Report: More troops needed for Afghan war success

[samanthajane13]

By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer – 2 hrs 13 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's top commander in Afghanistan has told him that without more troops the United States could lose the war that Obama has described as the nation's foremost military priority.

Obama must now decide whether to commit thousands of additional American forces or try to hold the line against the Taliban with the troops and strategy he has already approved. Obama made clear in television interviews Sunday that he is reassessing whether his narrowed focus on countering the Afghan insurgency is working and will not be rushed into a decision about additional troops.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in a five-page summary of the war as he found it upon taking command this summer.

McChrystal's confidential 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review at the White House.

"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating," McChrystal said of the war's progress.

Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, on the advice of Gates and other senior defense and military leaders. That will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record 68,000 by the end of this year, working alongside 38,000 NATO-led troops.

The question now is whether to divert troops from Iraq or make other adjustments to expand that force significantly early next year. Gates and others have repeatedly warned that too large a force would do more harm than good in a country hostile to anything it sees as foreign meddling. But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he thinks more troops are probably necessary.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement that the McChrystal assessment "is a classified, pre-decisional document, intended to provide President Obama and his national security team with the basis for a very important discussion about where we are now in Afghanistan and how best to get to where we want to be."

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, also pointed out an "urgent need" to significantly revise strategy. The U.S. needs to interact better with the Afghan people, McChrystal said, and better organize its efforts with NATO allies.

"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves," he wrote.

In his blunt assessment of the tenacious Taliban insurgency, McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

The content of the report was first reported by The Washington Post, which said it withheld publication of portions of the document at the government's request.

Morrell confirmed the report, but said the Pentagon would not release McChrystal's assessment.

"While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time we appreciate the paper's willingness to edit out those passages which would likely have endangered personnel and operations in Afghanistan," Morrell said in an e-mail statement.

The Pentagon and the White House are awaiting a separate, more detailed request for additional troops and resources. Media reports Friday and Saturday said McChrystal has finished it but was told to pocket it, partly because of the charged politics surrounding the decision. McChrystal's senior spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, told The Associated Press on Sunday the report is not complete.

On Monday, another Pentagon spokesman said he cannot predict when the request will arrive, and said McChrystal's depiction of the war is one tool the administration will use to choose its path.

"The way forward in Afghanistan ... is more complex than just the security aspect of it," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "There are political aspects, developmental aspects, economic, a range of things you have to look at."

A spokesman for Afghanistan's Defense Ministry said Sunday the Afghan government would not second-guess international military commanders on the need for more troops, but said that the greatest need is on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border, where the insurgency is infiltrating Afghanistan.

In Congress, the war has taken on a highly partisan edge. Senate Republicans are demanding more forces to turn around a war that soon will enter its ninth year, while members of Obama's own Democratic Party are trying to put on the brakes. Obama said in the Sunday interviews that he will not allow politics to govern his decision.

The president said he has not asked McChrystal to sit on his request for U.S. reinforcements.

"No, no, no, no," Obama responded when asked whether he or aides had directed McChrystal to temporarily withhold a request for additional U.S. forces and other resources.

"Are we doing the right thing?" he asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

Obama gave no deadline for making a decision about whether to send more Americans into harm's way.

"The only thing I've said to my folks is, 'A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question,'" Obama said. "Because there is a natural inclination to say, 'If I get more, then I can do more.' "

Mullen told Congress last week he expected McChrystal's request for additional forces and other resources "in the very near future." The White House has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.

Obama spoke on CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press," and CBS' "Face the Nation."

___

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

A link to McChrystal's summary and report is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/...9ydG1vcmV0cg--

[samanthajane13]

AP sources: Instead of troops, maybe more drones
By LARA JAKES and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House is looking at expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan.

Two senior administration officials said Monday that the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made.

Top aides to President Barack Obama said he wants more time to decide.

The proposed shift would bolster the U.S. mission in the region on Obama's long-stated goal of dismantling al-Qaida. White House and Pentagon officials are debating whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's top commander in Afghanistan has told him that without more troops the United States could lose the war that Obama has described as the nation's foremost military priority.

