Google Search

Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts

Monday, June 27, 2011

Mullen sees risk in Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal (AP)

By ROBERT BURNS and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Robert Burns And Matthew Lee, Associated Press – Thu Jun 23, 7:12 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The nation's top military officer and its top diplomat made clear Thursday that President Barack Obama rejected the advice of his generals in choosing a quicker path to winding down the war in Afghanistan.

The Obama troop withdrawal plan, widely interpreted as marking the beginning of the end of the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan, drew criticism from both sides of the political aisle on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans decried it as undercutting the military mission at a critical stage of the war, while many Democrats called it too timid.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took a swipe at Obama from the Senate floor, questioning the timing of his troop pullout plan.

"Just when they are one year away from turning over a battered and broken enemy in both southern and eastern Afghanistan to our Afghan partners — the president has now decided to deny them the forces that our commanders believe they need to accomplish their objective," McCain said.

Obama announced Wednesday night that he will pull 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by December and another 23,000 by the end of next summer.

On Thursday, the president spoke at New York's Fort Drum to troops and commanders of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. Its headquarters staff is in southern Afghanistan and its soldiers have been among the most frequently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.

Obama, perhaps responding to the flank of criticism from the right, said that he is not pulling home troops "precipitously" or risking the gain they've achieved.

"We're going to do it in a steady way to make sure that the gains that all of you helped to bring about are going to be sustained," he said. "Because of you, we're now taking the fight to the Taliban, instead of the Taliban bringing the fight to us. And because of you, there are signs that the Taliban may be interested in figuring out a political settlement, which ultimately is going to be critical for consolidating that country."

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that he supports the Obama plan, although he had recommended a less aggressive drawdown schedule.

Obama's approach adds risk to the military mission, Mullen said. But he added, "It's manageable risk."

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said later that he, too, had recommended a more gradual withdrawal — as had Marine Gen. James Mattis, who as commander of U.S. Central Command is Petraeus' immediate boss and overseer of all U.S. military operations in the greater Mideast.

Petraeus, appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is considering his nomination to become CIA director, had a telling exchange with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Levin asked the general whether he would resign if he felt he could not support Obama's decision.

"I'm not a quitter," Petraeus replied. "This is something I have thought a bit about. I don't think it's the place for a commander to actually consider that kind of step unless you are in a very, very dire situation."

In the same exchange, Petraeus appeared to suggest that he had vigorously opposed the timeline that the president chose. Levin asked Petraeus whether he felt comfortable supporting the plan now.

Petraeus wouldn't sign up for that without qualification. He implied he remains uneasy about the decision but said he does not think the plan is destined to fail.

Petraeus said he was returning to Kabul on Friday to work with his staff on how to implement the Obama plan.

Obama's plan will leave 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the drawdown. Most of those troops would gradually come home over the next two years, and the U.S. plans to close out its combat role in Afghanistan by 2015.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tacitly acknowledged the military had wanted more troops to remain for a longer period of time. And she said the keys to finally ending the conflict will be political negotiations with the Taliban leadership and managing a highly contentious relationship with Pakistan.

Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that prospects for successful peace talks with the Taliban are unclear. She said the U.S. was involved in "very preliminary" contacts with the Taliban, which she said has only recently shown signs that it may be ready to talk about a political settlement.

Such contacts with enemies are distasteful but worthwhile, she said, given the historical fact that few insurgencies have been defeated without a combination of military pressure and negotiation.

"This is not a pleasant business, but a necessary one," she said.

Clinton added that she was hopeful about a political settlement. Still, she said, "We're a long way from knowing what the realistic elements of such an agreement would be."

At least as murky is the outlook for cooperation with Pakistan. Clinton said the administration is stepping up pressure on Islamabad to take more aggressive action to help eliminate extremist elements like the Haqqani terrorist network.

"When it comes to our military aid ... we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken," she said, noting that Pakistan and U.S. interests do not always mesh well.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview with "PBS Newhour," said he did not have a preferred option going in to the discussions with Obama. But as he listened to the debate, he said, he became a strong advocate of the proposal to bring the surge troops home by the end of summer. That plan, he said, struck a balance between the military needs and the pressures here at home.

Gates said that American war fatigue played a role in the thinking, but he said he concluded that the plan would leave about 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and that there was enough time between now and next fall to train more Afghan security forces, so they can take the security lead across the country.

Mullen, who is retiring this fall, also cited the importance of the political dimensions of the conflict. Much of the questioning from committee members, however, focused on his opening statement in which he declared his support for Obama's troop withdrawal plan while also making clear that he originally considered it a mistake.

"The president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept," Mullen said. "More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course. But that does not necessarily make it the best course. Only the president, in the end, can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take. I believe he has done so."

Some in Congress have suggested that Obama was playing politics with the war plan, questioning why he would insist that the last of the 33,000 "surge" troops he ordered to Afghanistan in December 2009 leave the country by September 2012, which happens to coincide with the home stretch of his re-election campaign.

