Obama – Afghanistan Troop Build-Up Reported by CBS – Denied by White House – A Disconnect and Disservice to the Public.

"Obama's War in Afganistan - Image: whitewraithe wordpress

A CBS News report issued yesterday indicated “informed sources” suggested that the President would increase troop deployment to Afghanistan by up to 40,000 members. There are 68,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Afghanistan; General Stanley McChrystal, who was chosen by the administration to head the Afghan theater has requested up to 44,000 additional troops to deal with the increase in Taliban and Al Queda actions against U.S. forces. John Kerry, (D-MA), immediately opposed the Generals request, replaying his general opposition to deployment of military personnel. Kerry has been a prominent anti-war activist since his brief stint in Viet Nam and has been critical of any U.S. troop deployments, most recently the mission in Iraq. Kerry, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated in a recent speech that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's plan, which calls for 44,000 troops to carry out a counterinsurgency campaign, "reaches too far, too fast." (Washington Post).

Immediately following the CBS report, the White House issued a denial that Obama had made any decisions yet as to the level of troops he is willing to commit to Afghanistan. A national security advisor noted that reports of a decision by Obama regarding troop deployments were false. One interesting facet of that particular AP report is contained in a brief paragraph in the middle:

“After attending Tuesday's memorial service for the 13 killed in a shooting spree at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, Obama is due to meet his senior commanders on Wednesday again in the situation room to discuss Afghanistan. Analysis: More Fort Hoods possible.”

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, specifically Obama’s initial campaign promises to remove troops from Iraq and go into Afghanistan to take on Al Queda, including use of additional U.S. forces in that theater has been compared to Viet Nam on more than one occasion. The fact that the U.S. Military believes that there are “more Fort Hoods possible” is also troubling and should, perhaps, have been a separate headline. The overall impression is one of chaos, as far as the management and direction of what has become known as “Obama’s War”. It is questionable as to how the administration will handle both domestic terrorism (Al Queda linked) and the troop buildup in a country that no nation has ever successfully controlled.
As to the CBS News organization, which has issued reports in the past without fully investigating the subject matter (see Dan Rather, former CBS anchor and reports on President Bush in 2005 which included falsified documents, that were not vetted by the news organizations.) either decided to issue a credible report, again “based on informed” sources, or they jumped the gun, and ran a story that had little credence or backing. That said, the White House issues denials of reports on a regular basis, so it is difficult for anyone that is sitting on the sidelines to determine what is taking place. White House communication director, Anita Dunn, has stated that the Obama campaign and the administration “control the press” which, leaves little room for error on the part of journalists walking the fine line between White House approval (access) or banishment (see Fox News boycott story on Huffington Post) should the administration be questioned. This leaves the general public in the dark regarding the War in Afghanistan, should news organizations decide to shut down and kowtow to the administration.

Regardless, the fact that large numbers of troops are being considered for deployment, in a theater that is historically unmanageable, with the concept of phasing in troops over a period of time (see Viet Nam, War of Attrition) could lead to an eventual draft, once volunteer forces become exhausted. In this instance, Senator Kerry’s hesitant stance may be justified. The current administrations inattention to historical boondoggles of the past, (see Carter), have led to economic woes, and the addition of a “Viet Nam” is not out of the question. The “excuse” that both the economic problems facing the county and the War in Afghanistan are merely leftovers (so to speak) from the Bush Administration, is beginning to wear thin. It is growing more obvious by the day, that throwing money (stimulus after stimulus) and adding taxes to corporations, does little to improve the economy – in fact, as the unemployment rates tops 10%, those tax cuts to “the evil corporations”, may induce them to actually hire and build in the United States. Additionally, Bush’s strategy to engage terrorists organizations in Iraq, build the Iraqi security forces, and eventually hand security over to the Iraqi government, appeared to be working. It is now apparent that withdrawal from that theater, only increased violence in Iraq, and Al Queda and the Taliban grew stronger in Afghanistan. Additionally, we are now faced with domestic terrorism in the United States, from Fort Hood to the latest plans to attack shopping malls in Boston. The problem seems to be, at the present time, a disconnect between the White House, History and the Press.

Afganistan - Is Obama Another American “Cowboy?”

Barack Obama - Houston Chronicle

The Arab Press is weighing in on Barack Obama’s proposal to increase troops in Afghanistan in an interesting article that compares Afghanistan to the Viet Nam War – the analysis draws some stunning parallels, the most significant thesis being that American’s will, once again, be fighting against an ideology, which proved to play a significant part in the Viet Nam Saga.
The Washington Post reports today, that Obama will be seeking NATO support for an increased US presence in Afghanistan, however, on March 10th, when Vice President Biden visited NATO leaders regarding the addition of 17,000 US Troops in that theater, the reception was one of "wait and see" - European members have ruled out sending more troops to Afghanistan, rather suggested there may be other ways to assist the effort.

Obama appears conflicted - he offered an admittance that there exists a quagmire of sorts in Afghanistan:
“But nearly eight years after the Taliban were driven out of Kabul, Obama has conceded that the United States was not winning the war and suggested talks with the militia's moderates to promote a political resolution.”

First, refer to the comparison to Viet Nam - and the prophetic Boston Globe article:from the 28th of March, "Afgan War to Take Years, Obama Declares"

The view from the Middle East is hardly encouraging: The Arab Times outlines how Afghanistan would be a tougher task that Iraq quoting a military source:

Major General Rick Olson, the former operational commander for coalition forces in Afghanistan, warned that just sending more troops would not bring stability to a population far more rural and dispersed than Iraq's.
'The conditions that favored success in Iraq are conspicuously lacking in Afghanistan,' he wrote in The Christian Science Monitor.

From Al Jezeera March 28, 2009:
“However, the Taliban told Al Jazeera in a statement on Friday: "Obama is repeating the mistakes of [former Russian leader Mikhail] Gorbachev.”

Russian Troops Afghanistan 1988 - DailyLife.com

Evan the Iranians have weighed in on Obama’s proposal: From Iranian TV this article suggests that Obama’s plan will only increase the violence in Afghanistan Go Figure.
Meanwhile, the President is even using “Bin Laden” to bolster support for his Afghanistan Policy, arguing Bin Laden is planning attacks on the U.S. from inside both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

One has to ask: What’s the point? On the one hand, the President is increasing the US presence in Afghanistan, while suggesting a diplomatic component, in an area where violence is the norm and diplomacy has yet to work. The Bush Administration preferred to fight in Iraq (history is yet to rule on that strategy), maintaining minimal forces in Afghanistan, where primitive tribal politics and a forbidding terrain make any military incursion a long, drawn out affair. Since the forces in Iraq are being drawn down, Guantanamo is on the chopping block and those “combatants” deemed less than dangerous are finding homes in the United States, the reasoning to continue in Afghanistan, of all places, seems more politically contrived. It is not as if the United States does not have the tools necessary to track “terrorist” conversations, both at home and abroad, the intel necessary to locate Al Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the technology to take out those “soft targets” without putting one boot on the ground. Obama ran as the “anti-war” president, yet suddenly finds it necessary to one-up his predecessor: using Cowboy language regarding Al Qaeda and the Taliban: "disrupt, defeat and dismantle" What’s next - An Obama “Axis of Evil’? Either Obama secretly admires George W. Bush, or something else is afoot.

President George W. Bush - Sept. 11 News.com

(Will the Press react in the same manner as they did when Bush uttered "Dead or Alive", vis a vis Bin Laden)