Wow! The media is not only getting bolder, thet're gettig funnier.
Are they implying BHO has his nuts in a vice?
Which way do ya'll think he'll swing?

More U.S. troops to Afghanistan? Obama's caught in a vise.

NATO's clock ticking in Afghanistan
Mon Sep 21, 7:37 pm ET
WASHINGTON — With the military and Republicans publicly pressuring him to send more troops to Afghanistan soon and his own administration now deeply divided about how to proceed there, the eight-year war against al Qaida and the Taliban has become an increasingly urgent policy and political dilemma for President Barack Obama .

He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.Reality is, he's weak on National Security by not closing the borders. They're wide open and vulnerable.

Obama's decision could be a defining moment of his presidency, and it will reveal much about how he leads. Friends and enemies around the world will be watching — and judging — whether he's firmly in charge or whether he instinctively seeks some safe middle ground.

"This is tough for Democrats. They own this war. They own what happens from here on out. This is a bit of a mess for them all the way around," said Juan Carlos Zarate , a senior adviser at Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former official in the Bush and Clinton administrations.

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider "dithering" from the White House . Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday that he isn't ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan , someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing that more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

The White House insisted anew Monday that the president won't be stampeded into a quick decision on more troops, saying that he first wants to make sure there's a sound strategy in place to secure Afghanistan and make certain that it can't be used as a haven for al Qaida terrorists, as it was before 2001.

His hesitation reflects deep divisions within his own administration and deep uncertainty about whether, even with tens of thousands more troops, the U.S. can succeed in Afghanistan without a less corrupt and legitimately elected Afghan government, greater cooperation from neighboring Pakistan and more time and money than the American public and the Congress may be willing to commit.

Opponents of escalation, led by Vice President Joe Biden and his national security adviser, Antony Blinken ; Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon; and deputy secretaries of state Jacob Lew and Jim Steinberg , fear that Afghanistan is a quagmire that will further undermine the administration's domestic political agenda and hurt the Democrats in next year's congressional elections.

The Pentagon itself is sharply divided over what to do, said several defense officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity, with much, but not all, of the uniformed military lined up behind Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan . McChrystal wrote the leaked memo, but top policy advisers such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy oppose his plan. Some senior officers also are concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan would add to the already severe strains on an Army and Marine Corps from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Opponents of a buildup contend that al Qaida , which they note is based in Pakistan , not in Afghanistan , could be neutralized by having U.S. special forces standing by and ready to attack bin Laden's followers once actionable intelligence on their locations is acquired.

This group "wants to find an area where you can pay off enough warlords to provide you with security and then launch from there," another defense official said, requesting anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. Meantime, he said, this group would continue building up and training Afghan security forces.

That alternative, however, would require more U.S. troops to train Afghan forces.

McChrystal and other proponents of committing more troops argue, as his memo does, that success in Afghanistan is "still achievable" but without more U.S. troops soon, the war "will likely result in failure."

The internal debate behind closed doors comes as the American people increasingly oppose the war. In one recent poll for CNN , 58 percent said they opposed the war, while 39 percent favored it. The poll was conducted Sept 11-13 .

They also don't much like the idea of sending more troops. A McClatchy-Ipsos poll at the end of August found 56 percent of Americans opposed to sending more troops, while 35 percent favored it.The two groups listed in the last two paragraphs look like they are from the same groups who rate BHO's overall job performance.

Not surprisingly, many Democrats in Congress oppose sending more troops. Many of them will face re-election next year.<<Motive

"It would be a major mistake to increase troop levels — we're getting sucked into something we'll never be able to get out of," said Rep. Jim McGovern , D- Mass.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey , D- Calif. , said it would be a waste of manpower to send more troops to Afghanistan . "There's no military solution to Afghanistan ," she said.

Other Democrats want to wait for Obama to take the lead rather than risk splitting with their leader over a controversial war in the first year of his presidency.

