Obama talks US nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan

October 14, 2009

By Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON –

As President Barack Obama inches closer to a decision on new troops for Afghanistan, his latest war council debate Wednesday centered on how to strengthen U.S. civilian efforts there and significantly ramp up training of the Afghan police and army.

Obama met for three hours with his national security team, the fifth of six such meetings scheduled for the president to consider where to take the eight-year-old war.

The White House added a meeting for next week, by which time there may be a decision on whether to hold a runoff presidential election in Afghanistan between President Hamid Karzai and his chief challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

The allegations of widespread fraud in the Aug. 20 voting are among the most troublesome factors in Obama's strategy review. An Afghanistan government seen as illegitimate by its people could create openings for the Taliban and a renewed safe haven for al-Qaida. Many fear that any U.S. effort — no matter how big or well-targeted — could fail as a result.

The U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission could rule as soon as Saturday on whether to discard enough Karzai votes to force a runoff with Abdullah. The new vote, logistically difficult to pull off, would have to be held within two weeks.

Though some administration officials and Obama advisers differ on whether a narrower, counterterror-style approach or a broader counterinsurgency mission is the better approach, all seem to agree that increasing nonmilitary efforts to improve Afghanistan's agricultural industry and economy, rule of law and governing institutions are key to any success. Similarly, the administration hopes to train significantly more local police and army in the hope they could eventually take the burden off of U.S. shoulders of protecting the country from a Taliban resurgence and al-Qaida infiltration.

"Having a strong and credible partner is extremely important to this process," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

He denied a report circulating in Britain that the president had made a decision on a troop increase that falls in about the middle-range of the options presented by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

McChrystal's still-secret troop request outlines three options — from as many as 80,000 more troops to as few as 10,000 — but favors a compromise of 40,000 more forces, officials have told The Associated Press. There now are 67,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and 1,000 more are headed there by the end of December.

Obama has said he would make up his mind in the coming weeks, and no announcement is expected before November. A senior administration official said the president is still working through and considering various options and has not settled on one. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the debate is ongoing.

"Like the other meetings, there wasn't one magic sentence or one magic phrase," Gibbs said of Wednesday's discussion in the White House Situation Room, in which nearly two dozen officials participated.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodman Clinton, who joined the discussion by phone because she was traveling overseas, said in a television interview that a big problem facing Obama and his team was "to sort out who is the real enemy."

"Our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies. But not every Taliban is al-Qaida," she told ABC News' "Nightline." "There are people who are Taliban, who are fighting because they get paid to fight. They have no other way of making a living."

Other tribal groups in Afghanistan find it beneficial to ally with the Taliban because they are conservative, she said. But those groups also are "not a direct threat to us," Clinton said.

However, a warning about overly de-emphasizing the focus on the Taliban came Wednesday from a key U.S. ally. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his country would send 500 more troops to Afghanistan, for a total of about 9,500, but seemed to dismiss the notion of depending too much on increasing the focus on al-Qaida through precise aerial and special forces strikes.

"If we limit ourselves simply to targeting al-Qaida, without building the capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with terrorism and violent extremism, the security gains will not endure," Brown said.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who chaired Obama's previous policy review in March, said more troops are needed, though he didn't know the right level.

"We need some kind of shock therapy," he said. "If we stay where we are we are committing ourselves to a long-term stalemate."

___

Associated Press writers Barry Schweid and Lara Jakes contributed to this report.

Obama, aides debate options for Afghanistan

October 14, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) –

President Barack Obama held three hours of talks with top advisers on a new strategy for Afghanistan on Wednesday, with some aides emphasizing that the main threat to U.S. interests is al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

The administration's analysis of the threat posed by the Taliban could play a role in whether Obama accepts part or all of U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 or more extra U.S. troops for Afghanistan.

Some of Obama's fellow Democrats in the U.S. Congress oppose sending more troops, while Republicans favor deploying more and believe Obama should go ahead and make up his mind.

Obama gathered in the White House Situation Room with Vice President Joe Biden and other senior aides for a fifth session about Afghanistan with another scheduled for next week, as the president takes his time in deciding the future U.S. course there. A decision could be weeks away, officials say.

A dominant theme of Wednesday's talks was how to speed the training of Afghanistan police and military forces so they can provide security for their country, as well as bolster U.S. civilian efforts there, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

McChrystal's proposed increase -- on top of the 65,000 U.S. troops and 39,000 allied forces now in Afghanistan -- and the broader strategy review present Obama with what may be the most difficult decision of his presidency thus far.

Gibbs made clear Obama was not considering a reduction in U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan and that the only options under consideration were maintaining current levels or increasing them.

He said the political situation was discussed as well. Obama's review has been complicated by delays to the outcome of the August presidential election in Afghanistan, held up by elaborate efforts to wipe clean the widespread fraud that marred the vote.

COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

A White House official said Obama is focused on the complexity of the situation and the need for a comprehensive strategy with a security and civilian component.

"That is why we were focused today, for instance, on the civilian/Afghan political situation and the training of Afghan Security Forces. Achieving our goals depends on variables that include -- but go beyond -- the extraordinary effort of our troops," the official said.

Republican Senator John Kyl, in a speech on the Senate floor, called on Obama to bolster troop levels in Afghanistan.

"My concern is that this continuing public debate is going to raise doubts around the world about the staying power of the United States and about our willingness to continue commitments that we make," Kyl said.

On the other hand, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd questioned a large increase in troop strength. "I am compelled to ask: Does it really, really take 100,000 U.S. troops to find Osama bin Laden?"

Administration officials have made a point of stressing in recent days that they do not see the Taliban as a direct threat to the United States on a par with al Qaeda, a view that some analysts have taken to mean that Obama might not see the need for a sizable troop buildup.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who participated in the talks via audio link from her plane after leaving Russia for Washington, would not say which way she is leaning in an interview with ABC News' "Nightline" show.

But she said not every member of the Taliban movement is associated with al Qaeda, the extremist group that launched the September 11 attacks and prompted the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, where the Taliban, then ruling the nation, had given al Qaeda sanctuary.

She said in the "Nightline" interview that there are some members of the Taliban "who are fighting because they get paid to fight. They have no other way of making a living, you've got a very poor population in general, they get paid more to be in the Taliban than to be a police officer."

"Another is there are all kinds of internal conflicts in Afghanistan between certain tribal groups or ethnic groups who find it opportunistic to ally with the Taliban. They're very conservative but they're not a direct threat to us," she said. The interview is to be aired Wednesday night.

She said part of the problem is "to sort out who is the real enemy. Our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies. But not every Taliban is al Qaeda."

Republicans and some Democrats, on the other hand, fear if sufficient forces are not sent, the Taliban could regain control of Afghanistan and again provide a safe haven for al Qaeda as well as increase pressure on nuclear-armed Pakistan.

As U.S. and NATO casualties have soared, public support for the eight-year-old war has eroded. Sending 40,000 more troops could spark a backlash within Obama's own Democratic Party.

But sending a smaller number, or no troops at all, would open Obama up to criticism from Republicans and, possibly, the military, for taking what may be a more politically palatable middle-road approach.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)