Post by Princess on Sept 30, 2009 17:40:12 GMT -5
As the debate about whether the White House should send more troops to Afghanistan intensifies, President Obama is presiding over the first of several planned high stakes National Security Council meetings on future U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Those in the White House Situation Room this afternoon include Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of Defense Roberts Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. David Petraeus, commander, U.S. Central Command, among others.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who will be beamed in via satellite from Afghanistan, is expected to discuss his report on what to do next in the region.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described today's meeting as a "several hours long discussion" that will include "a range of advisers representing the military perspective, representing a diplomatic perspective" in determining the best path forward in Afghanistan.
"The president...believes strongly that the goals that he outlined [for Afghanistan] are still very key to our national security," Gibbs said, "that we have to disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies, that we have to prevent terrorist organizations from setting up safe havens ... to set up terrorist camps to plot attacks on this country."
Just how to achieve those goals has become the object of renewed debate in the wake of mounting U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, a worsening security situation on the ground, and widespread corruption in recent Afghan national elections. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, reportedly wants about 40,000 more troops for the mission, but the White House won't commit until it settles on a strategy.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that Gates "has made it clear that he is as yet undecided about what the appropriate tact should be going forward in Afghanistan," and that he is going into today's meeting "open-minded, undecided."
Many Republicans have recently been critical of the administration for the pending strategy review, suggesting that the president is moving too slowly toward a decision.
"Time is not on our side, so we need a decision pretty quickly, and I think [McChrystal] is very clear that when Taliban took over Afghanistan, it became a base of attack on the United States and our allies," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America" today, adding that not increasing the troop count "could lead to that scenario and have a destabilizing effect on the region."
McCain and proponents of more troops in Afghanistan, which is the size of California and New York combined, argue that the surge in Iraq worked. But with Afghanistan being 80,000 square miles larger than Iraq and boasting a more rugged terrain, skeptics point out that the comparison is misleading.
"There are still populated areas that still need to be under control," McCain said. "You need to go in. ... You hold, you allow the political, economic and cultural life to continue. Look, there are grave problems here. But I would say, in comparison to Iraq, when we started the surge, not as bad."
Those in the White House Situation Room this afternoon include Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of Defense Roberts Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. David Petraeus, commander, U.S. Central Command, among others.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who will be beamed in via satellite from Afghanistan, is expected to discuss his report on what to do next in the region.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described today's meeting as a "several hours long discussion" that will include "a range of advisers representing the military perspective, representing a diplomatic perspective" in determining the best path forward in Afghanistan.
"The president...believes strongly that the goals that he outlined [for Afghanistan] are still very key to our national security," Gibbs said, "that we have to disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies, that we have to prevent terrorist organizations from setting up safe havens ... to set up terrorist camps to plot attacks on this country."
Just how to achieve those goals has become the object of renewed debate in the wake of mounting U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, a worsening security situation on the ground, and widespread corruption in recent Afghan national elections. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, reportedly wants about 40,000 more troops for the mission, but the White House won't commit until it settles on a strategy.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that Gates "has made it clear that he is as yet undecided about what the appropriate tact should be going forward in Afghanistan," and that he is going into today's meeting "open-minded, undecided."
Many Republicans have recently been critical of the administration for the pending strategy review, suggesting that the president is moving too slowly toward a decision.
"Time is not on our side, so we need a decision pretty quickly, and I think [McChrystal] is very clear that when Taliban took over Afghanistan, it became a base of attack on the United States and our allies," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America" today, adding that not increasing the troop count "could lead to that scenario and have a destabilizing effect on the region."
McCain and proponents of more troops in Afghanistan, which is the size of California and New York combined, argue that the surge in Iraq worked. But with Afghanistan being 80,000 square miles larger than Iraq and boasting a more rugged terrain, skeptics point out that the comparison is misleading.
"There are still populated areas that still need to be under control," McCain said. "You need to go in. ... You hold, you allow the political, economic and cultural life to continue. Look, there are grave problems here. But I would say, in comparison to Iraq, when we started the surge, not as bad."