CBS: Obama to give McChrystal almost all the troops he asked for
posted at 7:40 pm on November 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
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 Next »
IF this is true,…thank you President Obama.
portlandon on November 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM
+1
Monica on November 9, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Wow…Im amazed.
becki51758 on November 9, 2009 at 7:43 PM
He saw the complaints when it was rumored he was only going to give 20k, and then only 34k.
Still, 40k is a medium risk venture. 80k was the low risk that honestly should be taken.
Enoxo on November 9, 2009 at 7:43 PM
now, let them win
rob verdi on November 9, 2009 at 7:44 PM
It’s the right decision, but perhaps made for the wrong reason: Obama didn’t want to be the president who “lost Afghanistan.”
Still, I’m glad for the troops, for American and the Afghans.
Wethal on November 9, 2009 at 7:44 PM
More troops don’t matter if the ROE ensures they are ineffectual, right?
lorien1973 on November 9, 2009 at 7:45 PM
he couldn’t play it down the middle on this one…
here’s hoping the slow move won’t be to damaging…
cmsinaz on November 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Will Obama allow them to be armed…?
Seven Percent Solution on November 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Any doubt he was waiting on the HC vote in the House Saturday night before doing this?
JoeinTX on November 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Aye aye that.
To other commenters: I don’t care if this is because of Obama’s personal vanity. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing.
Pavel on November 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Elections over General, now about those troops you requested.
Howcome on November 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Astounding.
Dark-Star on November 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Obama won’t be the last American president sending troops. We won’t be out of there for YEARS.
nickj116 on November 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM
soo coincidently timed with the next step of his communism overhall
dont get me wrong, but he could have done this awhile ago only now this might give him just enough popularity to get the votes he need to put this country in the hands of the bureaucrats
I hate this guy
Sonosam on November 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Elections over General, now about those troops you requested.
Howcome on November 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I have been saying the same thing and he still lost both Governor spots.
Shameful to use politics to cause the delay.
CommentGuy on November 9, 2009 at 7:51 PM
That would be terrific news…. something I agree with.
shar61 on November 9, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I predicted 27,500 so, ahh, if 34,000 then fairly close.
34,000 more would bring the total to 102,000 which is more than double the 47,000 that Bush had on Jan 19, 2009.
MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM
notice how the announcement comes AFTER the nutroots get the PelosiCare bone
jp on November 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Reminds me of the corn burner in my shop: A few kernels at a time dropped into a fire.
This is a maneuver by Ogabe, at any time he can declare that current events no longer support operations in Afghanistan and the troop feed will be so slow as to make that entirely possible.
Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 7:53 PM
wonder if this will make things heat up in Iraq again?
jp on November 9, 2009 at 7:53 PM
if it helps to pass his communism bill, Id rather bring them home
we are rotting from the inside out and I have no doubt this move is to give cover to the bureaucrats who will vote to pass this travesty
he is using the troops as a tool pure and simple
Sonosam on November 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM
33,988…unless he allows more muslims to kill our own.
SouthernGent on November 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM
If they don’t arrive until early 2010, that means they will arrive in the dead of Winter and not be able to mobilize in time for a Spring surge. I guess we can just pray for our troops, while Obama contemplates his navel and his next lawn party. Too little, too late. Thumb twiddling Ditherer in briefs.
Key West Reader on November 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Agreed. Kudos to Obama if he actually goes through with it.
Realist on November 9, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Arianna HuffPo said Joe should resign if he did this. Say it’s so, Joe.
Marcus on November 9, 2009 at 7:56 PM
We can’t win until Obama rides over on his white steed.
faraway on November 9, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Can we get a big Amen to that? Let them win!
katy the mean old lady on November 9, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Isn’t it unfortunate that McChrystal knew the least risky option was not possible?
aikidoka on November 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM
what about the ROE, if they arent allowed to fight it wont make a damn difference
Sonosam on November 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Certainly better than nothing, but why dick around with another 6,000 troops? Just give the man what he says he needs to complete the job properly.
