Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Nixed Full Surge After Quizzing Brass
WASHINGTON - 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.
General David McKiernan, Commander for NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Even with an additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, McKiernan, the top US commander there, predicted "a tough year" in 2009 and warned that the situation would not be quickly turned around.
(AFP/Saul Loeb) 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.
The Wall Street Journal quoted an administration official Wednesday as saying that the troop authorization addresses the "urgent near-term security needs on the ground," but "does not prejudge or limit the options of what the [Afghanistan] review may recommend when it's completed."
Obama may have become more wary of getting mired down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, despite his strong commitment to increasing troops to Afghanistan during the campaign.
Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, on whom Obama has reportedly relied for advice on foreign policy, told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post Wednesday, "We have to decide more precisely what is the objective of our involvement. Because we are increasingly running the risk of getting bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan in pursuit of objectives which we are lacking the power to reach."
Brezinzski said the administration needed "very specific, narrow objectives".
Korb told IPS that the policy review will deal with political-diplomatic as well as military policy issues, including the option of seeking to incorporate at least elements of the insurgents into the government through negotiations. He recalled that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been advocating negotiations with the Taliban for two years.
Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.
Johnson's decision, like Obama's, was made against a background of rapid deterioration in the security situation, worry that the war would soon be lost if more U.S. troops were not deployed, and an unresolved debate over how the troops would be employed in South Vietnam. Some of Johnson's advisers still favoured a strategy of protecting the key population centers, whereas the field commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, was calling for a more aggressive strategy of seeking out enemy forces.
Another parallel between the two situations is high-level concern that too many U.S. troops would provoke anti-U.S. sentiment. That was the primary worry of some of Johnson's advisers about the effect of deploying three divisions in South Vietnam.
Similarly, Gates said Dec. 14 he would be "very concerned" about deploying more than the 30,000 troops requested by McKiernan, because, "At a certain point, we get such a big footprint, we begin to look like an occupier." Gates repeated that point in Congressional testimony Jan. 27, in which he again stressed the failure of the Soviet Union with 120,000 troops.
McKiernan, on the other hand, said Wednesday, "There's always an inclination to relate what we're doing with previous nations," he said, adding, "I think that's a very unhealthy comparison."
Johnson was worried about sliding into an open-ended commitment to a war that could not be won. But two months later he gave in, against his better judgment, to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, for "urgent reinforcements". The escalation of the war continued for another two years.
Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month. And if the full 30,000 troop increase proves to be insufficient, he is likely to face further requests later on for "urgent reinforcements."
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
38 Comments so far
Show AllIt is time for the civilian government to regain control of the rapidly escalating military presence both within and outside of this government. We are nearing a military state - evidence all the domestic propaganda by the Pentagon, the recruiting methods, etc. Without renewed civilian oversight, the military will become a threat to the freedom of this country.
I know I will be attacked for making that statement - but I feel it is true. I fought for this country. I served, I volunteered, and I volunteered to stay in a warzone when I could have come home - because I was a young and naive believer. I am a believer no longer.
ODOCO; there will be no attack coming from me. i agree with you 100%. thank you. we all live and learn, unfortunately many did not get the chance to keep on living.
odoco 2:02------- As a Veteran you validate those statements more than anyone else could. -------- Peace --------- Thanks
You're not going to be attacked on this site for these comments, pretty much everyone on here, myself included, agrees with you 100%. Conservatives will attack you however...anything that insults their precious military is seen as unpatriotic, unAmerican, etc. I'm glad you survived your service, and I'm sorry you had to go through that, I can't imagine what it was like.
"anything that insults their precious military..."
Actually he was not so much insulting the military itself but rather commenting on what he views as the excessive creeping militarism in the United States.
I know, but conservatives would consider them the same thing. Anything military related = American and awesome, anything against that in any way = unAmerican to them.
Zmann,
You are absolutely correct in your observation.
Odoco,
No, you will not be attacked for your above comment. Most of our comment contributors on this site would be in full agreement with you.
"because I was a young and naive believer. I am a believer no longer."
Very well stated. Many, if not all, of the veterans who contribute comments here at CD would immediately identify with your experience.
We never had a reason to go to Afghanistan. It was arrogant military ignorance that sent us in the first place -- mere blind assumption, as was our invasion and devastation of Iraq. We seem not to be content with ravaging our own country, but must spread it around -- democratically.
Once again, the framing of Porter's articles on this subject -military build-up – are built on the assumption there is a conflict of interest between Obama and his military brass.
Conjecture is what I can do, not what’s expected from an investigative historian.
