Washington Extra – Fighting words
When President Barack Obama announced the 30,000 U.S. troop surge for Afghanistan in December 2009, he said: “It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.”
Obama, president for less than a year, said those words at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He was still trying to prove that he had what it took to be commander-in-chief.
A year-and-a-half later, it is now a different setting. Obama will announce his plan to start bringing troops home from Afghanistan at the White House, having proven his mettle when he gave the go-ahead for the daring and risky operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
He is also a declared candidate for re-election facing a public most concerned about the economy and quite tired of war.
Watch to see whether tonight’s speech will take on a campaign tone or frame the decision as a result of victory. It may be neither. We’ll see at 8 p.m.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
The First Draft: Poll shows growing U.S. support for Afghan troop increase
If President Barack Obama opts to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan next week, the decision could be underscored by something a bit unusual for his policies: growing U.S. public support. Polling data have shown for a while now that most Americans don’t favor many of Obama’s policy positions, despite his enduring personal popularity. A USA Today/Gallup poll depicts Obama battling headwinds on a number of fronts: Americans oppose the closing of Gitmo by more than a 2-to-1 margin; those against healthcare reform edge out those in favor by 5 percentage points; and most don’t want accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in civilian court in New York City. Afghanistan is no cakewalk, either. Public opinion is divided over the question of more troops and 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the war up to now — a reversal of his 56 percent approval rating four months ago. But the polling data, compiled Nov. 20-22, might also suggest a silver lining for the president as he nears an announcement that could send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Less than half of Americans — 47 percent — favor a troop increase. But that’s up from 42 percent in a Nov. 5-8 survey. Plus, the opposition is down: 39 percent of Americans now want the president to reduce the U.S. military footprint, vs. 44 percent earlier. What hasn’t changed for Obama is that Republicans, not fellow Democrats, are his best buddies when it comes to increasing troops. Seventy-two percent of Republicans back a bigger U.S. force in Afghanistan, while 57 percent of Democrats say it’s time to start pulling out.
That could be important for Obama’s agenda in Congress as the 2010 election approaches and Democratic incumbents in tight races consider how they might fare with Democratic voters.
The USA Today/Gallup findings are based on telephone interviews with 1,017 adults. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.
Photo credits: Reuters/Jason Reed (Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates); Reuters/Mathieu Belanger (U.S. soldier departs for Afghanistan); Reuters/Lucas Jackson (NYC crowd watches Obama)
Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War. McKinley raised taxes to finance the Spanish-American War. Wilson raised the top income tax rate to 77% to afford WWI. Taxes were raised, multiple times, to help the nation pay for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Even the first President Bush raised taxes after the first war with Iraq to keep the deficit from spiraling out of control. It was simply understood — responsible leaders from both parties realized that wars were expensive, and had to be paid for.What we saw from George W. Bush and Republican lawmakers during his two terms was without precedent in American history — policymakers cut taxes during a war, ran huge deficits, and effectively asked future generations to pay for our current national security agenda. The two current ongoing conflicts have cost $1 trillion and counting. If the Obama administration sends an additional 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it would cost about $30 billion per year over existing spending on the wars.The question I have for our two resident right wing clowns is very straightforward — do they expect future generations to pick up the tab, or do they support higher taxes now to pay for the conflict?
Obama: Not worrying about perceptions on Afghanistan
As President Barack Obama nears a decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, some experts say he should consider the signal his decision will send about his broader commitment to the war, which has grown increasingly unpopular at home.
The White House has been frustrated that its internal deliberations on the Afghanistan strategy have leaked into public view, something that Obama acknowledged on Monday in an interview with Reuters.
But will perceptions of the deliberations affect the decision itself?
In the view of some, Obama might risk sending a signal of a weakening commitment in Afghanistan were he to approve anything short of the 40,000 troop increase requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Obama says concern about such perceptions won’t be a factor for him.
“That’s not how I think about the problem,” he said in the Oval Office interview. “My obligation — my solemn obligation, as commander-in-chief, is to get this right. And then I worry about people’s perceptions later.”
In a separate interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, Obama talked at some length about the factors that will influence his decision-making.
From My Viewpoint, America Needs To Pursue Peace Deals With the Taliban.
Poll: Support up for troop increase in Afghanistan
Public support for sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is on the rise, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Tuesday. The poll finds 47 percent of Americans favor boosting the troop level in Afghanistan, compared to 43 percent who are opposed to the idea.
An NBC/WSJ poll in September found 51 percent opposed to a troop increase, while 44 percent supported it.
Other recent opinion polls have shown lagging public support for the war and members of President Barack Obama’s own Democratic Party are divided over whether to send more troops.
Right now, there are 65,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan as part of a 100,000 strong NATO-led force. The size of the U.S. contingent is expected to reach 68,000 later this year.
Obama is considering whether to send up to 40,000 more troops. His decision is expected any day now. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and other critics say he’s taking too long to reach a decision. Cheney accused Obama of “dithering” over a strategy review and said he needed to send more troops right away.
