ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama agenda: Demanding changes

Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:14 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

"President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, a senior administration official said, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country one day," the AP writes. "Obama's stance comes as his own ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, is voicing strong dissent about a U.S. troop increase, according to a second administration official."

The Washington Post says Eikenberry “sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise,” the Washington Post says. “Eikenberry's memos, sent as President Obama enters the final stages of his deliberations over a new Afghanistan strategy, illustrated both the difficulty of the decision and the deepening divisions within the administration's national security team.”

The New York Times: “Mr. Obama asked General Eikenberry about his concerns during the meeting on Wednesday, officials said, and raised questions about each of the four military options and how they might be tinkered with or changed. A central focus of Mr. Obama’s questions, officials said, was how long it would take to see results and be able to withdraw. ‘He wants to know where the off-ramps are,’ one official said.” 

The Wall Street Journal: “A White House official said Mr. Obama made requests that could lead to significantly altering any or all of the choices, changing the number of troops involved and the length of their deployment. The official said Mr. Obama asked for specific timelines in each scenario for when U.S. troops would turn over security to Afghan forces. In the past, senior military officials have resisted such timelines. The key points of contention, the official added, were the timelines and questions about the credibility of the Karzai government -- both issues raised by Mr. Eikenberry in his cables and elsewhere.”

The Washington Post notes how the war in Afghanistan has taken a toll on Obama. “War and tragedy are putting President Obama through the most wrenching period of his young administration. Visibly thinner, admittedly skipping meals, he is learning every day the challenges of a wartime presidency. Health-care reform, climate-change legislation, the broken economy -- all are cerebral exercises compared with the grim responsibility of being the commander in chief.” 

In other news, TPM’s Bellantoni takes a look at Obama’s Organizing for America. “Nine months ago when the Democrats who ran Barack's Obama campaign created Organizing for America, no one was sure exactly how it would work or whether it was possible to harness the enthusiasm for the new president and translate it into action. But nearing the anniversary of Obama's election, OFA has strengthened into a (smaller) mirror of the campaign, with volunteers in every single Congressional district and staff on the ground in every state but Oklahoma. They also are growing the Obama donor base.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Obama is a hoot to watch. He "Demands!" changes. He acts like a Little Lord Fauntleroy, a spoiled small child, ordering the help around.
What a disgrace. Make a decision yes or no. The soldiers are waiting impatiently i might add.
President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, administration officials say, amid an argument by his own ambassador in Kabul that a significant U.S. troop increase would only prop up a weak, corruption-tainted government.


Obama should be able to recognize a weak, corruption-tainted government from his days in Chicago.
Back in the way back machine we invaded Afganistan with a clear military mission and a clear objective both in our eyes and in the eyes of the world. Thinking back on what we were told by our leadership both civilian and military we were going to pursue this mission where ever it went and whatever it took and through whoever we had to go through to get there. OK I'll buy that. That was a worthy mission in anybodies world.We did not do that for a number of different reasons that are just not worth listing here and laying counterproductive blame back and forth. So we find ourselves at the point where we are at. There are no good choices here for us or our allies. And yes the President is going to have to "own" the decision and it is starting to wear on him. I also do not think he is going to come up with a solution that is going to make anyone happy. I hope he takes his time and makes a decision in the best interest of our enlisted folks rather than pushing a bad situation for political purposes as some have done in the past. This is why we elected him and out of all the things he does in his time in office this kind of thing will probably personally live with him through a lifetime.I wish him luck and I'm sure glad I'm not the one who has to sterr the course.
Look, this country has had no stability for decades.  The Russians tried to force their way in and ended up getting spanked because the locals like anarchy.  Take it for what it is.  Try your best to hold the country in check.  Pay close attention to the intel and surgically take out terrorist operations as needed.  There is no need to increase our involvement to try and bolster a puppet government that was put in place by the last administration.  

