Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

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 »

By Ben Pershing  |  November 12, 2009; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  The Rundown  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pawlenty moves raise questions
Next: Rice and Hadley enter world of consulting

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 | Report abuse

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 | Report abuse

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 | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company