Special Classifieds Feature
Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more
RSS
Required Reading | RSS
Top Video | RSS
Trench Warfare | RSS
Blunder Box | RSS
Reader Picks | RSS
Staff Picks | RSS
Best of The Post | RSS
Punchlines | RSS
Down-Ballot | RSS
8 a.m. ET: 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.
Obama administration officials are said to be particularly miffed with Karzai's comments in an interview this week on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. But miffed or not, the New York Times asks the central question: "How much leverage does the United States really have over the Afghan leader?" For all of the administration's tough rhetoric toward Karzai, there is no "or else" at the end. Why not? The Times explains that "withdrawing all troops would not serve American interests, officials said; aside from the chaos it could cause in Afghanistan, a pullout could tip the balance in even more volatile Pakistan, where the government is battling Taliban militants." In addition to the question of whether the U.S. should send more troops, the Boston Globe writes that Afghan officials aren't so keen on getting more foreign civilian advisers, "complaining the Americans are often overpaid, underqualified, and unfamiliar with the culture of the country. "
There is no easy answer, and Joel Achenbach observes, "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." As for public opinion, Gallup finds that 35 percent support a buildup of 40,000 troops, 7 percent back a smaller increase and 44 percent actually want the U.S. troop presence to decrease. In Kabul, USA Today reports, "U.S. and Afghan officials have agreed on a new nationwide strategy that will funnel millions of dollars in foreign aid to villages that organize 'neighborhood watch'-like programs to help with security." In the midst of the debate, Josh Rogin notes that Afpak czar Richard Holbrooke is headed to Russia, for reasons that remain unclear.
On health care, with most of the focus has been on what is actually in the various health-care bills -- the public option, abortion language, immigrant care -- the debate continues over how to pay for reform. "Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday," AP reports. Politico examines another basic question: "Would the sweeping $900 billion overhaul actually lower spiraling insurance premiums for everyone?" The comforting answer: "No one really knows," as "economists remain sharply divided" and estimates are all over the map. The abortion question also remains unresolved, and the New York Times reports on a bitter rift between Patrick Kennedy and the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence over the issue.
Business groups, meanwhile, are redoubling their efforts to slow down the reform train. The Employment Policies Institute is launching what it says will be a $10 million ad campaign urging lawmakers to take their time in crafting a health-care bill. The Wall Street Journal runs down a host of ads running this week coming from groups on all sides of the debate. And the Washington Post shed light on the role of Hispanic advocacy groups, who are belatedly getting involved in the health debate after care for illegal immigrants became a flashpoint. Jonathan Cohn takes a lengthy look at Massachusetts, and concludes that for all the state health program's flaws, "the more significant story about Massachusetts is the one that gets told too rarely: the story of what’s gone right."
On the financial front, The Washington Post writes on the Federal Reserve, saying that "the central bank's activist response to the financial crisis has exposed the Fed to immense political fallout. That will make it more difficult for the Fed to carry out its responsibilities of guiding the national economy out of a recession and withdrawing its emergency support for the economy at just the right time." The Obama administration "is considering setting aside a chunk" of the unspent TARP money for debt reduction, the Wall Street Journal reports. No decisions have been made yet, but "the potential move illustrates how the Obama administration is trying to find any way it can to bring down the deficit, which is turning into a political as well as an economic liability."
By
Ben Pershing
|
November 12, 2009; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | November 12, 2009 8:25 AM
DO YOU FEEL MORE SAFE UNDER TEAM OBAMA?
What is with the INDECISION? Can President Obama NOT provide planning guidance where his "war council" can develop feasible options for him? Do they have to be MIND READERS?
What is up with Eric Holder??
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Despite_ban_Holder_to_speak_to_CAIRlinked_group.html
Posted by: wheeljc | November 12, 2009 8:42 AM
Please tell me, "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" crowd, what Barack Hussein Obama's creditials were for being POTUS!
Posted by: cschotta1 | November 12, 2009 9:52 AM
Afghanistan is an artificial construct, useful as such only so long as its composite ethnicities think it in their best interests. And they no longer do.
By a CIA google search, it is Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Hazara 19%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 12%, Uzbek 6%. When asked, anyone there identifies themselves in one of the former groupings.
Most Pashtun reside in Pakistan, with the phony Durand Line dividing them. They have been shattered and radicalized by some 30 years of slaughter. Call the Taliban if slogans and chimera suit you, but what they are is Pashtun.
