So, while General McChrystal is in the USA to "give testimony", The Gates is in Afghanistan trying to reassure Karzai that says he doesn't have the money for Troops and Cops for at least 15 years. So much for the Obama pull back theme. Nothing like placating the Leftinistra eh Obama?
[...] In a surprise visit to Afghanistan, he aims to reassure troops, Karzai. KABUL -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates arrived in this war-torn country Tuesday morning on an unannounced visit, prepared to offer U.S. troops a message from Washington after President Obama's decision to boost troop levels significantly: "We are in this thing to win." [...]
[...] "A big piece of it, of my conversations especially with the soldiers, will be just to thank them for their service, for their sacrifice and to tell them we are in this thing to win," Gates, speaking to reporters traveling with him, said before his arrival here.
Gates, the first senior U.S. official to travel to Afghanistan since Obama's announcement, said he will stress to President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials that the United States will not abandon them as it did in 1989, when the Soviet Union left in defeat. The United States had backed forces fighting the Soviets, but ended its support after Moscow quit the war, paving the way for Taliban rule. [...]
AHA! It was President Reagn and the first George Bush that did that! I see.
[...] Since then, messengers have been sent out with all kinds of messages. Withdrawal firm. No withdrawal. Its almost as if the sage, presidential-like strategic deliberations that started last February … in/out, win/lose, more/less, fight/surrender … continue. But I suspect that Gates has overreached with his extreme use of the “W” word and Gibbs or someone will need to walk that back a little or at least explain in more considered terms what is meant by “win.” Because I don’t think anyone thinks that kind of rash, simplistic language properly reflects the position of the Obama administration vis-à-vis “the war” perse. [END]
WASHINGTON — On a seven-hour trip from Kabul to a NATO meeting in Brussels last week, the two men in Kabul most responsible for American policy in Afghanistan barely exchanged words, administration officials said, holing up in separate compartments on their military plane.
The quiet flight of the two officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, reflects a chill between the two men that officials said took hold even before they staked out conflicting positions in the debate over how many added American troops to send to Afghanistan.
When General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry sit down next to each other on Tuesday to testify before the House and Senate about President Obama’s new Afghan policy, they will have to work hard to project the image of lockstep unity so valued by this White House. [...]
And myself A Troop knows exactly what that means. McChrystal is going to bury the libtard. We'll see.
KABUL (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived late Monday in Afghanistan with plans to assure officials and American troops there that the United States is committed to winning the war despite plans to begin pulling forces out in 2011.
“We are in this thing to win,” Gates told reporters while traveling to Kabul, where he plans to meet privately with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and later with troops bearing the brunt of combat.
The secretary’s trip to Afghanistan is the first by a Cabinet member since President Barack Obama’s announcement last week that he will deploy 30,000 more troops with the intention of starting to bring them home in July 2011.
As Gates took his message abroad, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the overall military commander in Afghanistan, will try Tuesday to convince a skeptical Congress that more troops are needed to fight a growing enemy insurgency. More than 920 U.S. troops have died in the 8-year-old war.
McChrystal’s appearance before the House Armed Services Committee starts the first of three days of congressional Afghanistan hearings that are expected to draw hard questions from both anti-war Democrats and conservative Republicans about Obama’s stated intention to begin paring down the U.S. role in July 2011.
Gates and other administration officials have described the 2011 date as just the beginning, with the process likely take at least two or three years to complete. [...]
WASHINGTON — The two ranking Americans in Afghanistan, a soldier and a diplomat, publicly put aside their differences and told Congress on Tuesday that they fully supported President Obama’s new strategy to add 30,000 troops there to reverse Taliban gains and prepare Afghans to better control their own country.
The officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in the country, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, began a full day of hearings before the House and Senate cautioning lawmakers of the high costs — in lives as well as dollars — still to come in a war already eight years old, but expressed faith in the new battle plan that Mr. Obama announced last week after a three month review.
“The decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach,” General McChrystal said in his prepared remarks. “The mission is not only important; it is also achievable. We can and will accomplish this mission.”
Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general and former commander in Afghanistan himself, said that that administration for the first time was providing adequate resources and attention to non-military goals — governance and development — that ultimately would gauge the mission’s success.
“Our overarching goal is to encourage good governance, free from corruption, so Afghans see the benefits of supporting the legitimate government, and the insurgency loses support,” Ambassador Eikenberry said in his prepare remarks.
Their testimony came as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates began a visit to Kabul, the first by a member of Mr. Obama’s national security team since the president announced his new strategy. [...]