Obama pledged to increase the US active duty by 90,000. Nor is the issue about Obama having conflict with the build-up. The issues evident by the provided sources are about only “how much” and “when”.
Why does Porter elude to something different? Does it make a better storyline?
McKiernan will use the troops in a way that will require additional troops instead of using them wisely believing that by so doing Obama will be forced to add more troops. The game plan is to move Petraeus into a dominant position in Afghanistan such that he can claim victory and set himself up to run for President in four yeas. Obama would be wise to establish his strategy for Afghanistan that is grounded in realism given the nature of our economic hardships. If Obama gets crosswise with the American People, suffering from a depression, with unrealistic support of the war in Afghanistan then he can kiss his political career goodbye. I suspect that he is smart enough not to do so.
The article sort of reminded me of a Smothers Brothers program, years ago during the election runup during Vietnam. The straight faced Pat Paulsen was actually a candidate at the time (though rather tongue-in-cheek). He was asked on the show to make a statement as to his policy if elected.
He looked into the camera and said, "Well, now, I don't think we should win in Vietnam, nor do I think we should lose. (pause) I think we should just keep on messing around like we have been."
I fear Pat Paulsen lives, in the Obamanation.
ODOCO,I also agree with you. Now we all must get Mr. Obama to agree nthat he must realize thta his Generals are from the repug. nazi dictatorship of the Bush/Cheney regime. They will keep very active toward making everything humanly possible in making it look bad on the democrats. All the Bush leftovers must go.
I like you extended my second tour in the defence of this country. Of course I was young and dumb.
"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."
Can you imagine Bush letting himself be pressured by the Generals? Liberals lose to conservatives because they are... well, liberal. It's the contradiction of right losing to wrong.
eze 3:10 ------- For me liberal or progressive means lift the meek downtrodden and crush the greedy oppressor. --------- Peace ------- Thanks -------
I agree in part, but liberals don't crush. They hire greedy conservatives to do the crushing and end up getting crushed.
Is war-mongering General David Petreaus playing General Douglas MacArthur to Barack Obama's Harry Truman? Sure looks that way, since, just like MacArthur, he's appealing to the public for support in widening an unpopular war. Which raises the question as to whether President Obama has what it takes (ie. the gonads) to charge General Petreaus with insubordination and terminate his command (General MacArthur's fate under President Truman). If he's capable of this, he'll have the Pentagon back on a leash where, according to our constitution, it's supposed to be. Otherwise, the Pentagon's got him on the leash, and the rest of us, to boot.
I like wars because lots of people die and our economy goes to shit.
Who's in charge? We are, then Obama and then the professional killers. Alot of political generals talking to the press. Are they not supposed to take orders and not promote in the civil arena? Keep the pressure up as you read this we are negotiating with the more moderate Taliban( source Maxine Waters).
This is the FULCRUM MOMENT ------- Peace or endless war.
Look at all the fruit salad on that general's chest. Goodness. You get that for being a "team player". How's it feel to be whipped by a bunch of bandits and religious fanatics from the Dark Ages?
Petraeus is in no danger of being whipped. He is safely in the rear while others take all the risk and do the dying. Maybe he will visit another of the unprotected messhalls he likes to provide for the real troops.
Even though the military/corporate complex rules this country I am hoping that President Obama with ditch them: Here's why---
Obama's Afghanistan thrust, aka Bush II policy, will fail-- The rationale for staying in Afghanistan is wacko-we're there to prevent them from attacking here. How many times have I heard this: From Russia, to China, Korea, to Vietnam, to Nicaragua, and on and on--same old story. Everybody is waiting to attack us--these evildoers will slip a bomb in with their underwear in their luggage and leave it in a Times square bus stop--and BLAM--we're done for.
Enough! No one will attack us--just stop invading and droning their countries.
Obama claims he wants to be friends with the Muslim world and yet sends drones to kill then in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I'm no expert but I can tell you the Obama plan of reinvading Afghanistan is DOA. Just ask the master of foreign armies dying in that country, Rudyard Kipling.
The place is still part of the "Great Game"--countries near and far want a piece of the action--energy routes, geopolitical control. So India fights Pakistan (solve this one and the whole region will quiet down!), the Taliban/Pushtuns fight Russia, USA, Iran. It gets so mixed up.
The place needs a grand bargain--make it neutral like Switzerland, offer a little something to everyone.
But whatever you do, don't send foreign soldiers there!
DR WU; re, kipling, if you can find it. rent the movie [the man who would be king], with sean connery and michael caine.
"What is the end game?" in Afghanistan, and was told, "Frankly, we don't have one,"
don't ferget the exploding cows... yea... yea.. that's it... armour up the indiana summer fair...
