Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


CBS: Obama to give McChrystal almost all the troops he asked for

posted at 7:40 pm on November 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Technically, McChrystal had asked for 80,000 troops but that was apparently a “throwaway” number that he never expected to get and wasn’t even the option he himself recommended. What he recommended was 40,000. And he’s going to get something close to that. (McClatchy reported yesterday that the magic number is 34,000.) This is the prudent thing to do, both strategically and politically. Strategically, it’s simply too risky to follow Biden’s counterterror approach by ceding parts of the country to the Taliban and trusting them not to host AQ; if that bet turns out badly, you’re left with an even more dire situation internally and no public will whatsoever to send more troops to deal with it. Politically, an untested president can’t afford not to show some muscle in his first big wartime test, especially if he’s a liberal and especially if he spent the better part of, oh, 18 months explaining why Afghanistan is a must-win. If he pulled out completely, the GOP would destroy him for it. If he sent a token presence, not enough to win but enough to “lose with dignity,” he’d have to explain how that’s worth hundreds or thousands more casualties. And he wouldn’t be able to.

Long story short, it’s good news. But:

The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.

Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute says a slow motion surge will produce slow motion results.

“If they’re going to be sort of trickled in very slowly over the course of a year than it’s unlikely to have a very decisive impact in the course of 2010,” he said.

If it’s a question of freeing up enough troops to rotate them in more quickly, The One has plenty of political cover to accelerate withdrawal in Iraq thanks to the “thrilling breakthrough” in the Iraqi parliament to pass the country’s election law. I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do — on the contrary, if Obama’s going slow on pulling out there because he doesn’t want to destabilize the country so soon after those mega-attacks in Baghdad, then more power to him — but that might warrant a new review now too. I don’t know if he’d get majority support among conservatives for doing that, but if he sold it as part of his plan to get those troops to McChrystal, where they’re most needed, the opposition at least would be muted. Something to watch for.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Adding 3,000 troops per month over a year seems a very odd “surge.”

Loxodonta on November 9, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Are they not going there to spread out and live among the people and protect them from the Taliban? With an ROE that precludes offensive operations? Which is fine because they will be busy building girls schools and meeting the desires of old Muslim men.

Yeah, sounds like a plan for victory. What are the crowd control contingencies if the Talibs all surrender on the same day?

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2009 at 8:32 PM

I’ll believe it when I see it.

This guy is a long-winded prevaricator…

gaius on November 9, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Then explain why “racist” jumped into your head before anything else when reading my post, because I never mentioned Ogabe’s race, religion or anything else.

Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 8:20 PM

I suggest this creampuff should stay at Kos or Huffpaint if he’s gonna get hysterical over right-wingers having a little fun with the president’s name. Heck, he tried biting my head off for suggesting a year-long slow surge will mobilize the enemy. Who the hell can’t see that one?

RepubChica on November 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM

I go with Fred Kagan

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Suit yourself, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 8:34 PM

I don’t see how Obama could avoid sending troops to deal with Muslim terrorists so soon after another Muslim terrorist attack on our country and this time specifically against our military.

Guardian on November 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Bush kept us safe from terrorist attacks for 8 years. Obama’s administration enabled muslims to kill Americans in just a few short months.

Guardian on November 9, 2009 at 8:39 PM

I know it wasn’t sarcasm. Intellectual honesty is great for debate class. In the real world, giving even an inch to the enemy is the wrong strategy IMO.

Kos/HuffPo/DU fight dirty. They lie, cheat, steal, bite, kick. And they get results.

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM

And they treat their readers like children who can’t be trusted to make the ‘right’ decision unless their news is properly shaped.

The GOP can fight dirty. Their job is to win elections.

I want information. All of it. One of the reasons the Legacy Media is dying is because every day a few more people realize that they’re looking at the news through a filter. I’m glad HotAir doesn’t operate like that. I don’t really get what the argument here is.

BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:39 PM

And we’re way off topic here. Sorry for derailing the thread.

BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM

I don’t see how Obama could avoid sending troops to deal with Muslim terrorists so soon after another Muslim terrorist attack on our country and this time specifically against our military.

Guardian on November 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Very good point…. last week he was “weeks away” from making a decision…

But now we have a Moslem Attack on American soil… suddenly the trial balloon goes out about these troops…

I question the timing…

Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.

ted c on November 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM

The rules murdering our troops:

When enemy action kills our troops, it’s unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it’s unforgivable.

In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.

Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:

* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they’re denied artillery or air support.

* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to “break contact” — to retreat.

MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Finally some good news.

Chuck Schick on November 9, 2009 at 8:44 PM

What we have here is the General involved in a great social experiment, with the plains of Afghanistan as his personal laboratory and our Marines and Soldiers as the rats. History is not on your side General and you are losing time and the support of the only segment of the population of this country who would normally support your efforts.

Admiral Mullen said in a letter to Senators Collins and Snowe (meant for me) that the ROE had not in fact changed with the ISAF Commander back in June 2009; The Rules of Engagement had only been ‘clarified’. Ganjgal is but one example of how that ‘clarification’ is being brought into question. The current investigation, if not buried by the Army, ISAF, SecDef or higher, is going to yield what we already know; that the rules are intentionally vague to offer maximum cover for those who have implemented them while exposing the decision makers on the ground and all at the expense of those prosecuting the war, O-5 and below. It is already painfully obvious to all, especially those on the ground, that before June we were blowing crap up and providing Air and Arty when needed and now; American lives are inferior to Afghan by our own rules and the UN has prosecutors in Kabul, gleaning after-action-reports looking for evidence they can use to prosecute Marines
and Soldiers.

What General McChrystal, Sec Def Gates and President Obama need to remember is that they are sworn by oath to defend this country and our people – not protect the civilian population of another country or rebuild their country with our tax dollars and the blood of our children!
- John Bernard

MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 8:45 PM

I still don’t get it.

If General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops, why not just give him 40,000 troops? Why split the difference on 6,000 or so troops?

Mike Honcho on November 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Bush kept us safe from terrorist attacks for 8 years. Obama’s administration enabled muslims to kill Americans in just a few short months.

Guardian on November 9, 2009 at 8:39 PM

not quite true….

3/19/2002 USA Tuscon, AZ 1 0 A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.
5/27/2002 USA Denton, TX 1 0 Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.
7/4/2002 USA Los Angeles, CA 2 0 Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.
9/5/2002 USA Clinton, MD 1 0 A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.
9/21/2002 USA Montgomery, AL 1 1 Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.
9/23/2002 USA Baton Rouge, LA 1 0 A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.
10/2/2002 USA Wheaton, MD 1 0 Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.
10/3/2002 USA Montgomery County, MD 5 0 Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.
10/9/2002 USA Manassas, VA 1 1 A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.
10/11/2002 USA Fredericksburg, VA 1 0 Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.
10/14/2002 USA Arlington, VA 1 0 A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.
10/22/2002 USA Aspen Hill, MD 1 0 A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.
8/6/2003 USA Houston, TX 1 0 After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4″ butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.
12/2/2003 USA Chicago, IL 1 0 A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.
4/13/2004 USA Raleigh, NC 1 4 A Muslim man runs down five strangers with a car.
4/15/2004 USA Scottsville, NY 1 2 In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
6/16/2006 USA Baltimore, MD 1 0 A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.
6/25/2006 USA Denver, CO 1 5 Saying that it was ‘Allah’s choice’, a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.
7/28/2006 USA Seattle, WA 1 5 An ‘angry’ Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.
10/6/2006 USA Louisville, KY 4 1 In an ‘honor’ attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.
2/13/2007 USA Salt Lake City, UT 5 4 A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine’s Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.
1/1/2008 USA Irving, TX 2 0 A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their ‘Western’ lifestyle.
7/6/2008 USA Jonesboro, GA 1 0 A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
2/12/2009 USA Buffalo, NY 1 0 The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.
6/1/2009 USA Little Rock, AR 1 1 A Muslim with ‘religious motives’ shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center.
11/2/2009 USA Glendale, AZ 1 1 A woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too ‘Westernized.’ (10-20-09)
11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX 13 31 A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Sorry. I forgot to cut off the kill list at nov 08.

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Broken clock.

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Nope. Post Turtle.

MikeA on November 9, 2009 at 8:55 PM

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Curious: Do you have links for those? It’s an impressive list, but I would never be able to reference it for others without some sort of documentation.

notropis on November 9, 2009 at 8:58 PM

My guess is that McChrystal is getting exactly what he wants. Many times as head counts go, the supporting member’s numbers are left out or reduced for reasons unknown. 4 Brigades would require a very large support effort. If they send in 4 Brigades they’ll have 50,000 in theater from that surge, counting support.