I heard some of this testimony today and General McChrystal told the congress critters that he made no intention of the 2011 draw down. OOPS! The draw down in 18 months was another's tomfoolery, that being The Obama.
[...] Though General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry were said to have become rivals as they staked out conflicting positions on the war’s course, they sought to defuse any awkward tension as they sat side by side before a battery of cameras at the hearing. They called each other “old friends,” even though colleagues say they’ve been anything but in recent days.
“General McChrystal and I are united in a joint effort in which civilian and military personnel work together every day, often literally side-by-side with our Afghan partners and allies,” Ambassador Eikenberry said in his statement.
In fact, neither man got exactly what he wanted from Mr. Obama’s review, at least in terms of troops. General McChrystal favored as many as an additional 40,000 forces, while Ambassador Eikenberry, according to people who read the classified diplomatic cables he sent back to Washington, opposed any significant increase until the Afghan government aggressively demonstrated its seriousness in tackling governance, corruption and development problems.
In Tuesday morning’s hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, both officials aimed to put the expansion to 100,000 American troops by late next year in the context of three decades of civil war in Afghanistan. A hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee was to follow.
“While U.S. forces have been at war in Afghanistan for eight years, the Afghans have been at it for more than 30,” General McChrystal said in his remarks. “They are frustrated with international efforts that have failed to meet their expectations, confronting us with a crisis of confidence among Afghans who view the international effort as insufficient and their government as corrupt or, at the very least, inconsequential.”
That said, Ambassador Eikenberry noted that the government of President Hamid Karzai must aggressively fight corruption and work closely with the United States to build able governance and competent Afghan security forces that eventually can take over the fight against the Taliban. [...]
General McChrystal had originally asked for 60,000 Troops, Eikenberry. Remember, McChrystal originally reported to Obama back in June but was told to "adjust it some" because Obama didn't know what was what.
Here we go on all of that nonsense...
Boston (AP) - -President Obama’s Afghanistan surge is proving to be good politics - if you’re a Democrat who’s against it.
In Massachusetts, all of the Democrats running in a special primary to fill Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat oppose the surge, as do the two top Democrats fighting for the nomination for Ohio’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010.
“I think we all agree this is wrong,” said Rep. Michael E. Capuano, one of the four Massachusetts Democrats who squared off in a debate last week heading into Tuesday’s primary.
Even in conservative-leaning Kentucky, Jack Conway, the leading Democratic candidate for the 2010 Senate race, said Mr. Obama’s plans fall short.
“I do not feel President Obama has adequately explained how he will get Pakistan involved in the effort to combat al Qaeda,” Mr. Conway said.
Mr. Obama last week announced plans to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, with a hazy timetable for them to withdraw beginning 18 months from now. That is six months after the congressional elections.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration understands the differing views.
“The president would be the first to tell you that people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions on both the Democratic and Republican side,” he said. “I think that was in some ways obviously true for Iraq.”
Even before next year’s elections, the issue will come to a head when Congress takes up its next spending bills.
Top members of Congress say the White House will have to send up a special war-funding bill, though the White House was noncommittal on whether it will do that.
There's always a problem with draw downs. Draw downs are good in my respect but the problem is getting the other side to comply. One sided draw downs only work for libtards.
President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.
In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.
According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.
Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left. Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.
Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’” [...]
Right. Let's talk about it.
[...] The Left would like to take Military decisions out of the hands of the Military.
But, who should we give such decision-making powers to?
How about the EPA. [END]
The United States would begin financing its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan with war bonds under new legislation introduced Tuesday.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) unveiled the "United States War Bonds Act of 2009" early this afternoon, which would authorize the Treasury Department to begin selling bonds to fund the wars.
The bonds, Nelson said, would be purposed with helping to pay for the military efforts, in particular the surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, without having to resort to the "war surtax" that has been discussed by some liberals in the House and Senate. [...]
[...] For all the bluster, thugs tend to feel inferior and insecure inside. That's why the slightest criticism tends to get under their skin so much. The skin can be black, or white. Obama is a guy with some personal issues. My real fear is that the same inferiority he feels inside likely drives his political thugism, too. This is a guy it can be impossible to reason with. He convinces himself he's right on everything and can't deal very well with being wrong. His ego simply can't withstand the slight.
Scratch inexperienced. We have a very immature potus. And that ain't good. [...]
And that settles all of that. So, what's Obama's plans? I can hardly wait for more of the McChrystal grilling of the congress critters that are hell bent on losing another war.
The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum