Obama delays Afghanistan decision
Updated on 29 October 2009
After months of deliberations, the White House is saying it could take weeks longer for President Obama to decide whether to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, writes Felicity Spector.
Tomorrow the president meets the joint chiefs of staff for more discussions on his Af-Pak strategy, as growing numbers of critics accuse him of dithering and dragging his feet. Leading Republicans, from Dick Cheney to John McCain, aren't pulling their punches. This from the former Veep: "Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."
Obama insists he's taking his "solemn responsibility" immensely seriously, telling troops on Monday: "I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary." Indeed, October has been the deadliest month for US troops since the conflict began.
And as dawn rose over Dover air force base early this morning, the president came face to face with that harsh reality as he paid his respects to the bodies of 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan over the last week.
But at the heart of his long drawn out decision-making over a new troop surge lies a fundamental difference of opinion with his chief war commander, General McChrystal. He's been demanding an extra 40,000 troops to bolster the current 68,000-strong US force, arguing it's the only way to halt the Taliban's momentum.
Latest reports suggest Obama is coming round to a "narrow" option – sending more troops, but far fewer than 40,000, with far less ambitious objectives.
But it's not just a numbers game. The military are all about counter-insurgency, sending half the new troops to seize back Taliban strongholds, deploying the rest to reinforce positions elsewhere, while training up local forces to take over.
As the Washington Post put it, the McChrystal strategy is "far closer to a nation-building project" – and that isn't what this White House wants to attempt.
Instead, a small inner circle of officials and advisers, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and National Security adviser James L Jones, are helping the president decide if, and how, to expand America's commitment.
Rather than counter-insurgency, the focus is counter-terrorism: more strikes on militant positions along the Pakistan border, supporting Pakistan's own fight against the Taliban, speeding up the training of Afghanistan's own security forces.
Now, according to the Washington Post, Obama has asked for a detailed analysis of Afghan provinces to work out which local and tribal leaders could prove the most effective partners.
As one official is quoted as saying, "Any successful and sustainable strategy must clearly align the resources we provide with the goals we are trying to achieve." A shift away, then, from Afghanistan's flawed central government, in the midst of an election run-off swirled with allegations of corruption and weakness.
A decision on troops was expected before Obama travels abroad on 11 November. Now there are suggestions he could wait even longer. But careful deliberation looks a lot like dithering to many Americans: a recent poll suggested almost two thirds don't think the president has a clear plan for dealing with Afghanistan.
As Obama bowed his head in honour of the fallen at daybreak this morning, watching a succession of flag-draped coffins make their slow journey home, it's clear the decision on committing more troops weighs heavy on his shoulders. But it is a decision he must take – and soon.
