In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them.
Thich Nhat Hanh
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

February 21, 2009

Obama Nixed Full Afghan Surge After Quizzing Brass

by Gareth Porter

President Barack Obama decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to a White House source.

But Obama is likely to be pressured by McKiernan and the Joint Chiefs to approve the remaining 13,000 troops requested after the completion of an Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review next month.

Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war. Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The request for 30,000 additional troops, which would bring the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan to more than 60,000, had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before Obama's inauguration. A front-page story in the Washington Post Jan. 13 reported that Obama was ready to "sign off" on the deployment request.

On Jan. 30 Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops would "probably" be sent to Afghanistan and the figure would "tend toward the higher number of those two."

But on Feb. 9, Mullen indicated that the Pentagon would soon announce that three brigades, or about 16,000 troops, would be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming months.

What had changed in the nine days between those two statements, according to a White House source, was that Obama had called McKiernan directly and asked how he planned to use the 30,000 troops, but got no coherent answer to the question.

It was after that conversation that Obama withdrew his support for the full request.

The unsatisfactory response from McKiernan had been preceded by another military non-answer to an Obama question. At his meeting with Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon Jan. 28, Obama asked the Joint Chiefs, "What is the end game?" in Afghanistan, and was told, "Frankly, we don't have one," according to a Feb. 4 report by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Obama had also learned by early February that earlier assurances from Petraeus of an accord with Kyrgyzstan on use of the base at Manas had been premature, and that the U.S. ability to supply troops in Afghanistan would be dependent on political accommodations with Russia and Iran.

The rationale from the military leadership for doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, even without a strategy or a concept of how the war could end, had been to "buy time" for an effort to build up Afghan security forces, as indicated by Mullen's Jan. 30 remarks.

The 17,000 troops, on the other hand, presented the upper limit of what Obama had pledged to add in Afghanistan during the campaign, according to Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, who was an adviser to Obama.

Korb told IPS that Obama's decision not to wait until the key strategic questions were clarified before sending any more troops was based on the belief that he had to signal both Afghans and Pakistanis that the United States was not getting out of Afghanistan, according to Korb. "There are a lot of people in both countries hedging their bets," said Korb.

McKiernan reminded reporters Wednesday that the 17,000 troops represent only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested. That complaint suggested that he had been given no assurance that the remainder of the troops would be approved after the policy review.

The Wall Street Journal quoted an administration official Wednesday as saying that the troop authorization addresses the "urgent near-term security needs on the ground," but "does not prejudge or limit the options of what the [Afghanistan] review may recommend when it's completed."

Obama may have become more wary of getting mired down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, despite his strong commitment to increasing troops to Afghanistan during the campaign.

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, on whom Obama has reportedly relied for advice on foreign policy, told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post Wednesday, "We have to decide more precisely what is the objective of our involvement. Because we are increasingly running the risk of getting bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan in pursuit of objectives which we are lacking the power to reach."

Brzezinski said the administration needed "very specific, narrow objectives."

Korb told IPS that the policy review will deal with political-diplomatic as well as military policy issues, including the option of seeking to incorporate at least elements of the insurgents into the government through negotiations. He recalled that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been advocating negotiations with the Taliban for two years.

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

Johnson's decision, like Obama's, was made against a background of rapid deterioration in the security situation, worry that the war would soon be lost if more U.S. troops were not deployed, and an unresolved debate over how the troops would be employed in South Vietnam. Some of Johnson's advisers still favored a strategy of protecting the key population centers, whereas the field commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, was calling for a more aggressive strategy of seeking out enemy forces.

Another parallel between the two situations is high-level concern that too many U.S. troops would provoke anti-U.S. sentiment. That was the primary worry of some of Johnson's advisers about the effect of deploying three divisions in South Vietnam.

Similarly, Gates said Dec. 14 he would be "very concerned" about deploying more than the 30,000 troops requested by McKiernan, because, "At a certain point, we get such a big footprint, we begin to look like an occupier." Gates repeated that point in Congressional testimony Jan. 27, in which he again stressed the failure of the Soviet Union with 120,000 troops.

McKiernan, on the other hand, said Wednesday, "There's always an inclination to relate what we're doing with previous nations," he said, adding, "I think that's a very unhealthy comparison."