If the poll is accurate, a majority of Americans don’t mind the time Obama is taking to review the U.S. strategy in the eight-year-old war. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 58 percent of respondents support delaying a decision until after Afghanistan’s runoff presidential election on Nov. 7, when U.S. officials may have a better handle on Kabul’s political situation.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,009 adults was conducted Oct. 22-25 and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
It wouldn’t take much for the Taliban to drive the poll numbers down. A few more suicide attacks on US troops, a few more body bags coming back home and the support will all the way down. Can USA takes damage without a public outcry?
The First Draft: Kerry reports in after Kabul visit
Senator John Kerry, who once aspired to host meetings in the Oval Office, will be visiting President Barack Obama in that room Wednesday to talk about his recent trip to Afghanistan.
Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was credited with playing a key role in convincing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to agree to a second round of voting in a disputed national election.
A picture of him whispering into Karzai’s ear on Tuesday was splashed across the major U.S. newspapers on Wednesday and news programs gave detailed reports on Kerry’s behind-the-scenes shuttle diplomacy.
ABC news said over the last five days in Afghanistan, Kerry acted more like a secretary of state than a senator as he played a central role in brokering the agreement with Karzai and his main rival Abdullah Abdullah.
In Kabul on Tuesday after hours of talks with Karzai, Kerry said the Nov. 7 run-off would be difficult and made a point to praise the Afghan leader for endorsing the vote.
Now Kerry has a chance to give advice and his impressions to Obama, who has been meeting with his war council to make a decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama administration officials have stressed that a credible and legitimate government in Kabul is essential for Washington to be able to succeed in Afghanistan.
A new Washington Post-ABC News public opinion poll showed that Americans are evenly and deeply divided over whether Obama should send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as requested by his top military commander there.
kerry has always shown a remarkable ability to shoot himself in the foot,even if he did not always get a purple heart for the effort,but nominating Edwards as his running mate seems to right up to his standards.
Plan B for Afghanistan: cut and run?
In Monday’s blog, I looked at McChrystal’s recommendation for a significantly stepped up effort to stabilize Afghanistan, and a major shift in strategy to win over the Afghan people.
But many people, including influential actors within the administration and several readers who left comments on Monday, are advocating a different approach: pull out, and leave Afghans to their own devices. This blog looks at Plan B.
——-
“The Russians were in Afghanistan for 10 years. The Americans have been here for seven, and we will send them home in just three more years”.
That was how Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban’s former ambassador to Pakistan, described the movement’s message to the Afghan people when I met him in a drafty and bare Kabul room in March.
Zaeef, who was imprisoned for years in Bagram and Guantanamo, says he is no longer a member of the Taliban but is now acting as a mediator between its leadership and the Afghan government.
But his comments underline one of the West’s biggest problems in trying to regain the momentum in Afghanistan.
It’s not a question of ‘cutting and running’, it’s a question of quickly withdrawing like gentle-people from something that is very far removed from most realities known to the rest of the World, while negotiating optimum oil prices for the future. Shock and awe simply fuels more hatred.
An honest assessment of Afghan mistakes, but what is next?
It is encouraging that the U.S. administration finally seems to be getting a handle on what went wrong in Afghanistan these past eight years.
What is less encouraging is the fact there seems little political appetite around the globe to fix the mess.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s report is a stark and honest assessment of the war in Afghanistan.
A failure to send more troops within the next year and regain the initiative “will likely result in failure,” he said.
Everyone knows that time is running out to get Afganistan right, with political support eroding fast in the West but the Taliban dug in for the long haul and getting stronger all the time.
McChrystal is also right in saying that more troops and more resources are not enough in themselves, and pointing out many of the errors of the past eight years.
Among them:
We can’t win in afganistan, so we should get out and take our 100,000 “contractors” with us
Who’s not for funding U.S. troops?
Usually congressional debates over funding U.S. troops are fights where lawmakers try to best each other praising them and throwing as much money as possible at them for fear of appearing less patriotic than someone else.
But Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives are girding for an all-out brawl over a roughly $95 billion bill to fund the troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq — but not because of that money but rather because of provisions to shore up the International Monetary Fund.
While most in Washington know what the IMF is, many Americans do not. It provides loans to governments around the world trying to weather financial crises and get their economies back on track.
President Barack Obama asked Congress to bless his plan for extending a $100 billion line of credit to the IMF amid the global economic meltdown, boost the U.S. membership contribution by $8 billion and endorse the IMF’s plan to sell 400 tons of gold.
Republicans argue that it is unrelated to funding the U. S. troops and should be considered on its own merits, instead of being tucked into the money bill at the last minute by Democrats who control both the House and Senate.
“I will oppose this legislation if it is loaded up with billions in spending that is unrelated to our military’s core mission of protecting our nation and our interests,” said Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, a sign that most Republicans could oppose the bill.
And, just who is going to purchase all that gold? I quite
agree regarding the funding of the troops. No matter where
they are, they must receive funding. Americans owe them
that much.