I think Obama is just doing that because he can. Dick.
RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Why not the 40,000 his general requested? Is the 6k low ball supposed to get the anti-war crowd all warm and fuzzy? He really doesn’t miss an opportunity to pull rank, this one.
RepubChica on November 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I would strongly doubt that we’d be able to get all 34,000 troops in to Afghanistan in a 5 month time frame like the 30,000 troop level increase in Iraq. The biggest issue is logistics. You don’t have several large Air Base facilities, nor do you have improved roadways from seaports to get man and vehicle into the theater. We’re having a hard enough time getting the supplies we do need from ship to shore through Pakistan. So much so we’re now flying supplies through Russian Airspace. It’s one thing to get 30,000+ troops there, it’s something entirely different to support them.
McBaine on November 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Assuming this pans out, good for him. He waited too long, but in the end he did the right thing. And conservatives will stand with him on this one while the libs will trash him. That’ll be a strange sight. Hell, his administration may even find itself doing more interviews on FoxNews than MSDNC when the topic is Afghanistan.
Doughboy on November 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM
With bulls eyes, perhaps?
I agree with those who question the ROE.
I’ll withhold judgement until I hear more.
I’ve grown so skeptical and cynical of what this man does.
turfmann on November 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM
None in my mind.
This little prick played political ideology and “Gotta make my wet dream of health care a reality” in lieu of the safety of the lives of young Americans.
How can this go unchallenged?
Itchee Dryback on November 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM
IMO its still not enough.
Lets see…
Iraq: 163,753 sq miles, 23 million population… we sent 170,000 troops… and won… when we had less? (presurge) we were loosing…
Afganistan: 251,737 sq miles (much larger with less infrastructure such as roads), 25 million population… we’ve got the current 68,000 and will add 34,000… brining the total to 102,000 troops.
So…. we will still be trying to cover much more territory, with much less troops, than we commited to the win in Iraq.
Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM
The rate of surge into Afghanistan cannot be similar to that of Iraq. Iraq has multiple airfields, ports, highways, interstates, power and a far greater infrastructure and terrain more amenable to the rapid deployment and acceptance of a rapidly deployed US surge force.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, was celebrated for finally finishing a two lane blacktop highway between Kandahar and Kabul, I believe. A significant accomplishment there where I have personally witnessed a man putting his family on a makeshift log floater thingy to cross a fast moving river in December. Why? No bridges. Moreover, there are a very limited number of usable airfields acceptable for C17 deployment of large forces. Bagram can accept several C17s (<5-7) but not like Balad, which is the busiest airhead in the world and accepts large amounts of troops, heavy aircraft and cargo aircraft 24/7.
So, you can surge forces into Afghanistan, but the pipeline is far smaller to do it in due to its terrain, infrastructure and accessibility.
ted c on November 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM
wouldn’t that be a hoot…
cmsinaz on November 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Obama will send the troops…
… but they will have to walk there.
Seven Percent Solution on November 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But still, there’s gotta be a hitch.
Cicero43 on November 9, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Here’s what I really like about Ed and AP.
Most partisan bloggers would never give this information to their readers. Picture kos, MediaMatters or ThinkProgress (or similar righty blogs) giving their readers information which goes against the meme they’d like to push on a regular basis.
Most people are way too busy to read more than a handful of sites, so it’s nice knowing that HotAir is giving us a clear and accurate picture of stories, no matter where the facts lay.
BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Now let the troops do their job without interference!
NavyMustang on November 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM
You are just f*ked up. You racist pig head. His name is Obama.
rightistliberal on November 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM
This is what a TV network and a newspaper chain claim he’s going to do, not what Osama Obama himself has announced.
When — if — the Chicago Jesus makes it official, we’ll see what he intends to do with the troops and how much leeway he will give them to do what needs to be done.
