At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama

I am in NYC this evening. I wound up, purely through Priceline happenstance, staying in room 1208 at the Hilton Millenium, which is directly above the former WTC 9/11 location; at this time of night, it is full of construction trucks-- still excavating with the haunting blowhorn going off intermittently.... and it looks like, 9 years later, that they are still pulling out original tower concrete and iron that remains.

And the news... I have to admit a bit of hope with Obama making the right choice over Afghanistan when I read about his administration staff telling CNN: "People at the Pentagon are trying to force a certain outcome."

More from the WH:

White House National Security Adviser Retired Gen. Jim Jones issued a rare public statement Monday vehemently denying media reports suggesting President Obama has privately decided to send close to 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as tensions between the White House and Pentagon appear to be flaring up over exactly what the president will announce.

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false," Jones, who generally keeps a low public profile, said in a prepared statement Monday night. "He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."


I sure hope that's true, because when you read the likes of what CBS is putting out, its downright politically disastrous for Obama and Democrats:

CBS Exclusive: Sources Say Force Will Grow to 100,000 - Nearly Filling Gen. McChrystal's Request; Long-Term Stay Planned

McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops. A senior officer says "that's close to what [McChrystal] asked for." All the president's military advisers have recommended sending more troops.

The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.

In no small part, Obama won the Democratic nomination because of his opposition to the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and he strongly opposed the Bush surge there. Now, he many times mentioned about Bush 'taking his eye off of the real war in Afghanistan' or some variation of the sort, but never said anything about sending in tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds, of more troops into Afghanistan. Did I miss that part? There is no way that Obama would have won a Democratic primary had he laid out that sort of plan. In fact, there's no way that we would have had a Democratic wave in '06 and a Democratic tsunami in '08 of wins, had the Democrats campaigned on the bait and switch of leaving Iraq, for Afghanistan.

But now, sources out of the Pentagon are saying that Obama is about to go for his own "surge" of troops as part of a long-term occupation of Afghanistan.


For now though, I refuse to believe that Obama and the Democrats will make this huge a mistake. It's too unbelievably self-destructive to accept.

9:30 pm must mark the end of construction, as the machines have quieted down below. Its remarkable, how one event can serve to swerve a nation off course. I know that there were evil people that committed the atricity of 9/11, and it is natural to want vengeance; but at some point, the loss must be let go lest it turn in with its destruction.

We are becoming lost as a nation in the land of a country that, as it stands now, had nothing to do with 9/11. We no longer have a military reason to be in Afghanistan-- other than we are losing a war that's now 9 years old. Yes, we want to help the people that live there gain a better life, and we do have a global responsibility to fund the UN and NGO's that fulfill such a task. I fear the worst for our nation if we deepen the US military presence in Afghanistan.

I'm gonna go out for a walk around this place now, and hope for the best-- that Obama wields the power he has to turn off the machines of a meaningless war. Let the Republicans whine and gloat about it. Democrats won the past two cycles because they vowed to end our midesast wars, not go deeper into a new one. We will not lose if we do the right thing; in fact, just the opposite.

Update [2009-11-9 22:57:1 by Jerome Armstrong]: The last time I'd come to to ground zero was during the '04 GOP convention, when Bush was renominated. With Anatopia, we walked the entire perimeter, stopping often to view the left memories from friends and relatives. Tonight, I walked over to St Paul's church, and as I was coming back around the side, I was struck at the presence there next to the sidewalk of the 9-11 ground zero cross-- in its temporary location since 2006. They've begun working again below. Non-stop it appears through the night.



Display:


Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

They say the name of the Millenium Hilton is an intentional misspelling.  Not sure if I believe that one.

There's been great progress at Ground Zero as compared to a couple years ago, but it's still basically a big hole in the ground.

Hope you enjoy your stay in the Big Apple.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:58:47 PM EST

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

If Obama does send that many troops, I think there's a good chance he'll be primaried in 2012, especially if 2010 goes badly.


by esconded on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:04:01 PM EST

Pure Speculation (none / 0)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he is going to send an additional two or three brigades, about 8,000-12,000 troops with additional support units.  But I'm also guessing there will be a considerable emphasis on other support activities, such as training of Afghan security forces and infrastructure improvements along with a clearly defined strategy and performance measures largely aimed at the Karzai government.  Would that be worth 'primarying' him over?

Incidentally, I wouldn't be very surprised if some of the delay in making these decisions has something to do with a realignment or recommitment of ISAF presence in Afghanistan in co-operation with other member states.  We'll see.  Obama seems inclined to get all his ducks lined up in a row on issues like this.

It's not very helpful that we've seen a bit of skullduggery out of the Pentagon on this but it just tells me the Obama administration is standing its ground on the decision, whatever it may be.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're looking at 30K troops and support (none / 0)


by louisprandtl on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

I'm sure he would welcome a primary. Who will it be?


by vecky on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

If there were that degree of support among Democratic voters for a get out of Afghanistan platform, you would have heard more of that argument in 2008.  Maybe from John Edwards who certainly tried to outflank everyone to the left on every other issue.

