Think Progress

Joint Chiefs Stand And Applaud Obama’s Nuclear Comments, Sit Silently During Call To Repeal DADT

Although President Obama spent a significant amount of his State of the Union speech last night talking about domestic issues, he also addressed several national security issues. The Joint Chiefs sat quietly when Obama talked about a timeline to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and committed to working with the military to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008. And in Afghanistan, we’re increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. [...]

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do.

However, as Joe. My. God. points out, the Joint Chiefs didn’t sit passively during the entire speech, as the Supreme Court justices are supposed to do, although they traditionally applaud “rarely.” The Joint Chiefs stood and applauded when the President talked about supporting veterans or pledging to secure nuclear materials:

And at April’s Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Watch a compilation:

A new study by UCLA’s Williams Institute estimates that there are an “estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the US military, accounting for approximately 2.2% of military personnel.” Additionally, repealing DADT “could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.” The Pentagon has reportedly been “stepping up internal discussions on how gay men and lesbians might be able to serve openly in the armed services,” in anticipation that Congress and the President will move forward on repeal.

Notably, Defense Secretary Robert Gates did stand and clap for Obama’s call to repeal DADT. (HT: AMERICAblog)

Official Army History: Bush Administration Neglected Afghan War, Diverted Resources to Iraq

During President Obama’s December speech announcing a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, he noted that the effort was finally getting the resources it needed. During the previous administration, Obama said, “commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.” “In early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq,” Obama said, and “for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention.”

Former Bush administration officials fired back, claiming the Iraq war did not deprive resources from Afghanistan. Former White House adviser Karl Rove said “the United States had, at the time what the military felt was an appropriate level of resources.” Bush’s Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called Obama’s comments a “bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense.” Later, Rumsfeld spokesperson Keith Urbahn turned up the heat, accusing Obama distorting the facts.

Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, Rove and their neo-con allies, the Army’s official history of the first four years of the war completely contradicts their claims. The New York Times reported this week that according to the official history, as early as late 2003, the Army historians assert, “it should have become increasingly clear to officials at Centcom and [the Department of Defense] that the coalition presence in Afghanistan did not provide enough resources” for a proper counterinsurgency campaign. Paraphrasing the history, the Times notes that American forces were “hamstrung by inadequate resources” and thus “missed opportunities to stabilize Afghanistan during the early years of the war.”

“A Different Kind of War,” the title of the account, to be published this Spring, is written by a team of seven historians at the Army’s Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth and covers the period from October 2001 until September 2005. Rumsfeld was secretary of defense during this entire time. The Army writes such reports after major military engagements in order to train future commanders.

Contradicting Rove and Rumsfeld, the historians blame the Iraq war for the lack of resources in Afghanistan, as well as top Bush officials and the president himself:

The historians say resistance to providing more robust resources to Afghanistan had three sources in the White House and the Pentagon.

First, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had criticized using the military for peacekeeping and reconstruction in the Balkans during the 1990s. As a result, “nation building” carried a derogatory connotation for many senior military officials, even though American forces were being asked to fill gaping voids in the Afghan government after the Taliban’s fall. [...]

Third, the invasion of Iraq was siphoning away resources. After the invasion started in March 2003, the history says, the United States clearly “had a very limited ability to increase its forces” in Afghanistan.

The historians also note that, as was the case in Iraq, Bush officials had neglected to properly plan for what to do after the government fell. “[T]here was no major planning initiated to create long-term political, social and economic stability in Afghanistan,” the historians write. “In fact, the message from senior D.O.D officials in Washington was for the U.S. military to avoid such efforts.”

Despite Rove and Rumsfeld’s attempts to salvage their legacies, it’s widely accepted that the Bush administration neglected the Afghan war. But as the Times notes, these new findings are “notable for carrying the imprimatur of the Army itself.”

REPORT: How To Pay For The Troop Escalation In Afghanistan By Cutting The Defense Budget

In his West Point speech announcing his 30,000 troop escalation in Afghanistan, President Obama declared that he was committed to addressing the ongoing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “openly and honestly.” Though he did not get into specifics, Obama said he would “work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.”