Obama must now decide whether to commit thousands of additional American forces or try to hold the line against the Taliban with the troops and strategy he has already approved. Obama made clear in television interviews Sunday that he is reassessing whether his narrowed focus on countering the Afghan insurgency is working and will not be rushed into a decision about additional troops.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in a five-page summary of the war as he found it upon taking command this summer.

McChrystal's confidential 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review at the White House.

"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating," McChrystal said of the war's progress.

Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, on the advice of Gates and other senior defense and military leaders. That will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record 68,000 by the end of this year, working alongside 38,000 NATO-led troops.

The question now is whether to divert troops from Iraq or make other adjustments to expand that force significantly early next year. Gates and others have repeatedly warned that too large a force would do more harm than good in a country hostile to anything it sees as foreign meddling. But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he thinks more troops are probably necessary.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said in a statement that the McChrystal assessment "is a classified, pre-decisional document, intended to provide President Obama and his national security team with the basis for a very important discussion about where we are now in Afghanistan and how best to get to where we want to be."

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, also pointed out an "urgent need" to significantly revise strategy. The U.S. needs to interact better with the Afghan people, McChrystal said, and better organize its efforts with NATO allies.

"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves," he wrote.

In his blunt assessment of the tenacious Taliban insurgency, McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

The content of the report was first reported by The Washington Post, which said it withheld publication of portions of the document at the government's request.

Morrell confirmed the report, but said the Pentagon would not release McChrystal's assessment.

"While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time we appreciate the paper's willingness to edit out those passages which would likely have endangered personnel and operations in Afghanistan," Morrell said in an e-mail statement.

The Pentagon and the White House are awaiting a separate, more detailed request for additional troops and resources. Media reports Friday and Saturday said McChrystal has finished it but was told to pocket it, partly because of the charged politics surrounding the decision. McChrystal's senior spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, told The Associated Press on Sunday the report is not complete.

On Monday, another Pentagon spokesman said he cannot predict when the request will arrive, and said McChrystal's depiction of the war is one tool the administration will use to choose its path.

"The way forward in Afghanistan ... is more complex than just the security aspect of it," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "There are political aspects, developmental aspects, economic, a range of things you have to look at."

A spokesman for Afghanistan's Defense Ministry said Sunday the Afghan government would not second-guess international military commanders on the need for more troops, but said that the greatest need is on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border, where the insurgency is infiltrating Afghanistan.

In Congress, the war has taken on a highly partisan edge. Senate Republicans are demanding more forces to turn around a war that soon will enter its ninth year, while members of Obama's own Democratic Party are trying to put on the brakes. Obama said in the Sunday interviews that he will not allow politics to govern his decision.

The president said he has not asked McChrystal to sit on his request for U.S. reinforcements.

"No, no, no, no," Obama responded when asked whether he or aides had directed McChrystal to temporarily withhold a request for additional U.S. forces and other resources.

"Are we doing the right thing?" he asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

Obama gave no deadline for making a decision about whether to send more Americans into harm's way.

"The only thing I've said to my folks is, 'A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question,'" Obama said. "Because there is a natural inclination to say, 'If I get more, then I can do more.' "

Mullen told Congress last week he expected McChrystal's request for additional forces and other resources "in the very near future." The White House has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.

Obama spoke on CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press," and CBS' "Face the Nation."

___

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

A link to McChrystal's summary and report is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/...91cmNlc2lucw--

[samanthajane13]

Sources: US eyes more drone hits on terror havens
By LARA JAKES and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 8 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House is considering expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan.

Two senior administration officials said Monday that the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made.

Top aides to President Barack Obama said he still has questions and wants more time to decide.

The officials said the administration would push ahead with the ground mission in Afghanistan for the near future, still leaving the door open for sending more U.S. troops. But Obama's top advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, have indicated they are reluctant to send many more troops — if any at all — in the immediate future.

In weekend interviews, Obama emphasized that disrupting al-Qaida is his "core goal" and worried aloud about "mission creep" that moved away from that direction. "If it starts drifting away from that goal, then we may have a problem," he said.

The proposed shift would bolster U.S. action on Obama's long-stated goal of dismantling terrorist havens, but it could also complicate American relations with Pakistan, long wary of the growing use of aerial drones to target militants along the porous border with Afghanistan.

