Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com

The Gaggle

RSS
SPONSORED BY

Author

Holly Bailey

Katie Connolly





Links

Featured Postings

Another Reason 2010 Isn't Exactly Like 1994

2:19 PM, November 5, 2009 | Comments (19)
Earlier this week Holly wrote a really interesting piece about the electoral parallels between now and 1993—and the fact that the GOP is hoping for a dramatic Democratic defeat in next year's midterms, similar to what happened in 1994. Holly points out...

Reid vs Obama Drama Not So Dramatic

2:11 PM, October 29, 2009 | Comments (1)

Sarah Palin Charging $100K for Iowa Speech? Not Exactly.

1:27 PM, October 29, 2009 | Comments (13)

Archives

See All from September
Previous
September 2009
Next
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   
       
Full Post
Posted Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:49 PM

Will Obama Reject More Troops in Afghanistan?

Holly Bailey
Is President Obama seriously considering overruling Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s coming request for more troops in Afghanistan or is this a White House head fake? Over the weekend, Obama suggested in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he was “skeptical” that more troops would meet the goal of defeating Al Qaeda, which he noted was the original focus of the Afghan mission. In an interview last night with PBS’s Charlie Rose, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel seemed to echo his boss’s wariness about more troops. “Everybody wants to rush to one thing: ‘I need more troops,’ ” Emanuel said. “Our goal . . .  [is] to make sure that there’s not a safe place for Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda allies to do harm to America here at home and our interests around the world . . . Some people think there are different means to doing that.” Asked directly if Obama would overrule McChrystal, Emanuel replied, “This is one of the biggest decisions the president’s going to make.”

Even if poll numbers show the public is rapidly losing faith in the Afghanistan effort, it never looks good when a president overrules a general on the ground—and the White House knows this. In recent days, we’ve started to see hints of how it might try to avoid the backlash. One big talking point: the Afghan government—namely President Hamid Karzai—is less dependable as a partner. Yesterday White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that factors that had led to the administration’s AfPak strategy last spring had changed, namely the outcome of the Afghan presidential election, which continues to be disputed. “You can’t look at this situation without looking at the elections, and obviously, the outcome right now is still one that is being evaluated,” Gibbs said. “Obviously, we have to have a strong national partner there . . . That’s one of the things the president is looking at to assess.”  Echoed Emanuel: “If you look at the history of counterinsurgency, you have to have a reliable partner to achieve the goal throughout the country.” According to MSNBC’s First Read, another spin from the White House is that McChrystal’s report was written before all the problems with the Afghan elections—therefore painting McChrystal’s already bad assessment even more dismal.

But where does blaming Karzai and the Afghan government actually get the administration? (And, by the way, didn’t it see this coming? For months, there have been doubts at the White House about Karzai’s leadership. A senior administration official admitted as much when briefing reporters on the eve of Karzai’s visit to Washington last spring.)  On one hand, the White House could be forcing the Afghans to get their act together and buy some public support for efforts to build up the police force there—not unlike we did in Iraq. But by putting the blame on the Afghans, it also could buy Obama some patience with the public on another troop surge—again, not unlike Iraq. One thing is for sure: this public back-and-forth, particularly the dissent we’ve been hearing at the top levels of the White House, probably isn’t helping the administration build public confidence in whatever decision Obama ultimately makes.
Advertisement
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: thehappyamerican (September 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM)

About Iraq, Obama and Hillary gave  bush grief only over NO ANNOUNCED DATE to withdraw from Iraq-- and Bush was not going to announce the time table. The reason is, that information could be used by the enemy. The lives of our military are at stake.

  But Obama and Hillary didn't  care about that then, OR NOW.

  The reluctance of Bush or any Republican to publicly announce military time tables was exploited by the DNC-- that is;American public was exploited--so as to make Bush and McCain seeming to hold a CONFUSED policy.And with the news medias help.

   To round out the illusion for the American public, Obama spewed forth what should have been a wizer course of action; Invading Afgahnistan much more forcefully to get  Bin Laden.

  (Oh...see...how much "smarter  candidate Obama is than Bush).

   Now that the JUNIOR SENATOR is  the Commander in Chief and responsible for the lives of our military people in harms way SUDDENLY the story changes! Having shot his mouth off like a street punk he looks street punk STUPID if he don't withdraw from Iraq--- but now he can't quite figure out what to do about Afgahnistan!

  Now the Junior Senator with the mystery past is doing the street punk FAST GET AWAY and won't decide yet about what to do...but he'll be on TV a lot!

  His plans for our economy and health care are going to be AS street punk boast but in the end, he'll beat feet . Innocent of all the problems he caused!

  Obama  is incompetence in action!

Report Abuse
Posted By: Political Pluralism (September 25, 2009 at 4:50 PM)

check out politicalpluralism.com current events, blogs, videos, polls. subscribe and support

Report Abuse
Posted By: JJJL110 (September 25, 2009 at 12:16 PM)

You don't need a large technologically advanced military to defeat the United States anymore. All you need is patience. We are an impatient people who want things solved quickly. I'm sure the leaders of Al Qaeda have studied the lessons of Vietnam where the war dragged on for 10 years. The longer the war lasts, the smaller the support for the war even though Afghanistan is where the 9/11 terrorists were recruited and trained. If we leave before the Afghan government is secure and Al Qaeda is defeated, we will only pay a heavy price in the future. I'm not a war monger by any stretch of the imagination, but the terrorists have already demonstrated they can cause mass destruction and death on our shores with just a few people. We need to  stop them now and in that part of the world.

Report Abuse
Show All Comments (10) »