Rove: Bush Administration Never Rejected A Request For More Troops From Afghanistan Commanders
Rove: Bush Administration Never Rejected A Request For More Troops From Afghanistan Commanders
This morning on ABC’s Good Morning America, former Bush adviser Karl Rove advised President Obama to “pay very close attention to the people you have put in command of the operation in Afghanistan” for their recommendations on strategy. Host Diane Sawyer than pointed out that if we’re listening to Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, they’re saying that “the reason we’re in the situation we’re in now is that this war was under-resourced, including during the Bush administration years.”
Rove quickly disputed those comments, saying, “I don’t believe that at the time, the military was saying we need significantly more. If there had been that cry, I suspect the previous administration would have been very responsive to it.” When Sawyer asked him if he was blaming the generals for not asking for more troops, Rove replied:
ROVE: No, I’m not. No. No. No. I’m saying that the United States had what, at the time, the military felt was an appropriate level of resources, and in retrospect, everybody now, says, I suspect, I wish we would have been doing more because the enemy, particularly as Iraq got better, the jihadists and al Qaeda needed a place to go, and they went to the Horn of Africa and they went to Pakistan and began to revitalize the efforts to attack Afghanistan.
As that grew, additional resources were sent by this administration and the previous administration to Afghanistan. But in retrospect, I think a lot of military experts say, we wish we would have been doing more. But that wasn’t what was going on at the time.
Watch it:
In 2008, Gen. David D. McKiernan, then the top U.S. commander in Kabul, specifically asked the Bush administration for more troops for Afghanistan, but was rebuffed:
“There was a saying when I got there: If you’re in Iraq and you need something, you ask for it,” McKiernan said in his first interview since being fired. “If you’re in Afghanistan and you need it, you figure out how to do without it.” By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush’s White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country’s east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.
The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan’s request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops.
The war in Iraq was the main reason that Afghanistan was under-resourced. In July 2008, Mullen said, “I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.” Military officials have said that the Taliban was pretty much gone in 2002, but regrouped when the Bush administration decided to shift resources and invade Iraq.
Transcript:
SAWYER: I want to turn to another big topic on the table at the White House, of course, Afghanistan and will there be a change in strategy there. George Will, as you know, a member of your team, has said a 40,000 troop increase will not be enough, and that they should concentrate instead on other approaches. The additional troops will not be enough and will not work. If you were advising the President, what would you tell him?
ROVE: I’d be saying, pay very close attention to the people you have put in command of the operation in Afghanistan. Listen closely to what they have to say about what they think they need in order to achieve the mission that you have defined for them, Mr. President, in March of this year. President Obama made very tough speech in March in which he outlined the consequences to the country and our world if Afghanistan returned to the way it was in the 1990s — a failed state.
So I’d say, give the commanders on the ground the closest attention, ask them tough questions, ask them to explain their positions, but listen carefully to what they suggest needs to be done in order to achieve the goals that you outlined in March.
SAWYER: Speaking of those commanders, Adm. McMullen [sic], who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and also Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is head of the operation in Afghanistan, have both said that the reason we’re in the situation we’re in now is that this war was under-resourced, including during the Bush administration years. Let me play what they said first:
[VIDEO] McCHRYSTAL: It’s been eight years. Why isn’t it better? … We’ve under-resourced our operations.
MULLEN: This has been a mission that has not been well-resourced; it’s been under-resourced almost since it’s inception, certainly in recent years. And part of why it has gotten more serious and deteriorated has been tied to that. [END VIDEO]
SAWYER: Did the Bush administration drop the ball on resourcing the war in Afghanistan?
ROVE: Well, I don’t — I think we’ve got to look at it in a more sophisticated way. I think that these questions — these answers become clear in retrospect. I don’t believe that at the time, the military was saying we need significantly more. If there had been that cry, I suspect the previous administration would have been very responsive to it.
There is a concern about were our NATO partners meeting their responsibility? We had prescribed a certain level of activity that we wanted NATO and the United States together, our coalition partners, to meet, and we felt in the previous administration, that our coalition partners were not meeting their responsibilities. It’s an attitude shared by the current administration, which remember, went to NATO earlier this year — President Obama did — and asked for additional resources and was rebuffed. It’s one of the reasons the Bush administration added additional resources to Afghanistan, it’s why President Obama added additional resources to Afghanistan.
SAWYER: So you’re saying it was the generals’ fault that they didn’t ask for more troops?
ROVE: No, I’m not. No. No. No. I’m saying that the United States had what, at the time, the military felt was an appropriate level of resources, and in retrospect, everybody now, says, I suspect, I wish we would have been doing more because the enemy, particularly as Iraq got better, the jihadists and al Qaeda needed a place to go, and they went to the Horn of Africa and they went to Pakistan and began to revitalize the efforts to attack Afghanistan.
As that grew, additional resources were sent by this administration and the previous administration to Afghanistan. But in retrospect, I think a lot of military experts say, we wish we would have been doing more. But that wasn’t what was going on at the time.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
.
Q U E S T I O N:
So, the President takes his orders from the Generals?
.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:03 pm“Rove: Bush Administration Never Rejected A Request For More Troops From Afghanistan Commanders”
And how’d that work out for us?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pmBS , Turd Blossom
Your boy , Dubya , only ‘listened’ to Petraeus , because he was hand-picked by the garbage Bush administration for being like-minded in the action that should be taken in Iraq………
October 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pmThis is just more Rove spin from his fantasy world.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pmEric, could you please get on the stick and get this clown into an orange jumpsuit? He’s just embarrassing us.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pmWhy do they give this lying b___d air time?!
They must know that all they’re going to get is lies, disinformation and efforts to revise history to make themselves look better!
They, those associated with the Bush administration, know that history will not judge them kindly with their blunders in Afghanistan.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pmRove the attention whore, pipes up for his weekly dollop of attention. Throw him a Bon Bon and send him home.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:10 pmI don’t remember. And even if I did remember I wouldn’t tell you I did.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:11 pmWhy is ABC even talking to this guy? He has nothing useful to say, and you can’t believe anything he does say. Can we please stop givign Karl Rove a platform from which he can re-write history? He is a liar, plain and simple. His opinion, therefore, is worthless.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:11 pm…I smell rancid bacon…
October 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pmNo surprise that Rover, once again, is flat out lying. As any student of military history can tell you, every military commander in history has wished for more troops. It’s the only way to occupy territory and, ultimately, win any conflict.
Dropping bombs on dwellings and sealing people in caves makes for great cinema but the only way to win a military conflict is to have a bunch of your guys kill, capture, or displace a bunch of theirs. Smart bombs and high tech weapons may destroy an enemy’s ability to wage war but it still always comes down to who has the most boots on the ground.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm.
I thought FOXPRAVDA had dibs on (R)ove…
…Good to see ABC is an equal opportunity PROPAGANDIST STATION.
Come on people…
… IT’S A RACKET!
ABC.CNN.NBC.CBS.FOX
ABCNNBCBS&FOXPRAVDA
,
October 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pmAnd, let’s not forget the myriad times he refused to listen to his generals when plotting the invasion of Iraq, all of whom warned that an invading force of 160,000 was lunacy.
Rove is an apologist. Not just for the Bush administration, but for the neo-conservative, interventionalist foreign policy ideology.
At least Kissinger never tried to whitewash history (he refused to answer questions, he didn’t outright lie or manipulate)
October 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pmThat is the best argument I’ve heard for rejecting a request for more troops.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:21 pm.
There is a reason John Stewart is the most trusted name in News.
.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:21 pmSee it’s quite simple, Rove is only talking about the military commanders that W. didn’t fire.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pmHow convient that turdblossom forget that General Shinseki had told bush he need thousands more troops to start the Iraq invasion….and bush fired him, instead, listening to rumsfeld. These putrid rethug swines love to revise history and believe the public will buy it. Only the misinormed fox teabaggers buy this crap. Why doesn’t the MSM point out the truth…oh I guess they’re afraid they won’t get the turd back for another bush years revisionist tour.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pmWhy does it even matter what the truth is? FNC already won a lawsuit that says that they don’t have to tell the truth so is there anyone to “hold their feet to any fire”?