Griz on November 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM

What is truly disgusting is that Obama sat on the request for months in order to push his takeover of our health care through Congress.

He knew from the very beginning that he was going to commit more troops and didn’t want to risk pissing off the left wing who is for pulling out. That may have put their votes in jeopardy in the house before the vote.

The result, was he let the General and our military twist in the wind for 3 months while he played politics at home.

Disgusting.

tatersalad on November 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM

notropis on November 9, 2009 at 8:58 PM

HERE you go.

MikeA on November 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM

I will believe that when its done and not until. The man is a bona fide liar aided by the dumbest cowardly media in the world.

bluegrass on November 9, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Can’t argue with the fact that the president is a liar. And the media is cowardly. And the House Speaker is a moron. The Senate is ripe with corruption. The VP is an ignorant bloviating fool.

Griz on November 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM

If he didn’t dither so long, Barry could have a good number of these additional troops over there before the mountain passes start thawing next spring.

Christien on November 9, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Wow. Someone is spinning 34k as appropriate. Un-effing-believable.

tuffy on November 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM

If General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops, why not just give him 40,000 troops? Why split the difference on 6,000 or so troops?

Mike Honcho on November 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM

A real CinC, when 40K troops is proposed by his hand-picked general, would ask what if we did 80K. Better or worse?

Then you give him what he asked for, but with him knowing that you don’t wish to merely sustain a situation but to overwhelm the enemy.

Of course, we have what we have, and I guess should be grateful for a minimalst approach.

As, I might add, we were — quite mistakenly — in Nam.

TXUS on November 9, 2009 at 9:26 PM

No, Allah, it is not good news. No surge = stalemate
Time is the enemy and like in Vietnam, the Dems are feeding troops slowly into the propaganda grinder. The anti-war movement will soon be in gear and attrition will wear the American public down. No battles lost, but no war won, and this time the enemy has designs on America.

Randy

williars on November 9, 2009 at 9:29 PM

According to the WH security advisor, via my local ABC affiliate, this is a false report.

salmonczar on November 9, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Now Barry gets to impress everybody by getting our allies to commit 6,000 additional troops.

/

Christien on November 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM

MikeA on November 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Thanks, that’s at least more detail. I should be able to dig up links to the news reports myself, from that.

notropis on November 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Speaking of military personnel and combat, I’d just like to mention a pair of terrific British mini-series that we just rented from Netflix — series that show the extreme sacrifice and bravery of Allied troops in World War II.

They are “Danger: UXB” which is about a London squad tasked with defusing unexploded German bombs; and “Piece of Cake,” about the RAF (and allies) fighting in the Battle of Britain.

Both series are excellent. Rent them, and you’ll thank me.

KyMouse on November 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM

If ObaMao had made his decision when McChrystal made the request, wouldn’t our troops have been further along in their deployment. ObaMao had plenty of time to consider his options–from the advice he was given by the outgoing Bush/Cheney information through to March.

With the stranglehold of the current ROE’s and the trickle of troop deployments, will this strategy end up being a slo-mo meatgrinder set up for failure?

I worry for our troops’ safety and morale because I do not believe that ObaMao has their back.

onlineanalyst on November 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM

KyMouse on November 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM

I recommend the book “17 seconds”, written by a British man who disarmed scores of Nazi mines. Powerful.

Dark-Star on November 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Even had one near decapitation on the list.

Peaceful bunch, aren’t they?

I just love what religion teaches people.

fogw on November 9, 2009 at 10:06 PM

I am going to wait and see what Obama really does and the details of it before passing judgment.

There are still many problems that have to be addressed in conjunction with more manpower.

If the irresponsible ROE’s that put our Soldiers in unnecessary danger and leave them second guessing their actions are not changed the casualties will continue to mount without much progress.

If we choose not to defeat the Taliban/al-qaeda before we worry about winning hearts and minds the casualties will continue to mount without much progress.

We have overwhelming strength in firepower,armament,and no one is better trained and stronger than the American Soldier.
We need to use these advantages to decimate the enemy and make it clear that there are serious consequences for supporting the jihadist.
Then they will be in much better shape for winning “hearts and minds”.

If Obama gives Gen.McCrystal what he needs WHEN HE NEEDS IT than I commend our Commander and Chief.

Apparently the Obama administration has decided that Afghanistan is “to big to fail.”

