Speaking during a November 23 joint White House press conference with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, President Obama said he intends “to finish the job” in Afghanistan.

The comment was prompted by a question from CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller, who asked:

Can you tell us how many more troops you'll be sending to Afghanistan, how you'll be paying for them, and whether you'll be announcing a timetable and/or exit strategy for them?

The president answered:

Mark, I will be making an announcement to the American people about how we intend to move forward. I will be doing so shortly.

I think that the review that we've gone through has been comprehensive and extremely useful, and has brought together my key military advisors, but also civilian advisors. I can tell you, as I've said before, that it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make sure that al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively in those areas. We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. And Afghanistan's stability is important to that process.

I've also indicated that after eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job. And I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals that they will be supportive.

The president promised to provide more details “after Thanksgiving,” continuing:

And I'm sure that at that point, if there are further questions, that we'll be answering them to the satisfaction not just of you, but to the satisfaction of the American people.

Several reports attributed to White House aides indicate that the president’s announcement will probably take place on the evening of December 1.

VOA News — the official U.S. government news agency — reported, “Despite U.S. opinion polls indicating declining public support for the war, Mr. Obama said people will be supportive once they hear his clear rationale for the U.S. mission.”

VOA noted that General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has reportedly told the president that up to 40,000 troops are needed to combat the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and to help the Afghan government achieve stability. There are currently about 68,000 U.S. troops in the country.

The New York Times cited administration officials who said that the recent round of White House meetings on Afghanistan that concluded on November 23 included discussions for sending about 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

The Times report noted that the last strategy session held in the White House Situation Room on the 23rd was unique in that, for the first time, Peter R. Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, attended, sitting four seats from the president. The report concluded that this was “a strong indication that the president’s address would allude to the enormous costs of the military effort.”

Two members of Congress have called for imposing a "war tax" to pay for a troop increase. Representative David Obey (D-Wis.), Chairman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed the idea, which did not receive much White House support.

Advocating a classic, socialist tax-the-rich scheme,  Levin proposed an "additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000" a year to fund more troops during an interview with Bloomberg Television's show Political Capital With Al Hunt.

While the U.S. media hesitated to cite specific numbers about how large the expected impending troop buildup might be, offering only speculations that the number might be about 30,000 troops, the British Telegraph ran an article on November 24 headlined: “Barack Obama to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan.” The report noted: “Although Mr. Obama declined to talk about numbers, Pentagon officials have been told to draw up plans for sending 34,000 more troops.”

The article continued: “The Pentagon's plans, according to the McClatchy publishing group, involve the deployment for a nine-month period starting in March, of three Army brigades from the U.S. Marine Corps, the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division. This would account for 23,000 new troops.... In addition, a 7,000-strong divisional headquarters would be set up to assume command of American-led Nato forces in southern Afghanistan, including the 9,000 British troops currently in Helmand province and the 500 more on standby to be sent there.”

President Obama is undoubtedly walking a political tightrope in striving to balance calls from military commanders for more troops against the increasing unpopularity of the war, especially among Obama’s own congressional Democrats. But the ultimate decision may be determined not by Obama, himself, whose political career is of secondary importance to the internationalists whose interests are ever served by continued intervention in other nations. 

When one considers that most of Obama’s key advisors and strategists running the war, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, and ISAF commander, General Stanley McChrystal, are all members of the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the likelihood of Obama deciding to quickly wind down the war is very slim.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew said:

And just what is this "job"? At first, this was a "war on terror", designed (purportedly) to "get" bin Laden. It somehow morphed into an effort to depose the Taliban (supposedly because they were friends of bin Laden?). Then it changed from a war to "protect American interests" (which it never was) to one of "nation building". This could only fail as we were trying to impose a "democracy" (an unstable type of government) on a region and people who were already unstable and whose culture was totally incompatible with this "democracy" in the first place. Now, this "war" has changed again in to a situation in which we are "protecting" the Afghan people to the detriment of the American soldier. Why are we protecting them? The purpose of the American military is to protect America and Americans. Protect them from whom? Themselves? By our very presence, we are endangering the very people we are professing to protect! The REAL job here is engage America in endless, costly, unconstitutional war, to drain our economy and demoralize the American people. The purpose is to prepare us for acceptance of a one world government run by the economic elite. This is one job I would rather we NOT complete.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 25, 2009
Votes: +3

DDW said:

	I still say Bring the troops home and secure the southern AND the northern borders.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 26, 2009
Votes: +0

us and them said:

	I concur When the (and i use the term loosely) President signs the Coppenhagen treaty thats it Bye Bye Miss American Pie. For the first time in my life i fear the next day,week,months,years ahead. God Bless America.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 27, 2009
Votes: +1