security forces, as indicated by Mullen's Jan. 30 remarks.

The 17,000 troops, on the other hand, presented the upper limit of what Obama had pledged to add in Afghanistan during the campaign, according to Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, who was an adviser to Obama.

Korb told IPS that Obama's decision not to wait until the key strategic questions were clarified before sending any more troops was based on the belief that he had to signal both Afghans and Pakistanis that the United States was not getting out of Afghanistan, according to Korb. "There are a lot of people in both countries hedging their bets," said Korb.

McKiernan reminded reporters Wednesday that the 17,000 troops represent only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested. That complaint suggested that he had been given no assurance that the remainder of the troops would be approved after the policy review.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

By Joan McCarter | Daily Kos

 
 
Who Cares What The Bishops Think? Old Catholic Guys Do.

By Sara Robinson | Alternet

 
 
Coup in Maldives Threatens Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed, a Leading Voice for Island States Threatened by Global Warming

By Amy Goodman | Democracy Now!

 
 
Finally! Trader Joe's Signs on to Fair Food Agreement for Farm Workers

By Tara Lohan | AlterNet

 
 
The Inside Scoop on the Budding Romance Between Walmart and Monsanto

By Maria Tchijov | Food and Water Watch

 
 
North Carolina Considering Amendment That Would Roll Back the Rights of Both Gay and Straight Couples

By Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly

 
 
Ellen Degeneres Strikes Back at Anti-Gay Bigots Who Are Boycotting JC Penney Because She's Their New Spokesperson

By Lauren Kelley | AlterNet

 
 
Unbelievable: Man Beats Wife, Judge Orders Him to Take Her Out to Red Lobster and the Bowling Alley

By Melissa McEwan | Shakesville

 
 
Activists Gathering at Apple Stores Around the World Today to Protest Awful Treatment of Chinese Workers

By Lauren Kelley | AlterNet

 
 
Today's Mortgage Settlement: Mega-Banks Got a Slap on the Wrist for Trampling the Law (We Probably Don't Even Know the Half of It)

By Robert Borosage | Campaign for America's Future

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]