If it wasn’t for progressive blogs no one would know that all of these lies are being thrown out there daily by these idiots. Unfortunately, Think Progress and other progressive blogs are “preaching to the choir”.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pmKarl, shut up.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pmInteresting, but shouldn’t the last word in Amanda’s post be “Iraq” and not “Afghanistan”.
That is;
“The war in Iraq was the main reason that Afghanistan was under-resourced. In July 2008, Mullen said, “I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.” Military officials have said that the Taliban was pretty much gone in 2002, but regrouped when the Bush administration decided to shift resources and invade Afghanistan.”
That is incorrect as it stands. In 2002, we were already in Afghanistan and the issue was that in late 2002 and early 2003, Shrub and Darth Cheney shifted resources to invade Iraq.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm#10 DNFP says:
…I smell rancid bacon…
I smell a**. That’s just Karl’s natural stink.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pmShouldn’t the last line of the entry read “the Taliban was pretty much gone in 2002, but regrouped when the Bush administration decided to shift resources and invade Iraq.”
October 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm.
Of course this whole “TROOP STRENGHTH” argument is predicated on…
… F E A R!!!
.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm.
Afghanistan has about 100 Al-CIA-Duh…
… “SEND MORE TROOPS!”
.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
And they still half-assed a war or two.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pmHoly crap!
(sorry, OT)…
Fort Collings 6 year old floats away in homemade “airship”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33330516/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
October 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pmRove, Rove, Rove your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a fascist dream…
October 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pmSo if Obama is doing what Bush did, why are you using Bush’s actions to defend Obama’s?
Obama is ignoring Afghanistan to invade another country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
That’s weird, where’d you hear that, aaronk?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pmaaronk says:
aaronk, we politely asked you in the last thread to explain how Pat Robertson and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough are, in your own words, “left-leaning”.
Please do so.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pmbelaccifer,
Or…
… Which covert CIA agent did Obama’s Presidential Oval Office out to cover for the necessary lies used to invade a Nation that posed NO IMMINENT THREAT TO OUR SAFETY?
Maybe aaronk can tell us?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pmthis thread is related to the right wint attacks on Obama for not giving the full troop resources. I’m just curious how you defend Obama’s actions by saying “Bush did it too”…..double standard once again!
October 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pmaaronk says:
Please help me with something. This thread appears to be implying that Bush was also guilty of under-resourcing in Afghanistan.
Also, to “help” you out, this thread is accusing Karl Rove of lying about the Bush administration, not passing judgment on the Bush administration.
Now that your concerns have been politely addressed, there is nothing that will stop you from explaining exactly what makes MSNBC regulars Pat Robertson and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough “left-leaning”, right?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:55 pmMr. Rovey Rove…Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
October 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pmand here comes the complete avoidance of the issue and outright deflection.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pmKKKarl, you were too damned busy hustling Jeff Gannon in and out all day and night (so you could get the ‘ole in-and out) to pay much mind anyway, between that and clipping Northrup-Grumman and McDonnel Douglas coupons to worry about that.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pmIf Rove were Pinocchio, his nose would reach the sun.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pmthis thread is related to the right wint attacks on Obama for not giving the full troop resources. I’m just curious how you defend Obama’s actions by saying “Bush did it too”…..double standard once again!
This thread is about how Bush did NOT give the generals ‘whatever they asked for’ in Afghanistan and yet Rove says he did.
I can tell by reading that thing at the top…
October 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pmBush never rejected the request for more troops in Afghanistan because no generals asked for more troops. Besides most of the troops had to be deployed to Iraq to fight baby boy Bush’s illegal war.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pmaaronk says:
and here comes the complete avoidance of the issue and outright deflection.
Obama is trying to do the right thing in Afghanistan… we don’t know what the right thing is yet and so he’s considering it.
Bush ignored it.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pmRove says he didn’t.
I don’t see how that’s deflection, can you help?