The prospect of a White House alternative to a deepening involvement in the stalemated war in Afghanistan comes as administration officials debate whether to send more troops — as urged in a blunt assessment of the deteriorating conflict by the top U.S. commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The two senior administration officials said Monday that one option would be to step up the use of missile-armed unmanned spy drones over Pakistan that have killed scores of militants over the last year.

The armed drones could contain al-Qaida in a smaller, if more remote area, and keep its leaders from retreating back into Afghanistan, one of the officials said.

Most U.S. military officials have preferred a classic counterinsurgency mission to keep al-Qaida out of Afghanistan by defeating the Taliban and securing the local population.

However, one senior White House official said it's not clear that the Taliban would welcome al-Qaida back into Afghanistan. The official noted that it was only after the 9/11 attacks that the United States invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban in pursuit of al-Qaida.

Pakistan will not allow the United States to deploy a large-scale military troop buildup on its soil. However, its military and intelligence services are believed to have assisted the U.S. with airstrikes, even while the government has publicly condemned them.

The Pakistan Embassy in Washington did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Wider use of missile strikes and less reliance on ground troops would mark Obama's second shift in strategy and tactics since taking office last January.

Such a move would amount to an admission that using a traditional military strategy to take on the Taliban with thousands more troops is doomed to failure, echoing Russia's disastrous Afghanistan invasion in the late 1980s and other ill-fated conquerors in the more distant past.

But stepping up attacks on the remnants of al-Qaida also would dovetail with Obama's presidential campaign promise of directly going after the terrorist network that spawned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Over the past few weeks, White House and Pentagon officials have debated the best way to defeat al-Qaida — and whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to battle the extremist Taliban elements that hosted Osama bin Laden and his operatives in the 1990s and have continued to aid the terrorist group.

McChrystal has argued that without more troops the United States could lose the war against the Taliban and allied insurgents.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary that was unveiled late Sunday by the Washington Post. His 66-page report, which was also made public by the Post in a partly classified version after appeals from Pentagon officials, was sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30 and is now under review at the White House.

White House officials have made clear that Pakistan should be the top concern since that is where top al-Qaida leaders, including bin Laden himself, are believed to be hiding. Very few al-Qaida extremists are believed to still be in Afghanistan, according to military and White House officials.

There have been more than 50 missile strikes against Pakistan targets since August 2008, according to an Associated Press count. Two weeks ago, a U.S. drone killed a key suspected al-Qaida recruiter and trainer, Pakistani national Ilyas Kashmiri.

A draft study by Notre Dame Law School professor Mary Ellen O'Connell found that drone attacks by the U.S. in Pakistan began in 2004, jumped dramatically in 2008 and continue to climb so far this year.

But the attacks target Taliban in Pakistan as well as al-Qaida, O'Connell said in an interview Monday, pointing to an Aug. 5 CIA missile strike that killed Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

"The only reason people think drones are successful is because they're doing a body count," O'Connell said. "They're not looking at the bigger picture" of Pakistani animosity, she added.

One of the White House officials said that Mehsud, an al-Qaida ally, was targeted as a threat to Pakistan at the behest of that nation's leaders.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers divided largely on party lines over whether more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan. Several said McChrystal's assessment shows that the American strategy in Afghanistan remains murky, and renewed demands that the general personally explain his conclusions to Congress.

"We have reached a turning point in Afghanistan as to whether we are going to formally adopt nation-building as a policy," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a former secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration.

High-level Obama aides said the Pentagon's case to send more troops was being pushed most aggressively by Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

White House officials were caught off guard and reacted with displeasure last week when Mullen told a Senate panel that more troops were all but certainly needed in Afghanistan, and that a second report asking for the additional forces would be delivered "in the very near future."

Gates has said he has not decided whether he agrees that more troops are needed, and Obama made clear in his weekend interviews that he is far from ready to decide.

___

AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven and AP researcher Judith Ausuebel in New York contributed to this report.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/...JjZXN1c2V5ZQ--

[samanthajane13]

Commander to send troop request for Afghanistan
By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer – 36 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon sought Wednesday to march in step with the Obama administration's shifting war strategy as the White House considers using more counterterror strikes in Pakistan amid its doubts about adding troops in Afghanistan.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, would ask this week for additional American forces — a number that officials said could reach as high as 40,000 troops.