Karzai will never control anything but Kabul.  It will always be a country of warlords who will always sell out to the highest bidder and protect their opium.  Pulling out only puts us at higher risk if we disregard the intelligence that comes out of the country.  Bring our troops home and stop fighting the civil war for Karzai.
The U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikkenberry seems to have the only rational view on how to avoid another Vietnam in Afghanistan. More U.S. troops will bring more contractors to support the additional needs, more corruption by the contractors -as Afghan president Hamid Karzai claims, more prostitution, nudity, booze, and other western habits unacceptable to Islamic faith, and more deaths and destruction. The same happened in Vietnam where 500.000 U.S troops had turned the country into a bordello, and the B-52 had leveled everything in both Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, while the people in all those countries suffered immensely. That kind of war was proper to break Hitler's and imperial Japan's military machines during WWII, but it is not a winning formula for fighting guerrilla wars and insurgencies.

In both Vietnam and Afghanistan an outside power, the U.S., invaded with a superior force, and installed unpopular and corrupt puppet regimes to control the country in behalf of the U.S. against hostile populations -like the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe after the WWII.  But that time is was easy for the Soviet Union to do because socialism was sweeping across Eastern Europe who saw capitalism as Hitler's political dogma.  Not so in either Vietnam and Afghanistan where the U.S. presence has created seething hatred that has spread to Pakistan and other Central Asian countries.

The U.S. idea to prevail in Afghanistan by a tactic to protect the Afghans and turn them pro-Americans is quite stupid. America is the most hated nation in the Muslim world, and Afghans will never accept a puppet regime in Kabul that will allow the U.S. to bomb their villages in eternity, just for some aid money that is usurped by American lackeys in their government. Afghan villagers tell reporters that they have never seen any money from the foreign aid, and that makes clear that western contractors and corrupt Afghan official getting rich, while villagers get their doors broken down at night by foreign forces, and many civilians -including women and children are shot dead in the process.  Such incidents have happened in every Afghan village in the 9 years of war, and the echo "Death to America" has been heard in every corner of Afghanistan. How can more U.S. troops and more such killing "Win the hearts and minds" of Afghans?  Nine years of U.S. killing and destruction, and 9 years with a corrupt puppet regime in Kabul have discredited completely the U.S. in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The only viable option for the U.S. is to ditch Karzai, and replace him with Gulbudin Hekmatyar, who promised the U.S. in an interview with Al Jazeera no Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan after Karzai is gone!

The U.S. will never control Afghanistan, and when it exits, any U.S. puppet regime left in power will crumble like the pro-Soviet of Babrak Karmal's.  And the end game in Afghanistan will have the same finale exactly like the one in Vietnam did. Nikos Retsos, retired professor
General Eikenberry is right. If the Afghan government doesn't give a rat's behind about their own country why should we? Remember the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan for 10 years and accomplished nothing. They used, as we do, conventional methods of warfare. Unfortunately the mindset of the generals is more geared toward European style combat and not that of a place like Afghanistan. That is partially why we lost in Vietnam and why we are going to lose in Afghanistan if we don't either change our tactics or get the heck out.
Well said Independent Redneck Va. The prior three post are asinine at best. No one who cares about the coutnry, wears the uniform, or personally knows one who does would write such trip, ask for a yes or no, or a speedy decision (when the request is for troops from next year anyway).

Take the time, the political ramifications in Afganistan, US, and even NATO countries, economic implicifications (its not McCrystal's place to consider those or have the information to), intelligence input, and human military factors and not just miltary ones.

Quick decisions should be reserved for rush situations such as when he added 21,000 in March.
Thank God for a smart, intelligent POTUS that actually demands a strategy. Imagine that....not chasing more stupid wars, or sending thousands of soldires without a reason, real cause, or strategy.The GOP whackos are American Taliban...too scary for an intelligent nation.
you need to do something about the jobs. B/c people is loseing there jobs or not enought hours.

When you get a chance to read my comment can you pleace write me back.

Thank you for your time.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2125219

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google