Oh my…you aren’t trying to make claim that MSNBC isn’t left-leaning are you? There are dozens of liberals who are regulars on Fox News every single day….does that make them no longer right-leaning?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pmBush never rejected the request for more troops in Afghanistan because no generals asked for more troops.
McKiernan requested 30,000 more troops… Bush said no.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmaaronk says:
and here comes the complete avoidance of the issue and outright deflection.
Yes, aaronk, we’ve figured out that’s how you deal with anyone who points out factual errors in your posts, you don’t need to make a special announcement.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmYou avoided the questions in the previous thread.
You avoided ralph’s question yesterday.
You avoided my questions back in August.
Funny.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pmthe deflection is above…take a look at it. Immidiately everyone starts bringing up all the other bad things Bush did. No argument here on what Bush did was wrong, but I can’t see why anyone who disagrees with Bush, would use his actions of under-resourcing a war to defend Obama’s actions on the same.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pmaaronk says:
There are dozens of liberals who are regulars on Fox News every single day….does that make them no longer right-leaning?
Name some.
P.S. By admitting that Fox is right-leaning, you already lost. Sorry.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pmShorter Rove: Dubyah wanted to go off into Iraq.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pmNo argument here on what Bush did was wrong, but I can’t see why anyone who disagrees with Bush, would use his actions of under-resourcing a war to defend Obama’s actions on the same.
No one is.
Rove is saying this: I’m saying that the United States had what, at the time, the military felt was an appropriate level of resources,
The United States Military did not… at least according to Gen McKiernan…
Rove is bringing up Bush. That’s the topic of the discussion… how is that deflection?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pmNote to Rove:
October 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pmSeeing that you’re a:
-loser
-liar
-criminal
-bush ass kisser
-jaackass
I could give a rats ass what you spout out of your pig lips.
No insult to porcines intended.
tony and lido
Rove: Bush Administration Never Rejected A Request For More Troops From Afghanistan Commanders
Here’s the topic, arronk.
Obama has said he does not know yet how we will proceed…
October 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pmBut Rove is saying that they did the best job they could with what they knew at the time… that is false. Demonstrably so.
aronnook:
October 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pmYou are a looser and loose with facts.
No one gives a rats ass what you purport to think.
tony and lido
trollspotter, anyone who won’t admit that MSNBC is left-leaning really isn’t worth even responding to.
I haven’t evaluated Ralph’s statement and the data yet, but I intend to. The purpose of that chart was to show that the rich have paid less in taxes than they do now for a large portion of our nation’s history.
Your post in August: You want proof that the killer was a liberal? Perhaps he was an extremist or a moderate….I don’t know him, but I would feel pretty safe saying he isn’t a conservative.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pmaaronk,
We have historic experience with “the generals” asking for more troops. We also have recent experience ignoring the generals completely. Rove’s convoluted explanation of the chain of events during the Bush years looks ridiculous. This convoluted mess in Afghanistan was left to the Obama administration to sort out.
After listening to Rove, I can’t blame the Obama Administration for giving pause to any strategy considerations, especially from Mr. Rove!
October 15th, 2009 at 3:21 pmOctober 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Sharpton, Jackson, Hill, Colmes, Williams to name a few. Try watching it sometime before you proclaim to be an expert.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pmtrollspotter, anyone who won’t admit that MSNBC is left-leaning really isn’t worth even responding to.
I trust that you will then admit that FOX is right wing?
October 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pmFox News devotes 1/8th of every broadcasting day to the views of Al Sharpton? I’m really surprised to learn that, aaronk. By all means, tell us what hours this program airs at.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pmaaronk, you are a liar and it’s been proven. You are here because you get paid paltry amounts so you can afford meth.
You are pathetic. You get caught lying daily and you keep coming back for more shit to eat. I have to conclude that you like it.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:24 pmFunny when a person with no integrity tries to call someone else dishonest. You are a proven liar.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pmA fine example of avoidance, aaronk. This is what I posted in August:
I asked you five questions. You have now replied to one of them, and it was a non-reply, ignoring how radicalized Muslims and radicalized Christians tend to share a highly conservative view of the world.