WTF?
good comment.
It's nice to have a President who can think for himself---for a change...
the shadows behind the curtain do the thinking, he does the selling.
Obama may be making Peace as we post.
On a different subject ------ A couple of posters claim China has territorial desires beyond Tibet and Taiwan. They are in control of Tibet but seem to have a static peaceful relationship with Taiwan.
China was until recently expanding materially in everyway,so an expanding military would not be unusual.
If a budget almost equal to what the rest of the whole spends does not ipso facto make the USA an agressor nation, then a smaller Chinese budget would also not ipso facto make China an aggressor nation ( other than Tibet).
China's policy,I believe is to economically dominate an area, like Africa, and not waste money deploying troops abroad.
I would assume China would like to acheive a remote
parity to the USA and Russia for a minimal security.
Re China's territorial desires, beyond Tibet and Taiwan, China also has ongoing territorial disputes with India and Pakistan. And Russia. And with many countries in SE Asia, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines. Note, I'm not saying that China wants to subjugate / conquer all these countries, but it does desire territory beyond what it currently has, beyond just Tibet and Taiwan.
China might not be an aggressor nation, but for example against the SE Asian nations, whether individually or collectively, its military already has a clear superiority.
The relationship with Taiwan is "peaceful" only as long as Taiwan doesn't press the case for being separate from mainland China. And even in its current "peaceful" relationship, Taiwan has to spend a lot of money on its military for defence against the Chinese.
china has told othe asian nations that they can pay their trade debt in their own currencies, not the bretton woods greenback. taiwan is being won over by china without one bullet being fired. partly the result of america being financially toxic.
this is a genuine question, not snark: do the Taiwanese people want to be part of mainland China, or do they want to be separate?
The last time I looked, the majority did not want to be part of mainland China.
As for the other Asian nations, just because they do not have to trade in USD with China doesn't mean the territorial disputes are going away.
RFLOH; i believe that taiwan does want to stay seperate. that does not mean that they can not have a relationship with china. the main thing with taiwan is the shipping lanes. the territorial disputes will go on as you say. the trade situation in asian currencies is interesting, because it shows to me that there might be a move on the greenback as global currency reserve. perhaps there will be a new BRETTON WOODS.
GF; china just gave russia a 25 billion dollar line of credit for future oil shipments. china is on the natural resource, energy, move all over the planet.
So far obama's good and bad moments are still out of whack for me. Here he is cutting the surge but pressure will be applied to ok the full surge amount of 30,000 more troops in afghanistan. If he falls for that, I can't see where his election has made any difference than what w & dick's terms produced. We are still in 2 wars that are sapping the money and morale of this country mostly for a bunch of oil pricks under the guise of the 'war on terror' and indications are beginning to show that obama will continue on down this disastrous path. We need out of both war now, but it is beginning to look as if it would have not made a difference if mccain were elected president.
About everything obama does is done around the periphery to appear that some substantial change will come but it appears more and more likely that as one commentor, odoco, puts it, that we will be turned into a military state shortly.
samo 8:41 --------- USA is leaving Iraq now.
The author writes, "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. (emphasis mine)
Historical comparisons are often dicey propositions, but this one is essentially hallucination bordering on gibberish.
Though the US had advisors early on, it was 1965 when the FIRST american combat troops were committed to Vietnam. Three years later the Tet offensive so thoroughly discredited Johnson that he could not run for re-election. Seven years after the start of combat the US government had fully realized the futility and ultimate defeat it was facing, and spent the next three years trying to devise a face-saving retreat, all to no avail. It finally left in humililation, with its tattered tail tucked between its legs, after murdering millions of Vietnamese civilians and never seriously threatening the communist government.
Compare this to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, which immediately toppled the Taliban government. Now seven years later Afghanistan's leader, President Hamid Karzai still has only marginal control over large swaths of his country, which is rife with warlords, militants, and drug smugglers. Naturally in such a toxic environment, the native Taliban is making a resurgence.
I suppose some sort of an ironic similarity can be drawn in both instances in projecting that in the full course of time, the evil US empire will once again gets its ass kicked by rag tag guerillas. But the glaring difference here is that seven years into the Vietnam debacle, everyone knew the jig was up, and NO MORE TROOPS were being committed.
Thankfully this time around, the death toll for both US forces and Afghan civilians is far far less than it was in Vietnam.
ZMANN; sorry to tell you this, but this nightmare has just begun.
Obama shouldn't have approved any troops and should bring them all home immediately, from Iraq and everywhere else.