If he does right, yes, we’ll support him. It would be a first for him.
MrScribbler on November 9, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Broken clock.
angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:06 PM
This gives the enemy plenty of time to arm up, redraw battle lines, recruit fresh Jihadi blood and be at the ready. Sorry. Just not impressed.
RepubChica on November 9, 2009 at 8:06 PM
I think most of all knew that the life or death decision to support our troops would happen after any small victory in hellcare.
jukin on November 9, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Ted, you really need to run for office. Seriously. You are so smart, thoughtful and contemplative in your posts. Each one is better than the last, be it politics, finance or military issues. Whoever you are, run for office. And God Bless your wife for encouraging you to do so. You said that in an earlier post. We need thoughtful, deliberative, conservative, intelligent people in the mix and you fit this bill perfectly.
Key West Reader on November 9, 2009 at 8:07 PM
So you actually think there will be another president come January 2017? How cute.
angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:07 PM
When you give your Generals the necessary support they have requested, it is a good thing. As some have mentioned above, I hope they let them fight to win and do not hamper them with odious ROE`s, they have some tough ones at present. On the timeline, it is definitely a big logistic problem and I would like to hear what the military might say on the fastest timeline they could make this happen.
bluemarlin on November 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
At least there will be less troops at home to fire on the “tea bag extremists”.
God help us all.
SouthernGent on November 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I’m honestly not sure if the military could support that kind of optempo right now.
This is true, but the f’d up ROE, from what I understand, are as much a result of McChrystal than anything else.
BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
+100 Glad I wasn’t the only one that saw that. Oh, how Obamaesque of me… sorry!
Key West Reader on November 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
A classic example of bureaucratic ‘slow walking’, foot dragging, another study needed, cya.
Skandia Recluse on November 9, 2009 at 8:09 PM
It’s one thing to commit. It’s another to accept the responsibility for the outcome. There is no more, blame someone else here, bub. There’s no “I did what you R’s wanted me to do, and look, it’s broke” stuff.
Commander-in-chief (singular)
good luck.
ted c on November 9, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Let’s see… McChrystal asked for 80,000 (please don’t spin the scenarios for Obama on *here*) and Obama’s giving him 34,000… Yet, you say (apparently with a straight face)… “This is the prudent thing to do, both strategically and politically.” Geez, this place just keeps tilting farther and farther toward the, erm, MSM’s perspective…
fabrexe on November 9, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Do you have any idea about the terrain of Afghanistan? Or the supply lines which go through Pakistan and are routinely ambushed. It’s not like moving troops to Texas!
rightistliberal on November 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM
You make quite a few assumptions without knowing the first thing about me. Perhaps a glass of water would calm you?
Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Trial balloon? How much longer can Barry drag it out without actually doing anything?
ROCnPhilly on November 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Key West Reader on November 9, 2009 at 8:07 PM
damn thanks much!
Your sentiments are weighing upon my conscience…and I’m glad I still have your vote! :)
ted c on November 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM
You are just stupid, you ignorant moronic f*ck. People that call him that are referring to his nation killing monetary policy – think Mugabe – it has nothing to do with race.
Stop seeing race everywhere you look, bigot.
BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:12 PM
I’ll believe it when I see it.
bridgetown on November 9, 2009 at 8:13 PM
BINGO! I disagree about Ed and Allah moving toward the MSM perspective, but the number of troops should be double than what he is sending. You have to win the war not keep things the way they are. If Afghanistan is the “right war,” as the liberals say, treat it as such.
cubachi on November 9, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Dude: I don’t. Those who sit here and wonder if he is manchurian candidate or closet Muslim do that. But then they will say: it’s not about race…but…ummm something else!
rightistliberal on November 9, 2009 at 8:15 PM
In the Liberal’s mind there is no such thing as the “right war”.
thomasaur on November 9, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Actually, I do. And it doesn’t change a damn thing regarding my original statement. Now get outta my face, dirtbag. And mind Bishop’s advice–go have a drink and simmer down, clown.