On a side note…the code pink,Answer,Move on crowd of the democratic party has made it clear that an escalation of the war like sending more troops is totally unacceptable.

I am really curious to see if the liberals will take to the streets protesting against the chicken hawk Obama and his war machine or will we hear from the peace and love crowd that “War is the Answer” now.

Baxter Greene on November 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Good show, Mr. Obama. You sure showed McChrystal who’s boss! Don’t give him what he told you was essential, and then expect him to win anyway. And, when he doesn’t, there goes his political career…

If I were McChrystal, I’d seriously consider quitting now, before being totally groomed up as the sacrificial lamb…

unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 10:35 PM

In that screen cap McChrystal looks like he wants to pop Obama right in the mouth.

boomer on November 9, 2009 at 10:52 PM

You are just f*ked up. You racist pig head. His name is Obama.

rightistliberal on November 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Really? Racist pig head? Bishop?

Grow up. Republicans get much worse.

hawkdriver on November 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Was he waiting for good news for the base (PelosiCare passing the House) before making this decision?

Style Doggie on November 9, 2009 at 11:14 PM

I’ve said it here before. Obama’s strategy in Afganistan is to lose, slowly.

Revenant on November 9, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Yep…. guy from the NSA just said that his having made a decision is false…

Trial balloon.

Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM

KyMouse on November 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM

I remember the series (UXB) well. Great stuff and the real guys are terrific too. THey still find WW2 ordinance all over the place but especially in the Thames.

Sounds like Obama is doing the right thing. Not sure why so many people here are suggesting he is setting things up to fail in Afghanistan as failure can only hurt him. There are good reasons for not sending 40,000 or so in right away. There aren’t enough troops for that and the infrastructure in Afghanistan needs serious beefing up in order to accomodate and supply that many troops. Furthermore, if the strategy is to be taken seriously, it will require tandem efforts to the military gear up and those efforts will require time to organize as well.

Incidentally… the notion that we quickly raise the number of troops, win, and get out… that isn’t remotely the plan or the way the military is thinking about conducting this. I think the most heartening aspect of the way this is being rolled out is that this does appear to be a long term plan which is going to be given a number of years to work.

MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM

You don’t seem to like the ROE and call them ‘politically correct’ yet you support our military leaders and our mission to have some sort of victory. Make up your mind. Patreus and McCrystal have both said how important relations with the Afghans are and that those relations are undermined when civilians are killed. It undermines victory… that is the ROE are so strict there. You want Soviet style ROE??? Wrong army dude. Hopefully we can do something good over the coming years there and leave behind a better legacy than the Soviets.

lexhamfox on November 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s national security adviser dismissed reports that the administration has reached a decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. [ . . . blah blah blah . . ]

The AP reported Obama would add “tens of thousands more forces,” while CBS said he plans to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops.

“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false,” Jones said in a e-mailed statement today. “Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”

ace tomato on November 10, 2009 at 2:05 AM

Patreus and McCrystal have both said how important relations with the Afghans are and that those relations are undermined when civilians are killed. It undermines victory

Yet they requested more troops. Victory is essential. And you can’t avoid civillian kills in Afghanistan. They strap bombs to their children, dude.

Wake the F up.

ace tomato on November 10, 2009 at 2:07 AM

and the infrastructure in Afghanistan needs serious beefing up in order to accomodate and supply that many troops.

I highly recommend you read “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll.

Sorry, but your use of the word “infastructure” is kind of amusing.

ace tomato on November 10, 2009 at 2:08 AM

In an interview with ABC News today, Obama said his extensive and expansive strategy-review meetings have given him greater confidence in whatever his final decision will be.

“I have gained confidence that there’s not an important question out there that has not been asked, and that we haven’t asked — that we haven’t answered to the best of our abilities,” Obama said.

WHAT?!?!??!?

This is what we’ve come to in this country? The President takes off for a trip, while troops are dying, but announces, weeks and perhaps months after he’s trumpeted his new “strategy” for Afghanistan, and announces……

He’s confident he’ll come up with something really snappy once he gets around to deciding something, whatever it is… whenever that is.

That’s what I call… LEADERSHIP.

Actually, that’s not what I call it, but there are children bloggers out there. You get the idea.

This man is an unutterable fool.

And we are fools for having elected him.

We will pay the price, in the Greatest National Hangover in History.

IndieDogg on November 10, 2009 at 5:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.