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pmThe only time I’d listen to an interview of this dooshnozzle is if it takes place on death row.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pmaaronk, pretending to want a serious discussion: “So if Obama is doing what Bush did, why are you using Bush’s actions to defend Obama’s?”
Obama is NOT “doing what Bush did.”
Obama is taking his time and gathering all the facts available from the most possible credible sources before he makes a strategic decision. Bush, as you know, “went with his gut.”
What Bush did is sacrifice resources possibly available for Afghanistan to use them on a war of choice based on false statements and assumptions and sold to the public and congress. Obama isn’t doing that. He’s in the process of re-assessing the viability of the conflict.
But, I think you already know these things and are just trying to be annoying.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pmBut, I think you already know these things and are just trying to be annoying.
Yeah, I wondered that, too…
October 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pmThe amount of face-time a person is given is irrelevant. The more important issue is results. We know polls and studies show Fox viewers are misinformed. How does that happen? Here’s an example right here of a Fox contributor just lying through his teeth. This is how Fox viewers become misinformed.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:35 pmWhy is KKKarl not in prison? He corrupted the DoJ god damn it. And he’s a phucking war criminal.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pmaaronk says:
Sharpton, Jackson, Hill, Colmes, Williams to name a few. Try watching it sometime before you proclaim to be an expert.
You claimed “dozens of liberals a day” and can’t even come up with a half dozen total.
I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and even regularly voted up your comments just to keep them on the page, but it’s obvious I’ve been wasting my time. You’re either delusional or a liar.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pmYour post in August: You want proof that the killer was a liberal? Perhaps he was an extremist or a moderate….I don’t know him, but I would feel pretty safe saying he isn’t a conservative.
Actually he was a conservative, a religious conservative.
His religion was Islam but he was a ‘religious conservative’ nonetheless… sorry.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pmWait a minute. Bush was already pulling troops from Afghanistan to start the buildup for Iraq at the time bin Laden escaped out the back door at Tora Bora. That decision still haunts us today. Thanks Bush and Rove for the terrible mess you left behind.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pmAs was frequently emphasized when I attended the US Naval War College, College of Naval Warfare, in the United States the military is subject to civilian rule and not the other way around [thank God!]. It is the military’s role to provide the best possible advice to the President on strategy and tactics. Decision making is done by the President based on the military, diplomatic, economic, and political factors–all of which should be carefully weighed.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pmDoc Rock says:
Whole heartedly agree, Doc Rock.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pmWhat the stupid troll can’t seem to understand is that before the invasion of Iraq there were additional resources available for a successful conclusion, assuming the capture of Bin Laden and destruction of AQ/Taliban was a success, in Afghanistan. President Obama doesn’t have that luxury. He inherited an exhausted military with virtually no reserves.
And, even if we felt we could simply transfer resources from Iraq to Afghanistan? The actual troops would need to be rested, reequipped, and retrained.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmaaronk, please help me with something.
I’ve heard you’re a pussy and a welcher. Is that true?
Thanks much.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pmThe problem of so many pro-Bush comments is that the comments deny the facts. It is a matter of record that the perps of 9-11 were from Afghanistan, yet Bush loaded up Iraq with numerous military deployments to fight his disgusting war of choice, all the while ignoring Afghanistan’s needs for more troops probably to try to outshine his daddy. Rove can lie all he wants but most of us have great memories and believe me, we remember seeing our grandkids being sent to Iraq to be slaughtered for that useless war all the while, our military in Afghanistan was short changed. Now, Rove even lies about those facts. Poor, poor thing. Guess he is the guy who is trying to bend the facts of history. But alas, we are not fooled!!
October 15th, 2009 at 8:40 pmmari2RR,
None of the perpetrators were from Afghanistan either. 15 were Saudis, two were from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Lebanon and Egypt.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pmKarl Rove= America’s version of Baghdad Bob.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pmDid Bush Screw Up Afghanistan More Than He Did Iraq? karin germe estetigi
October 21st, 2009 at 6:00 am