RepubChica on November 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Well they’re moving them in slow because they want to give the troops the break they deserve in the rotation … but I think it’s a mistake.
Nothing says … “You chumps are gonna lose your asses now” … quite like having 40,000 troops land on your ass …
Quickly.
HondaV65 on November 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM
+10
GnuBreed on November 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM
102,000 troops are not enough to eradicate the Taliban from all areas in Afghanistan and that is not even McChrystal’s goal anyway.
We don’t win by destroying the Taliban. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General McChrystal (in London some time ago)
Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.
- General McChrystal (from his COMISAF assessment of the war in Afghanistan)
It’s not like, hello, AlQ and associates and auxiliaries aren’t in a whole lot of other countries anyway. This almost single minded fixation with Islamic Nation Building in Afghanistan has become like an obsessive fetish, very similar to the “mind set” that let Major Hanson run around lose).
See no Islam, Hear no Islam, Know no Islam and the hell with the troops, both at Fort Hood and in Afghanistan.
Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
- Chief of Staff, Gen. Casey
We will not let this event deter our resolve to building a partnership with the Afghan National Security Forces to provide for Afghanistan’s future.
- Gen. Stanley McChrystal (after a number of “Hasan style” killings of American and British troops” (with many more almost certain to follow) by members of the Afghan Army and Afghan police (our “allies’).
MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM
War on prosperity
war on conservatives
war on foxnews
war on rush limbaugh…?
I’d say there is such thing as a “right war” when it comes to liberals. They are a warring faction right down to their toes.
ted c on November 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM
I have read that McCrhystal wanted 60,000 to 80,000 for the ideal amount of troops and Obama is giving him 34,000? Sounds as if he is using political pragmatism when it comes to running the war and I don’t like it one bit.
Even if all McChrystal wanted was 40,000, why not give him the full load? Why cut him short 6,000?
There are lives on the line here and trickling troops bit by bit into the death zone that Afghanistan is fast becoming is not the way to go. No I am not a military expert, but neither is Obama. I go with Fred Kagan here who is an expert and who helped design the Iraq Surge with his American Enterprise Institute. Listen to those who have achieved success.
Daemonocracy on November 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Sending our troops to AfPak in the middle of winter is not advisable. Not to mention what it will take to get supports behind them during this time of year. McChrystal asked/begged in August. The terrain has changed, significantly since that time. Perhaps Obama chose to lick and stick his finger to the wind following the health care vote, and said “Yes. I will do thisssss. But. I will wait. And uh. Only send a .. uh a .. uh a Few!. Yes my decision is that I will send .. uh… Michelle, what was your number? Ok. Uh. I will uhh do this uh with 34k uh troops.”
Folks, ACORN is running this country.
Key West Reader on November 9, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Bluntly, Obama has been doing pretty well in Pakistan – he hasn’t curtailed the Predator strikes, despite a lot of pressure to do so. (One suspects he is getting intelligence stating that Al Qaeda is itching to hit the US again, and the disruptions caused by the Predators are the only thing keeping AQ from being more effective than they’ve been thus far.)
He’s been dithering too much on Afghanistan, but I’m willing to suspend judgement if he sends enough troops.
Realist on November 9, 2009 at 8:18 PM
The onus is on you Mr. President, make believers out of us this time.
fourdeucer on November 9, 2009 at 8:19 PM
What would either of those examples have to do with race?
Seriously….what?
Itchee Dryback on November 9, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Now! not by the end of 2010.
royzer on November 9, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Those are only attacks since the Libs lack the stomach for a sustained war, with the exception of prosperity.
thomasaur on November 9, 2009 at 8:20 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 will be very happy if Obama follows through on this.
deidre on November 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Hmmmm…. just had an intersting thought…
One of the things Rome would do when they conquered a territory would be to BUILD ROADS… it allowed troops to move faster… and commerce to flourish…
Uh… have we been doing that LARGE scale in Afganistan?