Johnson was worried about sliding into an open-ended commitment to a war that could not be won. But two months later he gave in, against his better judgment, to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, for "urgent reinforcements." The escalation of the war continued for another two years.

Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month. And if the full 30,000 troop increase proves to be insufficient, he is likely to face further requests later on for "urgent reinforcements."

comments on this article?

  • Despite Obama's Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

  • McKiernan Gets Control of Disputed Raids

  • Plan to Split Taliban Lures Obama Deeper Into War

  • Iran's Anti-Israel Rhetoric Aimed at Arab Opinion

  • US Military Dominance in Mideast Proven a Costly Myth

  • Drawdown Plan May Leave Combat Brigades in Iraq

  • Obama Nixed Full Afghan Surge After Quizzing Brass

  • Commanders in Iraq Challenge Petraeus on Pullout Risk

  • Intel Estimate Muddied Iran's Nuclear Intent

  • Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans

  • Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision

  • Is Gates Undermining Another Opening to Iran?

  • Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December

  • Bush Plan Eliminated Obstacle to Gaza Assault

  • US Military Defiant on Key Terms of Iraqi Pact

  • Iran's Regional Power Rooted in Shia Ties

  • Is a US-Iran Deal on the Middle East Possible?

  • Economy, Ties with West Are Key to Iran Polls

  • Iranian Analysts Urge Obama Not to Delay Action on Talks

  • Iranian Leaders Debate Obama's Policy Freedom

  • JFK Episode Suggests Obama's Iraq Plan at Risk

  • Pact Will End Iraqi Dependence on US Military

  • US Task Force Found Few Iranian Arms in Iraq

  • Obama Pressured to Back Off Iraq Withdrawal

  • US Cutoff Threat Unlikely to Save Iraq Troop Pact

  • Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle

  • Fears of Blowback Nixed Afghan Air Strikes in 2004

  • Afghan Peace Talks Widen US-UK Rift on War Policy

  • Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden After 9/11

  • Vested Interests Drove New Pakistan Policy

  • Intel Council Warned Against Raids in Pakistan

  • Why Iraqi 'Client' Blocked US Long-Term Presence

  • Georgia War Rooted in US Self-Deceit on NATO

  • Bush Covered Up Musharraf Ties With al-Qaeda, Khan

  • AP's Iran-Trained Hit Squads Story: Iraq News Nadir?

  • US Officials Admit Worry over a 'Difficult' al-Maliki

  • How Tenet Betrayed the CIA on WMD in Iraq

  • Bush Forced al-Maliki to Back Down on Pullout in 2006

  • Bush, US Military Pressure Iraqis on Withdrawal

  • Seismic Shift or Non-Decision by Bush on Iran?

  • Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq

  • Did IAEA Revive Uranium Paper Issue Under Pressure?

  • Official Says Iran Accepts P5+1 Talks Proposal

  • Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering

  • Fear of US-Sunni Ties Undercut Security Talks

  • Coercive Diplomacy Disputed at Centrist Meet

  • Bush Pledges on Iraq Bases Pact Were a Ruse

  • Fearing Escalation, Pentagon Fought Cheney Iran Plan

  • How Cheney Outfoxed His Foes on Iran and EFPs

  • Where Are Those Iranian Weapons in Iraq?

  • Maliki Stalls US Plan to Frame Iran

  • Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change After 9/11

  • Petraeus Promotion Frees Cheney to Threaten Iran

  • Petraeus Hid Maliki Resistance to US Troops in Basra

  • Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line

  • Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation

  • Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy

  • McCain's Gaffes Reflect Bush's Iran-al-Qaeda Myth

  • My Lai Probe Hid Policy that Led to Massacre

  • Dissenting Views Made Fallon's Fall Inevitable

  • Fallon's 'No Iran War' Line Angered White House

  • Sunni Insurgents Exploit US-Sponsored Militias

  • Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group

  • Accept Iran's Regional Role, Says French Envoy

  • US Officials Rejected Key Source on '94 Argentina Bombing
  • Leon Hadar is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East (Palgrave Macmillan). He is the former United Nations bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post and is currently the Washington correspondent for the Business Times of Singapore. Visit his blog.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2017 Antiwar.com