All we have really accomplished in our nine year war there is to further radicalize the Pashtun, and to near fatally destabilize Pakistan, which also is largely one more artificial construct, bound together by no more that opposition to India, Islam, and the English language. But they now have nukes, and the last thing in our better interests is to shatter Pakistan. Most people know this. Most people know that the only mission for us is the safe haven argument, but that too is futile as plots can be hatched from anywhere in the world.
I don't know what President Obama will do, but what he should do is to say, I have studied this over in detail, and regretfully have come the conclusion, it is not a war of necessity, it is a war of futility. They must find a domestic solution if there is one at all. It cannot successfully be imposed by our force of arms and western concepts of how they should run their society. Therefore, we will conduct a phased withdrawl, and mitigate the damages as best we can.
And then the Republicans (who know all this is true) will tear him to shreds for cynical political advantage as a coward, a fool, a cut and runner, screaming, Who lost Afghanistan?
Posted by: tarquinis1 | November 12, 2009 10:54 AM
TO: "Rundown" webmaster
Could you please post the most recent comments first rather than last? It would make the comments link more relevant. Also suggest that readers who click on the "Rundown" have comments section opened automatically, as is the case on other WaPo blogs.
***
______________________________________________
SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS, PERSECUTES THOUSANDS OF U.S. CITIZENS WITH NATIONWIDE SILENT MICROWAVE/LASER WEAPONS SYSTEMS, LOCAL VIGILANTISM
• Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan
• FEMA Director Craig Fugate
• NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander
• DIA Director Maj. Gen. Michael Maples
• DOJ Asst. Atty. Gen./National Security David Kris
• CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes
• FBI Director Robert Mueller
TEAM OBAMA, CONGRESS MUST ASK:
What do they know -- and when did they know it?
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-ameria
OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"
Posted by: scrivener50 | November 12, 2009 11:02 AM
Please read tarquinis1 above. There is no unified "taliban". The only thing unifying them is opposition to foreign "occupiers" (us).
Hopefully, Obama is referring to the "Powell Doctrine" to help make his decision:
The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
============
Powell also added that we should use overwhelming force if we do commit troops to battle.
It's clear that the war in Afghanistan doesn't have domestic OR International support. The Bush objective, to achieve a multi-ethnic democracy by force is clearly unattainable (we've tried for 8 years).
What is also clear is that the U.S. simply does not have the resources to achieve overwhelming force. We would need at least "several hundred thousand" as General Shinseki recommended during the Iraq war.
What is needed is for the U.S. to totally withdraw from the area and let the various ethnic groups re-establish control of the areas where they live.
The U.S. can protect our vital national interests by encouraging the ethnic groups to make peace diplomatically, providing aid for groups that don't threaten us, and attacking any group that harbors Al Quaeda with air power (where do we have overwhelming force).
Perhaps the most pertinent advice to heed reportedly came from MacArthur: "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia."
Posted by: divtune | November 12, 2009 12:18 PM
The President is not dithering.
He is simply using the same techniques that President Bush used to invade Iraq.
Pretend to be studying all the alternatives.
He has already decided to send more troops to Afghanistan for nation building.
Talk of looking at exit strategies is just nonsense when the military strategy of the general is for more American troops to remain until the Afghans is ready to defeat the Taliban.
" (The United States) must provide substantial assistance to Afghanistan until the Afghan people make the decision to support their government and are capable of providing for their own security."
Clearly the only exit strategy is that American troops can leave when the Afghans can defeat the Taliban.
This military strategy should have been rejected immediately and not caused more study. Exit strategies like this one are not exit strategies.
Not rejecting this military strategy immediately indicates the President is now simply going through the motions of a show and tell and the President will finally send more troops to Afghanistan to follow a flawed military strategy.
One grows tired of this charade to supposedly need to analyze in a military strategy without an exit strategy.
Quotes from General McChrystal’s 66-page report to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 that was leaked to the Washington Post.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf
Posted by: bsallamack | November 12, 2009 1:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Sounds like the Dithering Dude at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his band of merry thugs needs to get his house in order (and attend another batch of Demo fundraisers) before he will turn his attention to one of his other and less fulfilling duties (as measured in terms of what it can mean for his friends in SEIU or Chicago)... duties that we Americans historically refer to as being Commander in Chief. I'll bet he doesn't delay the decision to go after Fox News or his "enemies list" as the next election looms closer, but on this one, looks like he's lost his way and can't find his way home.