Current Events and the Psychology of Politics
Loading

Featured Posts        



categories        



Links        



archives        



meta        




Dec 7th, 2009


The expanded U.S. presence in Afghanistan under President Barack Obama’s surge plan will cost about $1 trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.

How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan


On Veterans Day, President Obama visited a section of Arlington National Cemetery reserved for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Photo credit: Luke Sharrett / The New York Times)

By Peter Baker

December 6, 2009

Excerpts

WASHINGTON — On the afternoon he held the eighth meeting of his Afghanistan review, President Obama arrived in the White House Situation Room ruminating about war. He had come from Arlington National Cemetery, where he had wandered among the chalky white tombstones of those who had fallen in the rugged mountains of Central Asia.

How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month, he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war. Just a month earlier, he had mentioned to them his visits to wounded soldiers at the Army hospital in Washington. “I don’t want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years,” he said then.

The economic cost was troubling him as well after he received a private budget memo estimating that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war. By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000 troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the fight.

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”

Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents. …

Taking Control of a War

Mr. Obama devoted so much time to the Afghan issue — nearly 11 hours on the day after Thanksgiving alone — that he joked, “I’ve got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this. He invited competing voices to debate in front of him, while guarding his own thoughts. Even David Axelrod, arguably his closest adviser, did not know where Mr. Obama would come out until just before Thanksgiving. …

The decision represents a complicated evolution in Mr. Obama’s thinking. He began the process clearly skeptical of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops, but the more he learned about the consequences of failure, and the more he narrowed the mission, the more he gravitated toward a robust if temporary buildup, guided in particular by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. …

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the regional commander, secretly flew to an American air base in Germany for a four-hour meeting with General McChrystal on Sept. 25. …

The request outlined three options for different missions: sending 80,000 more troops to conduct a robust counterinsurgency campaign throughout the country; 40,000 troops to reinforce the southern and eastern areas where the Taliban are strongest; or 10,000 to 15,000 troops mainly to train Afghan forces. …

The group went over the McChrystal assessment and drilled in on what the core goal should be. Some thought that General McChrystal interpreted the March strategy more ambitiously than it was intended to be. … But Mr. Obama also firmly closed the door on any withdrawal. “I just want to say right now, I want to take off the table that we’re leaving Afghanistan,” he told his advisers. …

On Oct. 22, the National Security Council produced what one official called a “consensus memo,” much of which originated out of the defense secretary’s office, concluding that the United States should focus on diminishing the Taliban insurgency but not destroying it; building up certain critical ministries; and transferring authority to Afghan security forces.

There was no consensus yet on troop numbers, however, so Mr. Obama called a smaller group of advisers together on Oct. 26 to finally press Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates. Mrs. Clinton made it clear that she was comfortable with General McChrystal’s request for 40,000 troops or something close to it; Mr. Gates also favored a big force.

Mr. Obama was leery. He had received a memo the day before from the Office of Management and Budget projecting that General McChrystal’s full 40,000-troop request on top of the existing deployment and reconstruction efforts would cost $1 trillion from 2010 to 2020, an adviser said. The president seemed in sticker shock, watching his domestic agenda vanishing in front of him. “This is a 10-year, trillion-dollar effort and does not match up with our interests,” he said.

Still, for the first time, he made it clear that he was ready to send more troops if a strategy could be found to ensure that it was not an endless war. He indicated that the Taliban had to be beaten back. “What do we need to break their momentum?” he asked.

Four days later, at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Oct. 30, he emphasized the need for speed. “Why can’t I get the troops in faster?” he asked. If they were going to do this, he concluded, it only made sense to do this quickly, to have impact and keep the war from dragging on forever. “This is America’s war,” he said. “But I don’t want to make an open-ended commitment.”

Now that he had a sense of where Mr. Obama was heading, Mr. Gates began shaping a plan that would bridge the differences. He developed a 30,000-troop option that would give General McChrystal the bulk of his request, reasoning that NATO could make up most of the difference.

“If people are having trouble swallowing 40, let’s see if we can make this smaller and easier to swallow and still give the commander what he needs, a senior Defense official said, summarizing the secretary’s thinking.

The plan, called Option 2A, was presented to the president on Nov. 11. Mr. Obama complained that the bell curve would take 18 months to get all the troops in place.

He turned to General Petraeus and asked him how long it took to get the so-called surge troops he commanded in Iraq in 2007. That was six months.

“What I’m looking for is a surge,” Mr. Obama said. “This has to be a surge.” …

A Presidential Order

The president gathered his team in the Situation Room at 8:15 p.m. on Nov. 23, the unusual nighttime hour adding to what one participant called a momentous wartime feeling. The room was strewn with coffee cups and soda cans.

