« | »

Obama Needs Privacy For Afghan Decision

From the always protective Associated Press:

Clinton, Gates say US goals steady in Afghanistan

By Anne Gearan, AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s top defense and diplomacy advisers said the United States retains the Afghanistan war goal that he outlined just two months into his presidency — to sideline al-Qaida — but changing circumstances require a reassessment of how to get there.

A "snap decision" on whether to add more U.S troops would be counterproductive, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

Whatever the president decides, the military will salute, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

"It’s important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added

Gates appealed Monday for calm amid the intense administration debate over the flagging war, and for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision. Gates’ remarks stood as an implicit rebuke of the man he helped install as the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for lobbying in public for additional troops Obama may decide to forgo.

In two separate appearances Monday, Gates made the point that Obama needs elbow room to make strategy decisions about the war — as the internal White House debate goes increasingly public.

"It is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right," Gates said at an Army conference. "In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."

Later, speaking alongside Clinton in an interview taped for CNN, Gates praised McChrystal and said no matter what Obama decides the general will execute it faithfully.

Gates has not said whether he supports McChrystal’s recommendation to expand the number of U.S. forces by as much as nearly 60 percent. He is holding that request in his desk drawer while Obama sorts through competing recommendations and theories from some of his most trusted advisers.

During the CNN session, Gates said, "Because of our inability and the inability, frankly, of our allies to put enough troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now."

At issue is whether U.S. forces should continue to focus on fighting the Taliban and securing the Afghan population or shift to more narrowly targeting, with unmanned spy drones and covert operations, al-Qaida terrorists believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

Gates and some other advisers appear to favor a middle path. A hybrid strategy could preserve the essential outline of an Afghan counterinsurgency campaign that McChrystal rebuilt this summer from the disarray of nearly eight years of undermanned combat, while expanding the hunt for al-Qaida next door.

The top three U.S. military officials overseeing the war in Afghanistan favor continuing the current fight against the Taliban, and have concluded they need tens of thousands more U.S. troops beyond the 68,000 already there.

Officials across the Obama administration have acknowledged that the Taliban is far stronger now than in recent years, as underscored by the U.S. deaths in Nuristan province…

What a truly bizarre and troubling series of comments, even for this administration.

President Barack Obama’s top defense and diplomacy advisers said the United States retains the Afghanistan war goal that he outlined just two months into his presidency — to sideline al-Qaida…

Is this really our goal? To “sideline” them? So that they are a constant nuisance for the rest of time?

"It’s important that at the end of the day that the president makes a decision that he believes in," Clinton added.

Oh, well as longs at Mr. Obama makes a decision he believes in. It doesn’t matter whether it is right or wrong.

After all, given his vast experience with the military and the world in general, we have to trust his judgment.

Gates appealed Monday for calm amid the intense administration debate over the flagging war, and for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision.

Why should this debate be private?

Was Mr. Bush allowed to decide what to do in the war in Iraq in private? Did Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton and other prominent politicians hold their tongues about such vital strategic decisions as “the surge”?

Of course he wasn’t.

The Democrats and their lickspittle slaveys in the media did everything in their power to bludgeon him into making the wrong decision.

Besides, isn’t this a representative republic? Aren’t such important issues of national defense supposed to get a public airing?

Doesn’t Mr. Obama pretend to encourage public debate on all subjects. (Except for healthcare and any of his other pet issues, of course.)

Gates has not said whether he supports McChrystal’s recommendation to expand the number of U.S. forces by as much as nearly 60 percent. He is holding that request in his desk drawer while Obama sorts through competing recommendations and theories from some of his most trusted advisers.

So Mr. Obama still has not seen Gen. McChrstal’s recommendation? Is Mr. Gates waiting for a "competing recommendation" that will be more to Mr. Obama’s liking?

Gates said, "Because of our inability and the inability, frankly, of our allies to put enough troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now."

Never mind that Democrats control the White House and the Congress. Never mind that it was due to their insistence that we involved our “allies.”