"Until the president makes a decision on this, I think we're really jumping way ahead of ourselves to find out what we need in Afghanistan ," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev.

Republicans are urging Obama to give McChrystal what he wants — and threatening to lambaste Obama if he backs down.

Rep. John Boehner , R- Ohio , his party's leader in the House of Representatives , noted that Obama in March endorsed the idea of a strong counterinsurgency strategy to secure Afghanistan .

"I am deeply troubled, however, by reports that the White House is delaying action on the general's request for more troops . . . . It's time for the president to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated, because the longer we wait, the more we put our troops at risk."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky echoed Boehner in calling for Obama to give McChrystal what he asks: "Anything less would confirm al Qaida's view that America lacks the strength and the resolve to endure a long war."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama refuses to be rushed into a decision and that he won't order more troops unless a clear strategy demands that.

"The president obviously has seen General McChrystal's report and has had a chance to look at it and is in the process of, with his national security team and those at the Pentagon , working through some of the strategic assessments that the president thinks need to be evaluated," Gibbs said.

Gibbs refused to say whether that might include scaling back the Afghanistan mission to a strategy focused more narrowly on al Qaida leaders.

"The president is going to focus on getting the strategy right," Gibbs said, "and I'm not going to go through what options he may or may not have."

There are currently 65,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan . There are expected to be 68,000 by November with the arrival of the last of the 17,700 troops and 4,000 trainers Obama ordered in the spring. There are an additional 39,000 NATO troops.

( William Douglas and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Top U.S. officer: Afghan war 'probably' needs more troops

Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan

Military leery of Afghanistan escalation with no clear goals

Military leaders: U.S. effort in Afghanistan is just beginning

Pentagon worried about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan

'Some senior officers also are concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan would add to the already severe strains on an Army and Marine Corps from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . '


Huh? sending more troops to Afghanistan would add strain from the war in Afghanistan?


Well, its not a very well written article, but I was able to read it objectively and although it did give a preponderance of the 'quotes' and information from opponents of BHO , it also did try to give some of the same from his proponents.

Something really disturbing about getting off on this man's dilemma. Geezuz would anyone want to be in the position this president is in.

Personally I think they are fighting a losing battle, but I sure would not want to be in his place. Just the fact that whether we do or we do not people will judge him poorly should tell you more about them than him.

Good luck Obama, your going to need it with all those folks on both sides wanting to stab you in the back, and get a giggle out of it.

There is nothing funny about the situation in Afghanistan and there are no easy solutions. It is a primitive tribal culture with a weak government that is evidently corrupt.

We are fortunate that we have an intelligent President that will make the best decision possible for this tough situation. The sad part is, no matter what strategy he chooses, people will attack him on it.

He has my confidence and support.

Will you deny, he has not secured our borders against terrorists and Illegals?

I'm with ya' Ms Boo. Afghanastan is another Viet Nam. No win.

I don't agree with Walling off our country from a people we already share our own country with. Walls just create more animosity and more fear.

Obama has my support as well. I wouldn't wish his position in this war on anyone.

I like it that he's not rushing into this situation. That's a wise thing to do, IMO. It's really a shame that Bush went to Iraq before taking care of Afghanistan.

Like the rest of the politicians. BHO will consider first what decision is best for his political career. Then, his decision will be based on how much supportt for his other agendas he will lose.
He'll lose supporters whichever way he swings. He just has to weigh on which way will he lose the least support.

As far as Bush and race, those are tired and old diversions.

Well if you are so wedded to that belief maybe you would do the same?

A lot of assumptions but no facts..

yeah we should have finished off Afghanistan and THEN took out Saddam.

