* 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer
* Obama to start bringing some home by July 2011
* Obama briefs Afghan, Pakistani leaders
* NATO expected to add at least 5,000 troops - Rasmussen
* Republicans oppose July 2011 pullout timeframe
(Adds reaction and background)
By Caren Bohan
WEST POINT, N.Y., Dec 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama
said on Tuesday he is ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan by next summer to counter a resurgent Taliban and
plans to begin a troop withdrawal in 18 months.
The goal, Obama said in a prime-time televised address, is
to speed the battle against Taliban insurgents, secure key
population centers and train Afghan security forces so they can
take over and clear the way for a U.S. exit.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst, called Obama's approach
"shock therapy for Afghanistan."
"It is a bold approach and there is no guarantee of
success," he said. "Wars tend to consume presidencies and this
is now Obama's war."
The accelerated timetable that Obama unveiled, after a
three-month strategy review, surprised some Pentagon planners
who had expected a 12- to 18-month period for deploying forces
to bolster the 68,000 U.S. troops already in the war zone.
"As commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our
vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S.
troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin
to come home," Obama said.
His exit strategy appeared to be an attempt not only to
sell his shift in strategy to war-weary Americans but also to
put pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to fight
corruption in his government.
Under his 2011 timeframe, U.S. troops would begin returning
home before Obama's expected re-election bid in 2012.
U.S. allies France and Canada welcomed Obama's speech but
some Afghans expressed disappointment.
"President Obama is very far away from the reality and
truth in Afghanistan," said parliamentarian Shukriya Barakzai.
"His strategy was to pay lip service and did not focus on
civilians, nation-building, democracy and human rights."
Kabul resident Sayeed Sharif said: "I don't think the
increase of military force will be helpful for the people of
Afghanistan."
'BLANK CHECK' DAYS ARE OVER
In a 34-minute address, Obama recalled the spirit of unity
among Americans after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States
by al Qaeda in 2001 and warned that the militants were plotting
fresh attacks.
"I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision
because I am convinced that our security is at stake in
Afghanistan and Pakistan," he told cadets at the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point, New York.
Republicans zeroed in on Obama's vow that some troops will
start coming home in 2011, saying it sent the wrong signal.
"A withdrawal date only emboldens al Qaeda and the Taliban,
while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely
that they will risk their lives to take our side in this
fight," Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, told Reuters.
Obama defended his decision and promised any pullout would
be done responsibly.
"The absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us
any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government," he
said.
Obama's review was slowed by uncertainty that surrounded
Karzai's re-election. The vote in August was marred by fraud
and cast a fresh cloud over Karzai, who has been unable to
provide security and basic services to many of Afghanistan's 28
million people.
Obama briefed Karzai by secure video hookup on Monday night
to outline the plan. In his speech and a White House statement,
he made clear Karzai is expected to take on corruption and has
18 to 24 months to make progress.
"This effort must be based on performance. The days of
providing a blank check are over," Obama said.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies said the July 2011 deadline sent an
important signal around the world.
"I think that was a deadline to send to our allies that we
are not asking for open-ended commitments and to send a warning
to the Afghans and the Pakistanis that they have to make a
serious effort," he said.
MORE NATO TROOPS
Major U.S. troop movements from the new deployment are
likely to begin in January and all 30,000 troops should be in
place by the end of August, defense officials said.
The vanguard of the U.S. buildup is expected to be the
swift deployment of 9,000 Marines into some of the most
dangerous parts of the country -- Taliban strongholds in
southern Afghanistan, including Kandahar and Helmand.
The head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said after Obama's
speech that he expected "at least 5,000 more forces from other
countries in our alliance and possibly a few thousand more."
Beyond the United States, members of the alliance now have
about 42,000 soldiers in Afghanistan.
Canada, which has more than 2,800 soldiers on the ground,
welcomed Obama's decision, with Foreign Affairs Minister
Lawrence Cannon saying the "additional U.S. resources will help
to provide a more secure environment for the Afghan people."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Obama's speech was
"courageous, determined and lucid, giving new impetus to the
international commitment" but he did not immediately commit to
adding to France's nearly 3,100 troops now in the war zone.
The new U.S. deployment fell short of the recommendation
for 40,000 troops made in August by U.S. Army General Stanley
McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan.
McChrystal said after Tuesday's speech that Obama's
decision "has provided me with a clear military mission and the
resources to accomplish our task."
Obama's plan also attempted to satisfy concerns on both
sides of the U.S. political divide and represented a middle
ground between conflicting options advocated by some of his
senior advisers.
Sending more troops addresses demands from his generals and
Republicans, while stressing that the U.S. commitment is not
open-ended is an attempt to placate anti-war Democrats.
Democrats gave Obama a mixed review. Some expressed
disappointment that he did not give a final date for a U.S.
withdrawal after eight years of inconclusive war.
"While I appreciate that the president made clear we won't
be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision
not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence
there," said Senator Russ Feingold, a liberal Democrat.
The cost of the troop increase, estimated at $30 billion
for fiscal 2010, could set off a battle in Congress, with some
Democrats calling for a temporary war surtax to pay for it.
A long-term commitment "could cost anywhere from $500
billion to $900 billion over the next decade, which could
devour our ability to pay for the actions necessary to rebuild
our own economy," said Democratic Representative David Obey.
Obama sought to reassure NATO allies he was not abandoning
the war effort, while insisting they need to do their part.
"For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's
credibility," he said. "What's at stake is the security of our
allies and the common security of the world."
Obama also focused on Pakistan in his speech, saying a
cancer had taken root in its border region with Afghanistan and
promised U.S. help to end it.
The pledge comes as Pakistan's civilian government is
teetering. Some officials in Islamabad fear the U.S. surge in
Afghanistan will further destabilize their country.
"We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those
groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that
we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location
is known and whose intentions are clear," Obama said.
(Additional reporting by Adam Entous, Phil Stewart, Ross
Colvin, Susan Cornwell, Jeff Mason and Matt Spetalnick; Writing
by Steve Holland; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
((http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/12/01/live-blog-of-obamas-afghanistan-speech/))
((http://picturepage.edt.reuters.com/nov09/rngs_30nov09/ppages/ppage1.htm))
((steve.a.holland@thomsonreuters.com;
www.twitter.com/steveholland1))
- 
- 
- 
Welcome,
Guest!
News