Some Democrats, such as Rep. David Obey (D-WI), have suggested a war surtax to pay for the estimated $30 billion it will cost to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have rejected a tax. In a new report from the Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb, Sean Duggan, Laura Conley, and Jacob Stokes recommend that the administration “look to the base defense budget” to pay for the escalation:

Rather than allow the supplemental and additional costs of the escalation for FY2011 to add to the large and growing national deficit, the Obama administration should look to the base defense budget for programs and weapons platforms that can be eliminated or scaled back without jeopardizing our national defense strategy or capabilities. Our allies in Great Britain have adopted such a policy. In order to pay for the cost of sending an additional 500 troops and supporting equipment to the front lines in Afghanistan, the British government is currently “reprioritizing” existing Ministry of Defense spending, including domestic cuts in civilian staff, and a commitment to improve procurement.

Noting that defense investment funds have “grown by approximately 75 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the past decade,” they recommend adjustments to “nine costly and outmoded weapons platforms and programs and an across-the-board reduction in research, development, test and evaluation funding” that could save some $40 billion in the next fiscal year:

On Washington Journal this morning, Korb explained how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “are the first wars in our history” where Americans fiscally “haven’t been asked to make any sacrifices.” “Not only did we not raise taxes, we actually cut them and because of that we have this tremendous budget deficit,” said Korb. Watch it:

Obama Advisers Soften Afghanistan Timetable, Suggest U.S. Troops May Not Pull Out In 2011

In his Afghanistan policy address last week, President Obama said we would “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” In a series of in-depth profiles of the behind-the-scenes conversations that took place in the lead-up to this pronouncement, the Washington Post and New York Times report that the President wanted a strategy to get in and get out.

“The military was told to come up with a plan to send troops quickly and then begin bringing them home quickly,” the Times writes. “He had asked for a plan to deploy and pull out troops quickly,” writes the Post. Looking at a bell curve that laid out the timetable for the deployment and withdrawal of U.S. troops, Obama reportedly told his advisers: “I want this pushed to the left.” The Times writes, “In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.”

But as administration officials touted the President’s Afghanistan strategy this morning on the Sunday political talk shows, they underscored that the U.S. troops may not be coming home in 2011:

Gen. David Petraeus: “There’s no timeline, no ramp, nothing like that.” [Fox News Sunday]

National Security Adviser James Jones: “It is not a cliff. It is a glide slope. And so certainly, the President has also said we are not leaving Afghanistan.” [CNN State of the Union]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “Well, first of all, I don’t consider this an exit strategy. And I try to avoid using that term. I think this is a transition.” [ABC This Week]

Watch a compilation:

On Meet the Press, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We’re not talking about an exit strategy or a drop dead deadline.” Gates added, “We will have a significant — we will have 100,000 forces — troops there. And they are not leaving — in July of 2011.”

Jones also told the BBC, “In no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011.” Afghan President Hamid Karzai is also making a push to soften the timetable. He told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that “if it takes longer [than 2011], they must be with us.”

Notably, Vice President Joe Biden — who was reportedly a skeptic of the escalation strategy — did not appear on political talk shows to tout the new strategy. Biden did sign his name to an e-mail sent to Obama supporters last week saying he believes it is a “focused strategy that can succeed.”

Views From The Ground: Afghans Offer Mixed Reactions To Obama’s Surge Strategy

Following President Obama’s Afghanistan policy address last night, the media prominently featured political strategists, U.S. lawmakers, foreign policy thinkers, and other domestic pundits to respond to the President’s strategy.

One group of people who has been largely left out of the media’s discourse following the speech has been the Afghans themselves, who will be most directly affected by the surge in troops. However, a handful of media outlets did document the reactions of some of the people in the region. Here are some examples:

Afghan Parliamentarians:

– “[Obama] may not be convincing the normal people or the Taliban, but by saying these things in the speech, this gives to the politicians…a free hand now. We are the ones…to win over our people,” said Khalid Pashtun, a member of Parliament from Kandahar.

– “It was a wonderful speech for America…but when it comes to strategy here in Afghanistan there was nothing new which was really disappointing,” said parliamentarian Shukriya Barakzai. “It seems to me that President Obama is very far away from the reality and truth in Afghanistan. His strategy was to pay lip-service, and did not focus on civilians, nation-building, democracy and human rights.”