The biggest mistake they made in Iraq was leaving the cleanup and nation building under the control of Defense (and Rumsfeld) when the traditional path would have been to turn it over to State (Colin Powell at the time)

In Afghanistan we have three choices

1. Bail on it entirely and let the chips fall where they may. Probable result, the Taliban taking the country and Al Queda resurging in power and more attacks on the western world

2. continue as we are and trying to fight a "limited war" and only put in enough troops to barely stay ahead. Probable result, sapping of American strength and will and Obama losing the confidence of the people

3. fight the war to win, release the hounds. Pour troops and tanks and helicopters into Afghanistan. Follow the Taliban into Pakistan whether the Paks like it or not. Probable result, complete destruction of the Taliban in a year or so

That's a good analysis. None of the choices are easy.

Which one do you believe would allow them to slide through the mid-term elections?

So, far, there's been a lot of talk on a lot of subjects and absolutely nothing's been done except throwing us trillions into debt.

Problem with number 3 is we are fighting people that are used to war and have all the time in the world to kill our guys. You won't ever get rid of the taliban by entering Pakistan, especially with out their help. and that will just inflame other areas of the middle east. Whether we kill as many as we can or not, the Taliban will come back, hell they are probably already in government in Afghanistan biding their time. Just my un-educated guess.. We are up against true believers. Just as the right wing of the republican party and their right wing agenda, believers don't change their spots. You can assume you have wiped them out, but no way.

Obama I am sure is well aware he will lose supporters no matter what. Considering all the constant barrage of crap thrown at him by the public and Washington he might be getting close to saying, screw them, they don't want change or anything remotely close to it, so what the hell I might as well go for broke and go for political advantage.

Politicins do what politicians do. Nothing but being impeached or somebody finding the dirt needed to charge him with a felony will keep him from getting out and set for life.

You said it best boo

"Problem with number 3 is we are fighting people that are used to war and have all the time in the world to kill our guys."

Our soldiers don't have all the time in the world! And the longer it takes Obama to make up his mind on what Our General told him he needs the more danger our troops that are there will be in!

Time for Obama to **** OR GET OFF THE POT on this one!

Willing you say it's like Vietnam well the problem there was government getting to involved in the war. Let the Generals fight the wars our fine government got us into!

You said it!

"OBAMA strategy was to disallow the military from shooting at any building unless they know for a fact that their are no civilians in the building. (Even if they are taking fire form the building in question!) This may sound reasonable to the Democrats at home, but it is suicide for our soldiers. "

Our Military is in open rebellion against President Obama!

Well, not quite, but it appears that our Generals are not going to keep their mouths shut like the Generals in Vietnam did. This time the Generals are not going to allow the Democrats to keep sending our boys to their deaths for nothing.

See above the fold on todays, (Wednesday Sept. 23, 2009), Front Page, Washington Post. (Yes, even the Washington Post knows the President is costing our boys their lives.)

While the President is complaining that we have no, "Strategy", the generals are complaining that the Strategy the President put in place in March, is killing soldiers. Isn't it interesting that the Afghan war started to go bad in March? (Just about the time the President announced his last new strategy?)

That strategy was to disallow the military from shooting at any building unless they know for a fact that their are no civilians in the building. (Even if they are taking fire form the building in question!) This may sound reasonable to the Democrats at home, but it is suicide for our soldiers.

Now the President is trying to make a new Strategy. He now wants to ignore the Generals in the field. They have begged for more troops, and the President has tried to get them to lie for him and tell the press that they do not need more troops.

To their credit, the Generals have refused to cover up for the President. They are telling people that they can not win the war without more troops. They are telling people that they need more troops quickly if they are to stop the terrorists from gaining more ground. The Generals are making it clear that the President refuses to send them the help they need.

The President really wanted to do the job half way. (Use less troops than needed, but not cut and run either.)

My advise to the President is to pull out. If you are not willing to support the Troops, at least bring them home. Keeping the Troops there, and then refusing to give them reinforcements when they need them, is costing lives. Tying their hands behind their backs by ordering them not to return fire when fired upon, is costing lives.

The Generals really are closer to open rebellion than any US Generals have ever been before.

I ain't gonna' call what the President is doing murder. What would you call it?