Never mind that Mr. Obama has failed to get them to do anything significant to help the cause.

A hybrid strategy could preserve the essential outline of an Afghan counterinsurgency campaign that McChrystal rebuilt this summer from the disarray of nearly eight years of undermanned combat…

Never mind that things were going pretty well in Afghanistan until just a few months ago. It’s all Bush’s fault, naturally.

Meanwhile, the AP buries this minor point in the third to last paragraph of the article:

The top three U.S. military officials overseeing the war in Afghanistan favor continuing the current fight against the Taliban, and have concluded they need tens of thousands more U.S. troops beyond the 68,000 already there.

Who cares what these tyros think?

We need Mr. Obama to make a decision he believes in.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

23 Responses to “Obama Needs Privacy For Afghan Decision”

  1. P. Aaron says:

    Maybe Obama will appoint another CZAR to sideline al Qaeda.

  2. Helena says:

    Now look, let’s get this straight. Obama makes special trips to Europe to lobby for CHICAGO. Not to lobby for TROOPS for Afghanistan. I hope we don’t need to go over this again. Priorities are priorities.

  3. jrmcdonald says:

    Obama will cut & run. The left has been floating stories about how the Afgan government is corrupt and cheated on the election. There will be a few more stories, and perhaps an ‘incident’ where a ‘top Afgan official’ was taking drug money selling out his own people.

    • proreason says:

      That’s why I support getting our guys out of there.

      It would be different if we has somebody with a brain instead of a libwit litmus strip in the White House.

      There is NO chance of success with this fool in charge. None whatsover.

      Even if we had a president who wanted the best for his country, a good outcome in Afghanistan would be hugely challenging.

      With the Moron it is impossible.

  4. MinnesotaRush says:

    There’s a few comments and thoughts I’d like to share with this Trojan Horse .. in private .. concerning his absolute and utter failure in supporting our troops!

    And my best guess is that there’d be several folks anxious to get in that line as well …

  5. Confucius says:

    I’m starting to dislike this Gates fellow.

    • 11ten1775 says:

      Me, too. But I’m starting to like McChrystal a lot more. I think he figured out that they didn’t bring in a new guy to win the war. They brought him in so they could let the thing tank and hang it all around his neck. Obama could make the left happy by losing and still walk away with his hands clean.
      But McChrystal wrecked that by going public, and now they’re whining about privacy.
      If Petraeus had gone public against Bush, he would have been a hero.
      But, of course, the rules have changed.

  6. BigOil says:

    Shhh. Don’t bother Barry – his teleprompter is thinking.

  7. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “A “snap decision” on whether to add more U.S troops would be counterproductive, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.”

    Wish that was the consensus with bank bailouts, auto bailouts and so on. But then, they needed to do that immediately. Not so with US soldiers’ lives in the balance. Take all the time you need, Barry; They’re not going anywhere.

  8. Reality Bytes says:

    “Uh, thatz Right… Total transparancy…uh, uh, In Secret..uh, uh, uhm, To Protect The Innocent! Yeah, that’s it!”

    “That’s pretty cool Bill. I came up with that one myself!”

    I’m Barack OH – BAma & I uh, uhm, er, I uh… I can’t hear myself. I’ve, uh, er, uhm.

  9. GL0120 says:

    Privacy, just him, his Blackberry, and George Soros.

  10. robnoak says:

    The failure of generals and commander’s in chief to engage in war in all its ugly reality is why we are here at this moronic juncture. Our country with all its tools and weaponry and marvelous soldiers chooses daily to hamstring itself in politics and in so doing, chooses to lose. War is not a negotiation. War is to win or lose. There is no middle ground where you should ask your enemy for permission to wage war. If you have an enemy and that enemy has “called you out”, if you go, you damn well better intend to win. Anything less is a waste of your resources. For the public to tolerate anything less than a win after sending up its best and brightest assets is inexcusable.