Outside of the anti-war movement, which I'm not trying to put down, the Democratic base by and large doesn't seem to care too deeply about Afghanistan.  You could see a Cindy Sheehan-type challenge but I can't imagine a credible primary if Afghanistan is the main issue.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:06:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

Obama did campaign on sending more troops to A'stan. One of his first acts as President was to send an additional 10-15K troops there. The majority of those just finished deploying.


by vecky on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:10:52 PM EST

Thank you for this diary... (none / 0)

And I hope you enjoy your stay in NYC.  I have not been there in 13 years.  Al Gore was still the future POTUS, and Netscape vs Explorer was a hot story.  Those were the days...

I agree with your contention that Sen. Obama never mentioned anything about a troop buildup in Afghanistan, and that he probably would not have won had he done so.

But, he did sorta promise victory in Afghanistan...that was implicit in his statement that he would keep his eye on the ball (Afghanistan).  

Now, having read your diaries during the campaign, and specially during the primaries, I know that you knew what it entailed.  And so, you cannot say you are surprised, even if some others are.


by Ravi Verma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:27:00 PM EST

Re: Thank you for this diary... (none / 0)

What the hell is Netscape?!?

Heh.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

In no small part, Obama won the Democratic nomination because of his opposition to the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and he strongly opposed the Bush surge there. Now, he many times mentioned about Bush 'taking his eye off of the real war in Afghanistan' or some variation of the sort, but never said anything about sending in tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds, of more troops into Afghanistan. Did I miss that part?

I don't think you missed it.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall him specifically stating that he'd send more troops, or how many.  Probably because it would have been pretty stupid to commit to sending a set number long before he became CIC, based not on what the situation actually is now, but what he guessed it would be after he was elected.  

You're right.  Obama probably wouldn't have won a Democratic primary had he laid out that sort of plan.  Making strategic and tactical decisions way back during the primaries would have been dumb.  As I recall, he said he'd shift the focus back to A-stan, and assess the situation when the time came.  Near as I can tell, that's exactly what the administration is doing now.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:35:44 PM EST

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (2.00 / 1)

Candidate Obama July 2008 NY Times Op Ed:

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.

A brigade is about 4,000 troops, add in support (non-combat) and you are talking big numbers. Note the word "begin". Obama was always clear during the campaign that he would shift our military's focus to Afghanistan, he repeatedly advocated, in the primary, for a significant military deployment to Afghanistan.

I bet he goes large, over 40k, but not all in. That would be consistent with his position in the primaries, and consistent with the counterinsurgency plan he put in place when he replaced General McKiernan with General McChrystal, a COIN advocate, as our commander in Afghanistan.


by souvarine on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:17:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

The truth is, Obama only has 2-3 years to "fix" A'stan from what Bush failed to do in 7.

Fix means: Produce a legitimate, effective Afghan government, reasonably free of corruption. And train and equip a credible Afghan Army able to undertake basic security and counter-insurgency activities.

Doing this will allow the US to withdraw the majority of it's forces and concentrate on AQ.


by vecky on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:46:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

Right, as I said, nothing in the primary-- thanks for clarifying the deception.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

Maybe.  Hard to forget this remark as it caused such a furore back in late summer 2007:

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there"

Mark Murray AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties MSNBC 14 Aug 07

I have a feeling that wasn't the only time he implied a further increase before June 2008 but I'm having a little difficulty searching through the MyDD archive at this point.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 01:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And This... (2.00 / 1)

Early in the piece:


Moreover, until we change our approach in Iraq, it will be increasingly difficult to refocus our efforts on the challenges in the wider region [list of regional challenges] ...and on Afghanistan, where more American forces are needed to battle al Qaeda, track down Osama bin Laden, and stop that country from backsliding toward instability.

Senator Barack Obama - Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs 23 Apr 07

That was his first major foreign policy speech of the campaign.  I'm guessing 'deception' is perhaps a little harsh.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 01:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (none / 0)

Baloney. There are all sorts of proposals of his with specific numbers, such as healthcare, troop reduction in Iraq, and so on.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (2.00 / 1)

 I think it is way too soon to tell whether A'stan will replace Health Care Reform as the reason we hate Obama and wish him ill. It might be something completely different.


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:50:13 AM EST

Re: At WTC; Pentagon trying to force Obama (2.00 / 1)

I've only been to NYC once since 9/11.
I live in Ireland now and lots of Irish and English go over to NYC (or Boston) every year for shopping excursions.
With the US dollar what it is against the Euro, it's irresistible....
A few years ago I went over (with my Irish partner) for one such trip. We visited Ground Zero. I like to think of myself as being pretty cynical about most things. But, to my surprise, I found myself weeping when we were there. Even thinking about it now, I'm getting misty-eyed.
by carrieboberry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:49:12 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.