Military commanders favored a withdrawal plan that would allow them to keep as many troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible, ideally through the end of 2012

Mullen said he and the two four-star generals most directly involved in managing the war — Mattis and Petraeus — all support the president's plan. All three offered their views to Obama, "freely and without hesitation," Mullen said, as part of what he described as an inclusive and comprehensive White House decision-making process.

In her testimony, Clinton said it should be no surprise that U.S. commanders had pushed for a slower drawdown of troops.

"I think it would be totally understandable that a military commander would want as many troops for as long as he could get them," Clinton said. "But any military commander with the level of expertise and experience that Gen. Petraeus has also knows that what he wants is just part of the overall decision matrix and that there are other factors at work."

Petraeus said he made specific recommendations to Obama during a process that he called vigorous and inclusive.

"The ultimate decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline, than what we had recommended. Again, that is understandable," the general said. He did not cite specifics of his own recommendation to Obama, but he portrayed the disagreement as narrow. "We're talking about small differences."

Petraeus' designated replacement in Kabul is Marine Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, whose Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for next week.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Julie Pace, Donna Cassata and Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.

Robert Burns can be reached at http://twitter.com/robertburnsAP


View the original article here

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Kerry praises Obama plan for Afghanistan (AP)

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry is praising President Barack Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, saying it will allow Afghans to "make their own choices about their own future."

Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CBS' "Early Show" on Thursday that the plan "will change the political calculation of everybody on the ground."

Obama said Wednesday that 10,000 U.S. troops will come home from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and a total of 33,000 troops will be withdrawn by next summer.

Kerry says Obama's 2009 troop surge, which sent 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, "put the Taliban on its heels." The Massachusetts Democrat says the U.S. now needs "considerably fewer troops" there to prevent the Taliban from regaining control.


View the original article here

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Ambassador nominee says Afghanistan not hopeless (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan insisted on Wednesday that the United States must continue its multibillion-dollar investment to achieve a "good enough" government in Kabul that would prevent the country from backsliding into a sanctuary for terrorists.

Ryan Crocker was challenged repeatedly by skeptical senators who questioned a costly war now in its 10th year and nation-building that a fresh congressional report found has had limited success despite nearly $19 billion in foreign aid over a decade. That's more than the United States has spent in any other country, including Iraq.

"Our current commitment, in troops and dollars, is neither proportional to our interests nor sustainable," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Looming large as senators pressed Crocker to state an Afghanistan endgame was Obama's upcoming decision on how many of the 100,000 American troops to withdraw from Afghanistan in July. The killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, reservations about unreliable ally Pakistan and significant U.S. budget constraints have forced even the more hawkish members of Congress to rethink continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

The administration has not said what will be the size of the drawdown or whether it will include combat troops.

On a glide path to Senate confirmation, Crocker said the United States cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan, where the realistic goal is a relatively stable government rather than creation of "shining city on a hill."

"Governance that is good enough to ensure that the country doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaida," Crocker told the Foreign Relations panel.

He recalled Defense Secretary Robert Gates' warning that the United States walked away from Afghanistan in 1989 with disastrous consequences.

"We cannot afford to do so again," said Crocker, who argued progress is hard, "but hard does not mean hopeless."

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., summed up the frustration of lawmakers.

"If we're not going to walk away, how long are we going to stay and at what level?" Coons asked.

Crocker said bluntly, "I just don't know the answer now."

He said the goal was avoiding a return to an al-Qaida haven.

"The trick is, how do you do it and how much does it cost and how long does it take?" he added.

The career diplomat, who served in Beirut, Baghdad and Islamabad, pointed to the upcoming transfer of control of seven provinces and districts to Afghan authority, a significant step as the United States pushes toward removing all its troops by 2014.

But that prompted Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to argue that it doesn't necessarily guarantee a blow to enemy forces, who can move.

"International terrorism and guerrilla warfare in general is intrinsically mobile," Webb said. "I fought a guerrilla war in Vietnam."

Kerry and the panel's Democrats released a report late Tuesday that found that despite $18.8 billion spent by the U.S. to help stabilize and build up Afghanistan, that nation is at risk of falling into financial crisis when foreign troops leave in 2014.

Misspent foreign aid can result in corruption, alter markets and undercut the ability of the Kabul government to control its resources, said the report, which was posted Tuesday night on the Senate committee's website. The World Bank found that a whopping 97 percent of the gross domestic product in Afghanistan is linked to spending by the international military and donor community.

Crocker said corruption "totally unchecked becomes ... a second insurgency."

The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are spending about $320 million a month on foreign aid there, relying on the money to "win hearts and minds." Among the successes has been a sevenfold increase in the number of children attending school and gains in health care.

But the report said the United States must take a closer look at how it spends the money, relying heavily on contractors. The U.S. must do a better job of oversight, especially as it funds more aid through the Afghan government. One recommendation was to standardize Afghan salaries and work with the government on staff limitations.

The panel's Democrats also suggested that Congress implement multiyear aid programs and closer scrutiny of stabilization programs.