But Morrell said that request could be revised if the White House alters the military strategy it committed to six months ago. Morrell added that McChrystal's request will remain with Defense Secretary Robert Gates until the decision is made.

"There's a lot that's changed and a lot that needs to be analyzed," Morrell told reporters. "And I think it's only appropriate for the commander in chief and his national security team to discuss these developments and adjust, if necessary, accordingly."

Morrell maintained, as has the White House, that the Obama administration merely is taking a new look at how to best achieve its long-stated goal of defeating and dismantling al-Qaida, the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The second-guessing comes in wake of charges of widespread fraud in Afghanistan's elections last month, and questions of whether the administration's original counterinsurgency strategy can work in a country where the government lacks credibility.

"There is a commitment on everyone's part to work this complex issue as quickly as possible, but without rushing it," Morrell said. "It is far more important that we make sure the strategy we are pursuing is the correct one and the president and his team are comfortable with it."

Earlier this year, the Pentagon began ramping up the eight-year war in Afghanistan, targeting extremist Taliban leaders to make sure the nation does not become a safe haven for al-Qaida. But White House officials now are refocusing on Pakistan, where al-Qaida leaders are believed to be hiding, by launching more missile strikes by unmanned spy planes and sending in more special operations forces.

Pakistan will not allow the United States to deploy a large-scale military troop buildup on its soil. However, its military and intelligence services are believed to have assisted the U.S. with airstrikes, even while the government publicly has condemned them.

A spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, Nadeem Kiani, signaled that Islamabad is cool to the idea of letting the U.S. expand its CIA-led drone missions in Pakistan.

Generally, the U.S. shares the intelligence it gets from the spy planes with Pakistani leaders, but has resisted selling drones to the Pakistan for fear it could target its longtime enemy, India.

"Our position on this is well known: We would like to have this technology in our hands," Kiani said at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. That way, Kiani said, there would be no violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, "which is very dear to the Pakistani people."

On Capitol Hill, a leading Republican senator said he would support an increased focus on Pakistan, a strategy championed most prominently by Vice President Joe Biden. But Sen. Kit Bond, top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that focus could not come at the cost of the mission in Afghanistan and should not be seen as a substitute for deploying more U.S. troops.

Democrats and Republicans largely are split along party lines on whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.

"While denying al-Qaida and Taliban militants sanctuary in the border regions of Pakistan is critical, a counterterrorism-only approach focusing only on one part of this regional conflict will ultimately hand victory to the world's most violent and feared terrorists," said Bond, R-Mo.

Morrell would not discuss the prospects of a new counterterror strategy in Pakistan. For now, he said, targeting the Taliban in Afghanistan "is the strategy and remains the strategy."

U.S. officials in recent weeks have said the counterinsurgency strategy endorsed by Obama in March will require more combat troops, additional trainers for Afghan security forces, and increased intelligence and surveillance forces. It also will require more helicopters and other support and equipment.

A senior Republican lawmaker in Congress recently told The Associated Press that McChrystal's troop request is expected to be as high as 40,000. The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue more freely. Already, Obama has approved increasing the number of U.S. soldiers, sailors, pilots and Marines in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of this year.

The debate over the next step in the war has consumed leaders from Kabul to Brussels, where NATO is based, to Washington, where Morrell had to deny rumors that McChrystal would resign if he does not get additional troops as "just absurd, absolutely ridiculous." Gen. David Petraeus, the usually loquacious leader of U.S. Central Command that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, refused to discuss the matter.

"There are multiple-hour meetings scheduled for the weeks that lie ahead, and folks are seized with those and are working them very hard," Petraeus told a Marine Corps University forum at the National Press Club in Washington.

McChrystal is expected to lay out "force options" — a range of several troop numbers and what can be achieved with each. Officials familiar with the process said McChrystal also will advise his top pick among the choices.

"It is not your typical request for forces," Morrell said. "This is a more analytical look at the situation and what's needed and the risks associated with certain troop levels. And there's an ultimate recommendation."

___

Associated Press writers Pauline Jelinek in Washington and Matthew Lee in New York contributed to this report.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/...1hbmRlcnRvcw--