We’ve been there for 8 years now… with modern equipment we could have built a LOT of roads by now… which would help with both our Mobility… and Logistics…
Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM
FUBO will count it as 34,000 jobs created or saved. He’s not sending enough. He is the worst POTUS ever.
ndulik on November 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM
FWIW, I was just illustrating how unfair it is to jump on someone and call them a ‘f*cked up racist pig head’ without having your facts straight. People are tired of having their every comment attributed to suspicious or racist motivations. You’re attributing those motivations to Bishop without any foundational basis, and it makes you sound either naive or ignorant of the situation.
BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Pop quiz:
Q1: who has won the last 2 election by blowout margins?
Q2: which part from Q1 was actively helped by Kos et al who never, ever give the opposition even a glimmer or praise?
If I want feel good stories about Obama I have about 200 newspapers and 10 TV news channels I can go to. I come here to get the stuff I don’t get anywhere else.
angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:22 PM
But we must pass a 2,000+ legislative bill under the cover of night on a Saturday that will change this country into Obama’s socialist paradise if signed into law immediately without reading it…
… but we will get to the troops in Afghanistan, sometime, next year, maybe.
Seven Percent Solution on November 9, 2009 at 8:22 PM
The ROE are pretty much what one could expect with Stanley McChrystalMeth saying that we are “pre-occupied with protection of our own forces”.
MB4 on November 9, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Aah, Terry Bradshaw gave the OK!! Obama isn’t that dumb.
PaCadle on November 9, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Will those 34K be allowed to ‘shoot back’, or will we see numerous ROE’s hamstringing them?
GarandFan on November 9, 2009 at 8:24 PM
There’s an election at the end of 2010. He can claim he’s all tough AND the rest of the “stimulus” will be spent then, too.
SouthernGent on November 9, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Is there going to be more airlift? I understand the helo situation to be pretty bad.
Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I visited Guatemala during a pause in their civil war in the ’80′s, and noted that the peasants in the highlands were dirt poor, but that the roads were pretty spiffy. I wondered about that briefly, and then realized that the Guatemalan Army probably had a hand in the construction of the spiffy roads.
Realist on November 9, 2009 at 8:26 PM
So Barry is simply playing political games with our soldiers lives?
/rhetorical
bluelightbrigade on November 9, 2009 at 8:27 PM
finally! great news!
ginaswo on November 9, 2009 at 8:27 PM
I can’t tell if you thought my 8:03 comment was sarcasm or not. It wasn’t.
Unless Allah had mentioned that the McChrystal wasn’t really expecting 80k, and used that number as a way to leverage President Obama towards the number he really wanted, most readers here wouldn’t have known about it.
It would have pushed the anti-POTUS agenda better to leave that fact out and let your readership think President Obama was stiffing the General waaay more than he actual is. That’s the way dishonest hacks like kos operate.
I appreciate the intellectual honesty here at HA.
BadgerHawk on November 9, 2009 at 8:28 PM
what took so long, president ogabe ?
runner on November 9, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Community Organizer? What?
Key West Reader on November 9, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Let’s not rush to judgement here, until all the facts are known.
First, even though more “troops” apparently are going in, we must first determine what units these are. Most of us are probably thinking of some pretty serious combat power, like tanks, planes, and hordes of screaming Marines (oorah).
But, I’m hedging my bet we’re going to see the entire military journalist Corps (once known as MSNBC), JAG units, 501st Field Kitchen, and various motor pool battalions.
This is called getting “punked”. McChrystal gets what he wanted, and so does Osama (the Bin Laden kind).
BobMbx on November 9, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Do what the generals ask, and then get out of the way Barry.
Hening on November 9, 2009 at 8:30 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
ted c on November 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »