Official: Obama to Send Enough Troops to Keep Al Qaeda at Bay

Aleenik

Deity
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
2,203
Location
France
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/08/obama-war-council-focuses-al-qaeda/

Keep Al Qaeda at bay? Not planning on sending the 40,000 requested by your top commanders? Do we want to just keep Al Qaeda at bay Obama? I'd assume we would want to destroy Al Qaeda as best as we can right? O and a huge WTH from this article...Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future. Wow...just wow.

Obama how can you say such? The Taliban are a...wait for it....this might surprise Obama I know as he seems to have forgotten?...wait for it its coming....RUTHLESS, OPPRESSIVE, MURDERING, TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. The Taliban have no place in the political future of Afghanistan or Afghanistan at all, from my point of view.

I honestly hope the official talking about these plans was daydreaming and didn't know what he was saying.


ARTICLE
The official also added that President Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what the president said in March.

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep Al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.

The official also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.

The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president's discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.

Aides say the president's final decision on Afghanistan strategy and troop levels is still at least two weeks away, but the emerging thinking suggests he would be unlikely to favor a large military ramp-up of the kind being advocated by his top commander in Afghanistan.

Recognizing the U.S. can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation, Obama's war council is weighing a new role for Pakistan in the 8-year-old struggle in the region.

Obama's national security team marked the war's eighth anniversary on Wednesday with a three-hour session in a secure room in the White House basement. The focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of Usama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president's leanings.

Members of the president's national security team argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S., officials told The New York Times. It was unclear if everyone in the war council accepted the premise.

Obama and some of his key aides are increasingly pointing to recent successes against Al Qaeda through targeted missile strikes and raids in Pakistan but also in Somalia and elsewhere. Obama said Tuesday that Al Qaeda has "lost operational capacity" as a result.

Vice President Biden has argued against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, saying Pakistan poses the greater threat, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both warned that the Taliban and Al Qaeda remain connected. If the Taliban were to regain control of large parts of Afghanistan, the country could serve as a sanctuary for Al Qaeda fighters, the have advisors said.

A State Department spokesman said Thursday that Clinton believes the Taliban and Al Qaeda are both a threat and the U.S. is fighting the whole idea of killing in the name of religious extremism.

In Pakistan, though, the government has shown new willingness to battle extremists, with most believed to be operating from the largely ungoverned terrain along the border with Afghanistan. But these operations, as well as the strikes by unmanned U.S. aircraft, continue to stoke controversy throughout the country, causing problems for the already weak U.S.-backed civilian government.

Obama planned sessions Thursday with Biden and Clinton in the Oval Office to continue the intense discussion about the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. The White House scheduled another, larger war council session -- a fifth of five announced -- for Friday, when the focus may finally shift to just how many additional troops would be needed to execute Obama's vision for a war he inherited but now must execute.

The White House revealed that Obama has in hand -- and has for nearly a week -- the troop request prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to -- McChrystal's strong preference -- as many as 40,000.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama asked for McChrystal's request last week before he flew to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid to host the Olympics and meet with the general on the sidelines. The numbers could become the focus of concentrated White House attention as soon as Friday, Gibbs said.

While Gibbs had said previously that Obama didn't want to see the request until he had determined the strategy, aides said the president decided it had simply become absurd to wait to read it given the high-profile debate.

McChrystal's recommended approach calls for additional troops in Afghanistan for a counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban, build up the central government and deny Al Qaeda a haven. McChrystal, whose plan is somewhat reminiscent of President George W. Bush's Iraq troop surge in 2008, says extra troops -- preferably at the higher end of his option range -- are crucial to turn around a war that will probably be won or lost over the next 12 months.

On roughly the opposite end of the spectrum, an alternative favored most prominently by Biden would keep the American force in Afghanistan around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 extra troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but increase the use of surgical strikes with unmanned Predator drones and special forces.

Shrinking the number of troops in Afghanistan and turning the effort into a narrow counterterror campaign is not on the table, officials say, and neither is drastically ballooning the footprint.

In weighing whether to follow McChrystal or Biden or land somewhere in between, Obama faces a stern test and difficult politics.

Many lawmakers from his own Democratic Party, aware of rising anti-war sentiment in their ranks and the war protests that have dotted Washington this week, do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.

Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders' calls soon or risk failure.

With this and Americans' dwindling patience in mind, Obama is engaged in a methodical review of how to overhaul the war.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/08/obama-war-council-focuses-al-qaeda/

Keep Al Qaeda at bay? Not planning on sending the 40,000 requested by your top commanders? Do we want to just keep Al Qaeda at bay Obama? I'd assume we would want to destroy Al Qaeda as best as we can right? O and a huge WTH from this article...Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future. Wow...just wow.

Obama how can you say such? The Taliban are a...wait for it....this might surprise Obama I know as he seems to have forgotten?...wait for it its coming....TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. The Taliban are murders and have no place in the political future of Afghanistan from my point of view.

The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, they are the remnants of an oppressive government regime.

I honestly hope the official talking about these plans was daydreaming and didn't know what he was saying.


ARTICLE

Its been known from the start that we could not completely kill The Taliban or Al Queda, we could only hope to cripple them long enough to build institutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan that could keep them permanently repressed.
 
The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, they are the remnants of an oppressive government regime.



