CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Oct. 4, 2009 – 12:47 p.m.
Adviser Cites ‘Other Elements’ of Afghan Strategy
By CQ Staff
The White House national security adviser said Sunday that Afghanistan “is not in imminent danger of falling,” a different view expressed from the top U.S. commander in that country.
Retired Gen. James L. Jones , appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and CNN’s “State of the Union,” said the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai must improve but he believes it can succeed with a strong U.S. effort to train its army and police force.
“I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling,” Jones said. “The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”
Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has called for thousands more U.S. troops, saying insurgents are gaining strength and that the United States is in danger of failing if more forces are not sent to the fight.
Underscoring those concerns was a deadly battle near the Pakistan border, where insurgents besieged two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, killing eight Americans and two Afghan policemen, the deadliest for American soldiers in more than a year.
“I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of other elements of the strategy that were decided on in March,” Jones said. “We do have a strategy. What Gen. McChrystal has done is presented his opinion, is presenting his opinion of what he thinks his role within that strategy is.
“Our strategy is a regional strategy. We focus on Afghanistan and also Pakistan,” he said. “So I think this is what we’re going to tear apart and look at and consider Gen. McChrystal’s input. The president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli. And we will come up with the right solution, I think.”
President Obama is considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan, including pulling back, staying put and sending more troops.
“It would be, I think, unfortunate if we let the discussion just be about troop strength,” Jones said. “There is a minimum level that you have to have, but there’s, unfortunately, no ceiling to it.”
Sen. Jon Kyl , R-Ariz., also appearing on “State of the Union,” disagreed with Jones.
“The other factor here is that Gen. McChrystal has made it clear that time if of the essence. And I don’t think we have a great deal of time to sit around and have a big debate about this,” he said. “In the middle of a war, you frequently have to make decisions quickly. In the fog of war, when you’re not even sure exactly how everything is going to work out.
“I think almost everybody agrees, if we were to pull out, the Taliban would take over again in Afghanistan. And that’s biggest threat of allowing al Qaeda, then, to have a base from which it could operate.”
Additionally, anti-war House Democrats are mobilizing for the possibility that Obama could decide to add U.S. forces in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000 already committed.
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said liberals are planning to draft a letter strongly opposing the troop increase recommended by McChrystal.
John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Defense appropriator, is calling on the White House to limit any additional deployment to no more than 20,000 troops.
Murtha said that level would ensure that the American footprint remains smaller than the 90,000 troops the Soviet Union had fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
“The president is listening to McChrystal. But he’s also listening to history. No one has won in Afghanistan,” Murtha said Oct. 1. He also said said Obama could win support for additional troops if he seeks a “reasonable increase, with a substantial plan: international support, more civilian input and benchmarks.”




POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: