SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama Rules Out Afghanistan Troop Cuts
Obama says he has yet to decide on general's request for more troops in Afghanistan, in meeting with congressional leaders
Oct 07, 2009
Barack Obama has ruled out substantially reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan, it emerged today.
But
he has still to decide whether to agree to a request from the head of
US and Nato forces, General Stanley McCrystal, to dramatically increase
the number of soldiers fighting in the eight-year-old conflict.
The
president held a meeting in Washington yesterday with 18 Republican and
Democratic congressional leaders, as he reviews the Afghan war policy.
Politicians emerging from the meeting said Obama seemed to be seeking a
middle ground and that views were divided on the way forward.
Republicans urged Obama to heed his military commander's call for more
troops.
Obama said he was not contemplating reducing troop levels in the near future under any scenario, a number of those at the meeting told the Washington Post.
Attendees
at the closed-door event described tension, with some politicians
reportedly airing concerns that accepting the general's recommendation
would be costly in terms of both money and human life.
"I think a
lot of senators and congressmen need to ask themselves how much money
they are willing to put on the table, for how long and for what
strategy," the Democratic senator John Kerry told the paper.
Congress
must approve any additional resources but much of the president's party
is resisting calls for more combat troops, forcing him to seek support
from Republicans who favour McChrystal's strategy.
Republicans
pressed Obama to order the escalation without delay, leading to a
pointed exchange between the president and John McCain, his Republican
opponent in last year's election, the New York Times reported.
McCain
said time was "not on our side" and stressed "this should not be a
leisurely process", according to several people in the room.
Obama
reportedly replied: "John, I can assure you this won't be leisurely. No
one feels more urgency to get this right than I do."
He sought to play down suspicions of friction with McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Obama said, according to participants. "I put him there to give me a frank assessment."
The
president told the meeting that his decision would be based on what he
thought would be the best way to prevent future attacks on the US and
its allies, an official said.
"He also made it clear that his
decision won't make everybody in the room or the nation happy, but
underscored his commitment to work on a collaborative basis," the
official said.
At the heart of the debate within the Obama administration
is whether it would be best to send more troops to Afghanistan and work
to earn the trust of the Afghan people or to more narrowly focus the
war effort using airstrikes against al-Qaida targets.
The
Republican senator Judd Gregg said there was "no consensus" in the
meeting about what should be done in Afghanistan, and the House of
Representatives speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, spoke of the
"diversity" of opinion in the room.
Last weekend heavy fighting
in eastern Afghanistan left eight US troops dead and Nato forces said
more than 100 militants died. It was the biggest loss of US life in a
single battle since 2001 and added to growing public unease over the
war.
On Monday, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs,
said leaving the war-torn country was not an option. Asked if pulling
out was part of the assessment currently being debated in Washington,
Gibbs replied "no", adding: "That is not something that has ever been
entertained, despite the fact that people still get asked what happens
if we leave Afghanistan. That's not a decision that is on the table to
make."
But it is thought that Obama has deep reservations over
committing to a further surge in troop numbers. McChrystal is
understood to be calling for up to 45,000 additional fighters to help
defeat the Taliban.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Barack Obama has ruled out substantially reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan, it emerged today.
But
he has still to decide whether to agree to a request from the head of
US and Nato forces, General Stanley McCrystal, to dramatically increase
the number of soldiers fighting in the eight-year-old conflict.
The
president held a meeting in Washington yesterday with 18 Republican and
Democratic congressional leaders, as he reviews the Afghan war policy.
Politicians emerging from the meeting said Obama seemed to be seeking a
middle ground and that views were divided on the way forward.
Republicans urged Obama to heed his military commander's call for more
troops.
Obama said he was not contemplating reducing troop levels in the near future under any scenario, a number of those at the meeting told the Washington Post.
Attendees
at the closed-door event described tension, with some politicians
reportedly airing concerns that accepting the general's recommendation
would be costly in terms of both money and human life.
"I think a
lot of senators and congressmen need to ask themselves how much money
they are willing to put on the table, for how long and for what
strategy," the Democratic senator John Kerry told the paper.
Congress
must approve any additional resources but much of the president's party
is resisting calls for more combat troops, forcing him to seek support
from Republicans who favour McChrystal's strategy.
Republicans
pressed Obama to order the escalation without delay, leading to a
pointed exchange between the president and John McCain, his Republican
opponent in last year's election, the New York Times reported.
McCain
said time was "not on our side" and stressed "this should not be a
leisurely process", according to several people in the room.