Its been known from the start that we could not completely kill The Taliban or Al Queda, we could only hope to cripple them long enough to build institutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan that could keep them permanently repressed.

I know they are not officially considered terrorist, but I don't see how they are not considered that. Either way, they are brutal and oppressive.

I edited it to say RUTHLESS, OPPRESSIVE, MURDERING, TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.
 
Does this mean that old Richards will send more? I hope he does - he of all people should know that you need enough guys on the ground to do any sort of operation
 
I'm not surprised, French Civ Fan. We seem to be bending over backwards to please our enemies, while snubbing our traditional allies. Whether this is intentional or just a lack of understanding, I do not know.
 
Well, since Al-Qa'eda isn't really operating in Afghanistan right now, I guess he's not going to send any more troops.

Cleo
 
I'm not surprised, French Civ Fan. We seem to be bending over backwards to please our enemies, while snubbing our traditional allies. Whether this is intentional or just a lack of understanding, I do not know.
Other than not doing whatever Israel wants who is on this laundry list of "traditional allies" we've snubbed? Not saying you're wrong, probably I'm just not paying that much attention.

sidenote: Sierra Foothills? I was just at Columbia State Park last weekend.
 
I know they are not officially considered terrorist, but I don't see how they are not considered that. Either way, they are brutal and oppressive.

I edited it to say RUTHLESS, OPPRESIVE, MURDERING, TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

So you're just random name-calling then? Wonderful. Boy I'm glad we took the fight to those Communist Talibans!
 
I know they are not officially considered terrorist, but I don't see how they are not considered that. Either way, they are brutal and oppressive.

I edited it to say RUTHLESS, OPPRESIVE, MURDERING, TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

Yes, they are all those things, but if they have some popular support, excluding them in government is undemocratic. And undemocratic in Afghanistan means: forced to fight. If the Taliban wants to give up fighting and work within the government, we should welcome that. Just like Sinn Féin / IRA, that's part of a peace process.
 
Yes, they are all those things, but if they have some popular support, excluding them in government is undemocratic. And undemocratic in Afghanistan means: forced to fight. If the Taliban wants to give up fighting and work within the government, we should welcome that. Just like Sinn Féin / IRA, that's part of a peace process.

Do you really think the Taliban is wanting to give up fighting though? Or its radical ideas? Or their ruthless and oppressiveness? Or its operations in Pakistan and elsewhere? And such?
 
So you're just random name-calling then? Wonderful. Boy I'm glad we took the fight to those Communist Talibans!

I don't care what they are officially called I guess. My point is what they are. They are a ruthless, oppressive, murdering, terrorist supporting organization. They have no place in the government of Afghanistan or Afghanistan at all in my opinion.
 
Indecision.

Welllll, I dont want to send over so many troops that I will be blamed for increased deaths and I dont want to not send any over so that I appear weak.....sooooooo.....




SO much for all that Let's-get-out-of-Iraq-so-we-can-focus-on-afghanistan talk.
 
Ya, If he wants to try and win, I would hope he would send over the requested amount of his top commanders. 40,000 more American troops.
 
I know they are not officially considered terrorist, but I don't see how they are not considered that. Either way, they are brutal and oppressive.

I edited it to say RUTHLESS, OPPRESSIVE, MURDERING, TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

You are aware we are allied with the some "taliban" in Afganistain RIGHT ?
You are aware we are tunring a blind eye to opium production RIGHT ?
You are aware that the US is arming and training them RIGHT ?
 
I'm not surprised, French Civ Fan. We seem to be bending over backwards to please our enemies, while snubbing our traditional allies. Whether this is intentional or just a lack of understanding, I do not know.

Then it's clearly the irony of the ages that our allies are far, far, happier with us than they were a year ago. :)
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/08/obama-war-council-focuses-al-qaeda/

Keep Al Qaeda at bay? Not planning on sending the 40,000 requested by your top commanders? Do we want to just keep Al Qaeda at bay Obama? I'd assume we would want to destroy Al Qaeda as best as we can right? O and a huge WTH from this article...Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future. Wow...just wow.

Obama how can you say such? The Taliban are a...wait for it....this might surprise Obama I know as he seems to have forgotten?...wait for it its coming....RUTHLESS, OPPRESSIVE, MURDERING, TERRORIST SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. The Taliban have no place in the political future of Afghanistan or Afghanistan at all, from my point of view.

I honestly hope the official talking about these plans was daydreaming and didn't know what he was saying.


ARTICLE

OMG!!! he is dealing with evil people just like Reagan's and H.W.'s support of Saddam Hussein
 
Are you saying the US is allied with the Taliban?

Lets just put it this way.

Deals in which the Taliban top up their coffers by demanding as much as 30 per cent of the value of a contract as protection money are rife across the country

“They're not all bad,” Yahn says of the Taliban, drawing a parallel with the conservatism of some American Mormons. “They have their beliefs and maybe they don't want to send their children to school, but if they're not disrupting my project, they are moderate Talibs
 
Well, since Al-Qa'eda isn't really operating in Afghanistan right now, I guess he's not going to send any more troops.

Cleo

Yah, we're fighting the Taliban. If we are willing to accept Taliban involvement in the future of Afghanistan, does that mean the war is over, lol? I'm not sure what the strategy is here... Am I missing something?
 
Back
Top Bottom