Mr. Obama presented a revised version of Option 2A, this one titled “Max Leverage,” pushing 30,000 troops into Afghanistan by mid-2010 and beginning to pull them out by July 2011. …

The day after Thanksgiving, Mr. Obama huddled with aides from 10:30 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. refining parameters for the plan and mapping out his announcement. He told his speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, that he wanted to directly rebut the comparison with Vietnam.

On the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He would send 30,000 troops as quickly as possible, then begin the withdrawal in July 2011. In deference to Mr. Gates’s concerns, the pace and endpoint of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time.

“I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was a pause and no one said anything.

“Tell me now,” he repeated.

Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr. Gates and others signaled agreement.

“Fully support, sir,” Admiral Mullen said.

“Ditto,” General Petraeus said.

Mr. Obama then went to the Situation Room to call General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. The president made it clear that in the next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops. “It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we draw down,” he said.

Two days later, Mr. Obama flew to West Point to give his speech. After three months of agonizing review, he seemed surprisingly serene. “He was,” said one adviser, “totally at peace.”

Full story

——

Related reports on this site

Image: An effigy of President Obama is burned during a protest in Afghanistan
Protesters chant anti-American slogans and burn an effigy of President Barack Obama in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009. (Photo credit: Rahmat Gul / AP)

Afghan War Set to Drag On (Nov. 17, 2010)

Afghanistan War Cost Too High (Nov. 13, 2010)

Political Solution to Afghan War (Oct. 12, 2010)

10th Year of War in Afghanistan (Oct. 7, 2010)

Afghanistan Strategic Thinking (Sept. 25, 2010)

Colin Powell on Afghan Policy (Sept. 20, 2010)

Afghan War Deadlier Than Ever (July 31, 2010)

Afghanistan Exit Strategy (June 24, 2010)

America’s Longest War (June 7, 2010)

AfPak Foreign Policy Success (March 20, 2010)

U.S. House Rejects Afghan Pullout (March 10, 2010)

Obama Set to Change Course (Jan. 24, 2010)

Outside the Box in Afghanistan (Dec. 20, 2009)

Obama Rolls Dice on AfPak War (Dec. 2, 2009)

Obama’s Decision-Making Style (Nov. 25, 2009)

Escalating Afghanistan Violence (Nov. 20, 2009)

Afghanistan War Strategy Review (Oct. 3, 2009)

Obama Agenda At Crossroads (Sept. 6, 2009)

Obama War Strategy Setback (Aug. 29, 2009)

Barack Obama’s Leadership Style (Feb. 21, 2009)

——

Pearl Harbor
The battleship USS Arizona belches smoke as it topples into the sea during a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. (AP photo)

Remembering Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor survivor (© Lucy Pemoni/AP)

Today, December 7,  marks the anniversary of Japan’s 1941 attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, prompting America’s entry into World War II.

——

FROM THE ARCHIVES: One Year Ago — December 7, 2008

Fundamentalist Surge in Iraq

One-year retrospective: One year ago today, I reported that from Basra in the south to Irbil in the north, Iraqi activists are trying to counter the rising influence of religious fundamentalists and tribal chieftains who have insisted that women wear the veil, prevented girls from receiving education, and sanctioned killings of women accused of besmirching their family’s honor.





6 Responses to “Afghan Price Tag = Health Cost”
  1. Immelman for Congress » Blog Archive » Public Opinion on Afghan Surge Says:

    […] Afghan Price Tag = Health Cost (Dec. 7, 2009) […]

  2. Immelman for Congress » Blog Archive » Afghanistan War Cost Too High Says:

    […] Afghan Price Tag Equals Health Care Cost (Dec. 7, 2009) […]

  3. Immelman for Congress » Blog Archive » U.S. Lags Badly in Education Says:

    […] Afghanistan Price Tag Equals Healthcare Reform Cost […]

  4. Immelman for Congress » Blog Archive » Weak Support for Health Repeal Says:

    […] Afghanistan Price Tag Equals Health Reform Cost (Dec. 7, 2009) […]

  5. Immelman for Congress » Blog Archive » Neverending U.S. War Price Tag Hits $4 Trillion Says:

    […] Afghan Price Tag Equals Health Care Cost (Dec. 7, 2009) […]

  6. Immelman for Congress » Blog Archive » Postpone Health Care Reform Says:

    […] Afghanistan Price Tag Equals Health Reform Cost (Dec. 7, 2009) […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.