"Transition planning should find the right balance between avoiding a sudden drop-off in aid, which could trigger a major economic recession and a long-term phase-out from current levels of donor spending," the report said.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the administration welcomed but did not endorse all the conclusions in the report.

"I think that USAID is already addressing many of the issues that were raised in the report concerning sustainability and oversight," he said. "And you know, we've undertaken, we believe, in the past years some good efforts to change the way we do business."

Republicans and Democrats are pressing for a robust drawdown of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan, especially in a time of serious U.S. financial woes. The administration is seeking about $3.2 billion in foreign aid for Afghanistan in next year's budget, an amount likely to be closely reviewed.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., has called for a cut of 15,000 U.S. troops by year's end, including combat troops. But the panel's top Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said he stands with Gates for a more modest drawdown and no combat troops.

McCain said the administration would make a cut of 15,000 "if you want to lose."


View the original article here

Friday, June 10, 2011

Ambassador nominee says Afghanistan not hopeless (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan insisted on Wednesday that the United States must continue its multibillion-dollar investment to achieve a "good enough" government in Kabul that would prevent the country from backsliding into a sanctuary for terrorists.

Ryan Crocker was challenged repeatedly by skeptical senators who questioned a costly war now in its 10th year and nation-building that a fresh congressional report found has had limited success despite nearly $19 billion in foreign aid over a decade. That's more than the United States has spent in any other country, including Iraq.

"Our current commitment, in troops and dollars, is neither proportional to our interests nor sustainable," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Looming large as senators pressed Crocker to state an Afghanistan endgame was Obama's upcoming decision on how many of the 100,000 American troops to withdraw from Afghanistan in July. The killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, reservations about unreliable ally Pakistan and significant U.S. budget constraints have forced even the more hawkish members of Congress to rethink continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

The administration has not said what will be the size of the drawdown or whether it will include combat troops.

On a glide path to Senate confirmation, Crocker said the United States cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan, where the realistic goal is a relatively stable government rather than creation of "shining city on a hill."

"Governance that is good enough to ensure that the country doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaida," Crocker told the Foreign Relations panel.

He recalled Defense Secretary Robert Gates' warning that the United States walked away from Afghanistan in 1989 with disastrous consequences.

"We cannot afford to do so again," said Crocker, who argued progress is hard, "but hard does not mean hopeless."

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., summed up the frustration of lawmakers.

"If we're not going to walk away, how long are we going to stay and at what level?" Coons asked.

Crocker said bluntly, "I just don't know the answer now."

He said the goal was avoiding a return to an al-Qaida haven.

"The trick is, how do you do it and how much does it cost and how long does it take?" he added.

The career diplomat, who served in Beirut, Baghdad and Islamabad, pointed to the upcoming transfer of control of seven provinces and districts to Afghan authority, a significant step as the United States pushes toward removing all its troops by 2014.

But that prompted Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to argue that it doesn't necessarily guarantee a blow to enemy forces, who can move.

"International terrorism and guerrilla warfare in general is intrinsically mobile," Webb said. "I fought a guerrilla war in Vietnam."

Kerry and the panel's Democrats released a report late Tuesday that found that despite $18.8 billion spent by the U.S. to help stabilize and build up Afghanistan, that nation is at risk of falling into financial crisis when foreign troops leave in 2014.

Misspent foreign aid can result in corruption, alter markets and undercut the ability of the Kabul government to control its resources, said the report, which was posted Tuesday night on the Senate committee's website. The World Bank found that a whopping 97 percent of the gross domestic product in Afghanistan is linked to spending by the international military and donor community.

Crocker said corruption "totally unchecked becomes ... a second insurgency."

The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are spending about $320 million a month on foreign aid there, relying on the money to "win hearts and minds." Among the successes has been a sevenfold increase in the number of children attending school and gains in health care.

But the report said the United States must take a closer look at how it spends the money, relying heavily on contractors. The U.S. must do a better job of oversight, especially as it funds more aid through the Afghan government. One recommendation was to standardize Afghan salaries and work with the government on staff limitations.

The panel's Democrats also suggested that Congress implement multiyear aid programs and closer scrutiny of stabilization programs.

"Transition planning should find the right balance between avoiding a sudden drop-off in aid, which could trigger a major economic recession and a long-term phase-out from current levels of donor spending," the report said.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the administration welcomed but did not endorse all the conclusions in the report.

"I think that USAID is already addressing many of the issues that were raised in the report concerning sustainability and oversight," he said. "And you know, we've undertaken, we believe, in the past years some good efforts to change the way we do business."

Republicans and Democrats are pressing for a robust drawdown of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan, especially in a time of serious U.S. financial woes. The administration is seeking about $3.2 billion in foreign aid for Afghanistan in next year's budget, an amount likely to be closely reviewed.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., has called for a cut of 15,000 U.S. troops by year's end, including combat troops. But the panel's top Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said he stands with Gates for a more modest drawdown and no combat troops.

McCain said the administration would make a cut of 15,000 "if you want to lose."


View the original article here