Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Focus shifts to details of Afpak plan

By Ben Pershing
Two days after President Obama's major Afghanistan speech, the mixed reaction to his new strategy has been leavened by the realization that divides over the policy won't prevent it from happening.

"Despite misgivings, members of Congress seem poised to back President Barack Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan after getting assurances the commitment isn't open-ended," the AP reports. Politico concurs, writing that Democrats "show little appetite for seriously blocking" the strategy "and appear to be looking for ways instead to bridge their differences with the White House." The Hill writes that the remains much "confusion" over whether the Pentagon will need formally to ask Congress for more money for Afghanistan, and until it does, Nancy Pelosi can put off dealing with the widening slit in her own caucus on the war.

The Wall Street Journal focuses on Obama's exit strategy, writing: "Republican critics said setting a firm date for starting a troop withdrawal encourages the enemy to simply wait out the U.S. efforts, and many officials in Afghanistan agreed, calling the timeline unrealistic. Some Democrats, meanwhile, were concerned the deadline wasn't firm enough and that a sizable force would be left in Afghanistan indefinitely." Fred Kaplan reviews Wednesday's Afghanistan hearings on the Hill, writing that they helped answer two questions: "First, what did the president mean when he announced that the 30,000 extra troops he's sending to Afghanistan--some of whom won't arrive until the summer of 2010--will begin to come home in July 2011? Second, how many more troops will the NATO allies send, and how much fighting will they do?" ABC News plays up the fact that Robert Gates told a Senate panel that the 2011 date "is not a 'deadline' or an arbitrary timeline" for withdrawal.

Continue reading at Political Browser »

By Ben Pershing  |  December 3, 2009; 8:34 AM ET
Categories:  The Rundown  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House review of Salahis' entry cites Secret Service failure, adds new guidelines
Next: Bill Clinton on world leaders -- and Genghis Khan

Comments

"Although we must expect higher Alliance casualties in coming months as we dedicate more U.S. forces ...

1969?

No, 2009, STOP THE MADNESS...

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 3, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama Spent 20 monthes tearing apart
the Bush Military Stategy.
Then, Upon taking office,
he gave Gates a pat on the
back and kept them all in office?
this is unprecedented!!!
How do you keep the officials from
the Bush Admin, that you just spent 20 monthes
calling inept and dangerous for the future
of America, IN YOUR ADMIN?

and now,
the SURGE,
suddenly makes perfect sense....

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 3, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I believe we can stop this insanity.
Force a measure to Pay for the Surge,
debate!
This is not a Military Dictatorship,

or is it?
The uniforms behind Obama are the same
ones that stood behind Bush.
Even Gates Remained...

Posted by: simonsays1 | December 3, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company