Obama
reportedly replied: "John, I can assure you this won't be leisurely. No
one feels more urgency to get this right than I do."
He sought to play down suspicions of friction with McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Obama said, according to participants. "I put him there to give me a frank assessment."
The
president told the meeting that his decision would be based on what he
thought would be the best way to prevent future attacks on the US and
its allies, an official said.
"He also made it clear that his
decision won't make everybody in the room or the nation happy, but
underscored his commitment to work on a collaborative basis," the
official said.
At the heart of the debate within the Obama administration
is whether it would be best to send more troops to Afghanistan and work
to earn the trust of the Afghan people or to more narrowly focus the
war effort using airstrikes against al-Qaida targets.
The
Republican senator Judd Gregg said there was "no consensus" in the
meeting about what should be done in Afghanistan, and the House of
Representatives speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, spoke of the
"diversity" of opinion in the room.
Last weekend heavy fighting
in eastern Afghanistan left eight US troops dead and Nato forces said
more than 100 militants died. It was the biggest loss of US life in a
single battle since 2001 and added to growing public unease over the
war.
On Monday, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs,
said leaving the war-torn country was not an option. Asked if pulling
out was part of the assessment currently being debated in Washington,
Gibbs replied "no", adding: "That is not something that has ever been
entertained, despite the fact that people still get asked what happens
if we leave Afghanistan. That's not a decision that is on the table to
make."
But it is thought that Obama has deep reservations over
committing to a further surge in troop numbers. McChrystal is
understood to be calling for up to 45,000 additional fighters to help
defeat the Taliban.
Barack Obama has ruled out substantially reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan, it emerged today.
But
he has still to decide whether to agree to a request from the head of
US and Nato forces, General Stanley McCrystal, to dramatically increase
the number of soldiers fighting in the eight-year-old conflict.
The
president held a meeting in Washington yesterday with 18 Republican and
Democratic congressional leaders, as he reviews the Afghan war policy.
Politicians emerging from the meeting said Obama seemed to be seeking a
middle ground and that views were divided on the way forward.
Republicans urged Obama to heed his military commander's call for more
troops.
Obama said he was not contemplating reducing troop levels in the near future under any scenario, a number of those at the meeting told the Washington Post.
Attendees
at the closed-door event described tension, with some politicians
reportedly airing concerns that accepting the general's recommendation
would be costly in terms of both money and human life.
"I think a
lot of senators and congressmen need to ask themselves how much money
they are willing to put on the table, for how long and for what
strategy," the Democratic senator John Kerry told the paper.
Congress
must approve any additional resources but much of the president's party
is resisting calls for more combat troops, forcing him to seek support
from Republicans who favour McChrystal's strategy.
Republicans
pressed Obama to order the escalation without delay, leading to a
pointed exchange between the president and John McCain, his Republican
opponent in last year's election, the New York Times reported.
McCain
said time was "not on our side" and stressed "this should not be a
leisurely process", according to several people in the room.
Obama
reportedly replied: "John, I can assure you this won't be leisurely. No
one feels more urgency to get this right than I do."
He sought to play down suspicions of friction with McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Obama said, according to participants. "I put him there to give me a frank assessment."
The
president told the meeting that his decision would be based on what he
thought would be the best way to prevent future attacks on the US and
its allies, an official said.
"He also made it clear that his
decision won't make everybody in the room or the nation happy, but
underscored his commitment to work on a collaborative basis," the
official said.
At the heart of the debate within the Obama administration
is whether it would be best to send more troops to Afghanistan and work
to earn the trust of the Afghan people or to more narrowly focus the
war effort using airstrikes against al-Qaida targets.
The
Republican senator Judd Gregg said there was "no consensus" in the
meeting about what should be done in Afghanistan, and the House of
Representatives speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, spoke of the
"diversity" of opinion in the room.
Last weekend heavy fighting
in eastern Afghanistan left eight US troops dead and Nato forces said
more than 100 militants died. It was the biggest loss of US life in a
single battle since 2001 and added to growing public unease over the
war.
On Monday, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs,
said leaving the war-torn country was not an option. Asked if pulling
out was part of the assessment currently being debated in Washington,
Gibbs replied "no", adding: "That is not something that has ever been
entertained, despite the fact that people still get asked what happens
if we leave Afghanistan. That's not a decision that is on the table to
make."
But it is thought that Obama has deep reservations over
committing to a further surge in troop numbers. McChrystal is
understood to be calling for up to 45,000 additional fighters to help
defeat the Taliban.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.