  11. canary says:

    It’s never been a private issue, and Obama knew General McChrystal was giving that speech the day he flew him to meet him in Copenhagen, so Obama could get away with taking Air Force One. And Obama had photo’s taken of the 25 minute meeting of Air Force One, so if Obama’s
    production company can listen in, what’s the secret?
    I guess Obama wanted the meeting photo’d for his scrap-book, or proof that he made a business trip out of the Olympic b.s.

    Wonder what Chicago is going to do with all that Olympic 2013 memorabilia they already paid for.

  12. Warmonger Infidel says:

    Long time since my last post but I need your help here. My grandson was involved in the “firefight” in Nuristan province where we lost 8 more Warrior Heroes. No matter what Obama is thinking or how inept he obviously is, or how corrupt the rest of his administration obviously is, we have boots on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq. People like us need to hold the line for the Generals who are supposed to be running the war and who know the situation and what is needed on the ground.

    What I’m asking is that everyone here and on a few other blogs I read and post to flood the WH with emails/letters/phone calls demanding Obama support the needs and requests of his Generals in support of our troops on the ground. More that one administration got off easy in Vietnam because communication with them wasn’t as easy or instant as it is now. Let’s not let Obama and his band of idiots off easy this time. Demand decisions that will result in a positive outcome or a decision to pull out now if that isn’t the ultimate goal. Our Warriors deserve nothing less.

    Thanks for any support you can give in this endeavor.

    WI

  13. JaneLovesJesus says:

    Canary: It’s on Ebay!
    Glo120: I’m with you!

  14. canary says:

    Obama’s #1 priority is aiding the terrorists that are worse than any horror, monster, science fiction movie every made. Obama has empathy for these satanic and demon possessed animals. The apple doesn’t fall far from the cart.

  15. catie says:

    Obama does not support the troops. His lip service is just that, lip service.

  16. Liberals Demise says:

    DingleBarry can get alllllllll the privacy he needs behind the wall of transparency he says he has!

  17. Rusty Shackleford says:

    It’s like this, whenever I hear this “president” get asked a question about something, and his answer is, “Look, I have a lot more important things to worry about right now”, it’s a diversionary statement on the face of it, but it’s also an indicator of something more troubling.

    First, he’s belittling the question and the person who asked it. It’s a common attribute among narcissists like him. He’s actually saying “You really have the gall to ask me that, you little snert?”

    Second, it’s deflecting the responsibility of whatever the subject is about. Either he hasn’t got an answer or truly, he doesn’t care about the subject at hand. But most importantly, he is largely unable to fashion a cohesive thought into words about same.

    When he was doing other things and was asked about running GM, he said, “Hey guys, I have a lot more to worry about than running a car company…”

    And he used Afghanistan to excuse himself from that subject matter. Now…with Afghanistan more of an “up-front” issue, he deflects it by claiming the need for “privacy”.

    Every day that passes my ire and hatred for this man grows.

  18. pdsand says:

    Obama made public the memos Bush’s justice department lawyers wrote giving him legal advice, so why does Obama get privacy in this moment? I thought the basic media agenda for the last 60 years has been to make sure everything that goes on in the defense department is public knowledge. In this case I would almost even call Gen McChrystal a whistleblower.

  19. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “…so why does Obama get privacy in this moment?”

    It’s all part of that “transparency” thing he talks about. Not exactly sure how it works ‘cuz he hasn’t told us yet. But I looked it up in the Baracktionary (new word, just made it up) and it says, transparency – noun – The art of closing all doors, windows and method of communicating with concerned individuals who want to know what you’re up to, so that you can tell them what you did, instead of having them watch.

    The Baracktionary is a handy tool for us unlearn-ed, unwashed and ignorant conservatives but in its preamble, it says, “In most cases, if not all, the reader is advised to look up the antonym for any/all words used by Obama, thus speeding the process of finding its actual meaning. However, many words like “friend”, “environment”, “care”, “intention” and so on have several meanings and thus, the reader must also consult a calendar, the weather, time-of-day and an expensive medium in order to get its precise meaning for that instant. And even that will be incorrect as time passes.”


« Front Page | To Top
« | »