washingtonpost.com
War speech to outline escalation and exit
Obama set to address nation next week on his Afghanistan plan

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

When he talks to the nation next week about his Afghanistan strategy, President Obama will face the central challenge of explaining why he is escalating an eight-year-old war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public, while he also outlines plans for ending it.

Obama's prime-time address, tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, will begin the White House effort to sell his revised war plan -- one leading scenario calls for sending 30,000 additional U.S. troops -- to powerful skeptics within his party, reluctant allies abroad and an Afghan public uncertain whether international forces or the Taliban will win the war.

Administration officials say the speech will outline a modest endgame for Afghanistan that would allow U.S. forces to leave and set a general time frame for achieving that result. The remarks will last about 40 minutes, officials said, roughly twice as long as then-President George W. Bush took to outline his Iraq "surge" strategy nearly three years ago.

Obama's speech is expected to include an appeal to NATO allies, which the president alluded to Tuesday, saying that "one of the things I'm going to be discussing is the obligations of our international partners in this process."

"I've also indicated that after eight years -- some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done -- it is my intention to finish the job," Obama said during a news conference with visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "And I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive."

What is emerging from White House discussions is a plan favored by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that would deploy between 30,000 and 35,000 additional U.S. troops and call on NATO allies to contribute another 10,000 soldiers. That would bring the total number of new allied troops to about 40,000, the number sought by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. There are currently 68,000 U.S. troops there.

Gates is asking for help at a time when the European public, even more than Americans, opposes any military escalation in Afghanistan, and Obama has in the past told Gates that he doubts that NATO leaders will agree to send additional forces, according to White House officials.

But Gates's proposal has won powerful advocates within the military and the administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It appears to be the most widely supported option, although Obama's advisers say he has yet to make known his final choice.

Long deliberation

Obama's decision to outline an escalation and an exit simultaneously is a result of months of deliberation over a military proposal to expand the war, with no assurance that doing so would result in a more stable Afghanistan. The debate exposed divisions within the administration over the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan and, for the second time this year, forced Obama to reconsider his goals for what he once called a "necessary war."

Much of Obama's deliberation, according to White House advisers involved in the process, has been focused not only on ensuring that enough forces reach the battlefield but also on discouraging future troop requests if the security situation deteriorates. Obama has demanded that all troop options be explained in terms of realistic goals and timelines, an acknowledgment that the American public has limited patience for an expensive new military commitment at a time of economic hardship at home.

Some of Obama's most influential civilian advisers, led by Vice President Biden, favor a more narrow counterterrorism strategy that would accelerate the training of Afghan forces and intensify aerial strikes against al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many Congressional Democrats prefer Biden's approach, and Obama has been considering a proposal that would send 10,000 additional U.S. troops.

In his address, White House advisers say, Obama intends to explain why his option is the right one to fight the Taliban, destroy al-Qaeda and train Afghan troops to take over the fight. President Hamid Karzai said at his inauguration this month that he hopes the transition from U.S. to Afghan forces is complete within five years, giving the Obama administration a de facto timeline.

Obama's advisers say he is likely to specify what the Karzai government must accomplish in the months ahead to justify the additional troops, who would be dispatched in stages over the next year.

The phased deployment would allow Obama to evaluate military gains and Karzai's progress in strengthening the Afghan government. White House advisers say Obama is looking for "off ramps" that would allow him to adopt a strategy more narrowly focused on al-Qaeda if the one he chooses is not showing results.

"If you don't define your goals in a way that's achievable in the short term, you'll have another huge challenge explaining why you're leaving without having achieved them," said a senior administration official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations about the policy and its presentation. "The goal, I don't believe, will be an Afghanistan free of the Taliban; it will not be an Afghanistan where the government is in control of the entire geography of the country. It has to be a goal we can reach, and that's what you're going to hear."

Headed to the Hill

Obama's speech will be followed quickly by congressional testimony from several military and civilian officials whose support for the plan is central. McChrystal and the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, Karl W. Eikenberry, have been told to prepare to testify as early as next week before key committees that would consider any additional war funding.

McChrystal and Eikenberry, a retired general who served in Afghanistan, are at odds over the war strategy, with the ambassador opposing new troops until Karzai moves against corruption in his government and takes steps to strengthen the state.

Congressional Republicans are the chief advocates for sending additional troops to Afghanistan and have been pushing Obama to quickly accept McChrystal's full 40,000-troop request.

But cost is becoming a primary concern on Capitol Hill. Congressional Democrats, in particular, have warned in recent days that the projected price tag of a new troop deployment could threaten Obama's domestic agenda amid growing public unease over the widening federal budget deficit.

Some Democrats who oppose sending additional troops to Afghanistan have raised the possibility of new taxes to pay for the war. In a conference call Tuesday with economists, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said House Democrats would have trouble approving a proposal for additional troops because of the costs and the concerns over its long-term national security implications.

"Let me say that there is serious unrest in our caucus," said Pelosi, who visited Obama at the White House later in the day.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag attended the final war strategy meeting Monday night at the White House, and Obama is expected to address the costs in his speech next week.

"No one has any illusion that this is the campaign, that you can just turn this thing around with a speech," a senior administration official said. "A lot of this strategy depends on things we can't control -- the Afghan government, the Taliban, the role of Pakistan. This is one of those issues that defines the extent and the limits of the president's power."

Staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.

Post a Comment


Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company