The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Rundown

Troop decision remains stuck in neutral

By Ben Pershing
Just as it appeared President Obama might be on the verge of approving a new plan for Afghanistan, a crucial meeting Wednesday and a well-timed leak suggest the administration has gone back to the drawing board.

"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 Associated Press reports. The key problem, as it has been for years, is corruption. The Washington Post writes that Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, "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 Wall Street Journal says "Eikenberry's concerns come late in the process, and it is unclear how they will ultimately affect Mr. Obama's decision making," adding, "Many of Mr. Eikenberry's concerns about Mr. Karzai have been raised by others involved in the White House deliberations, including by Mr. Obama." Given that much of the coverage before Wednesday's meeting suggested Obama was eyeing a plan -- endorsed by Robert Gates (and opposed by Vice President Biden?) -- to send 30,000-35,000 more troops, the widespread leak of Eikenberry's concerns marks an interesting turn in the internal White House battle.

Continue reading at Political Browser »

Posted at 8:30 AM ET on Nov 12, 2009  | Category:  The Rundown
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Pawlenty moves raise questions | Next: Rice and Hadley enter world of consulting


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Let's get this straight. The Left's rationale for demonizing the Bush Administration's Iraq action was Iraq's sovereignty even though the elections of Saddam were blatantly corrupt; but now, suddenly, Afghanistan's sovereignty is a non issue, Karzai illegitimate and the excuse d'jour for Obama's halting war
strategy.
Quoting:"The Afghanistan Conundrum: What to do When Both Sides Are Right?
By Douglas Farah
The U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Ikenberry has reportedly raised serious concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan because of the unreliability of the Karzai government.
The only real option (and it seems to be something Obama personally is asking about and thinking about) is to bypass the central government."

This "conundrum" belies an unstable,
built on sand, Administration. No decision because no core principles.

Posted by: realitybased1 | November 12, 2009 11:27 AM

This same piece of trash paper would be scolding Obama as being "rash" and not thinking things through if he had made his Afghan decision when the press now says he should have...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | November 12, 2009 9:22 AM

It appears that the Obama critics are correct.

He is dithering and cannot make a decision.

Hillary's commercial regarding the 3:00 in the morning telephone call is becoming relevant!

Posted by: mwhoke | November 12, 2009 8:50 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.



 
 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company