– “People are starting to view the Americans as occupiers, and in that context more troops would be risky,” said Hanif Shah Hosseini, a parliamentarian from Khost province.

Afghan tribal leaders and government officials:

– “I don’t think we will be able to solve our problems with military force,” said Muhammad Qasim, a tribal elder from Kandahar. “We can solve them by providing jobs and development and by using local leaders to negotiate with the Taliban.”

– “When they increase the troops, the Taliban will respond by increasing their attacks on the foreigners — but that will not only be against the foreigners, it will be against Afghan civilians who live in the same area,” said Bershna Nadery, a woman who works in the Afghan Finance Ministry.

– “Eighteen months is a great opportunity,” said Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, praising Obama’s promise to begin drawing down troops in eighteen months. “Afghans must step up efforts to assume greater responsibility over the security of their country.”

Afghan citizens:

– “I welcome this decision, it’s a good decision. We need a larger number of foreign troops in order to eliminate the terrorists and win the war in Afghanistan,” said Fawad Habib, a student in Kabul.

– “If we get more troops, there will be more bloodshed,” responded shopkeeper Noor Muhammad. “Only Afghans themselves can solve this problem.”

– “Even if they bring the whole of America, they won’t be able to stabilize Afghanistan,” said Esmatullah, a young construction worker in Kabul. “Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life.”

– “One American soldier costs about $1 million a year,” said Jabar Wafaie, a security guard from Uruzgon Province working in Kabul. “The troops that are already here, they can do well now, if they wanted they could destroy the Taliban. … The additional 30,000 troops is going to be a good opportunity for the Taliban to recruit more.”

Additionally, Al Jazeera English was on the ground in Afghanistan yesterday and interviewed Afghans about their reactions to Obama’s speech. Watch it:

Asked to assess the sentiment amongst Afghans, a senior administration official told ThinkProgress the population is “overwhelmingly against the insurgency and the Taliban.” “What you see in Afghanistan is a desire for commitment and change,” the official added.

Despite His Promise To ‘Applaud’ If Obama Deployed 30K More Troops, Rove Bashes Him For Being ‘Weak’ »

Yesterday morning, former Bush adviser Karl Rove went on NBC’s Today Show and said that if President Obama decides to send 30,000-35,000 troops to Afghanistan, he would be “among the first to stand up and applaud.” Watch it:

Immediately after President Obama’s prime-time address last night — in which he announced that he would be deploying 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan — Rove went on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor and responded. However, he definitely didn’t “stand up and applaud.” Instead, he and O’Reilly bashed the President for underperforming (although he acknowledged that the “core” of Obama’s message was acceptable). Some highlights of their comments:

– O’REILLY: I did not see a Winston Churchill-type performance. … Summing up, the president’s speech tonight was OK but not exactly the Gettysburg Address.

– ROVE: I mean, I think he might need a new teleprompter with some Energizer bunny batteries in it. You know, look, at the core of tonight was good news, but it was badly delivered in a — you know, in a weak frame.

– ROVE: And the enemy knows that we’re going to send one quarter less troops than was requested by the military commander. And then for him to say, In 18 months I’m going to start withdrawing those people. That says to me — that sends a very — very bad signal to the enemy that you can wait us out.

– O’REILLY: But, look, the problem with Barack Obama, I think, is becoming increasingly clear. Not even — not just on Afghanistan but on a whole — a whole other bunch of issues. He’s an academic. … Where is the table pounding?

Watch it:

Transcript: More »« Less

Obama Rebuts ‘Dithering’ Charges: None Of The Options Called For Troop Deployments Before 2010

In recent weeks, Republicans have been attacking President Obama for taking too long to settle on a strategy for the war in Afghanistan. The charge has been led by Vice President Cheney, who accused Obama of “dithering” and endangering U.S. troops:

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Tonight in his prime-time address to the nation, Obama ordered the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and said that the U.S. would begin withdrawing in 18 months. He also pointed out that none of the options put before him were set to occur before 2010, so his review process did not result in any endangerment of U.S. troops — a statement that seemed to be a direct response to criticisms such as Cheney’s:

As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners.

Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.

Watch it:

John ‘100 Years’ McCain: Afghanistan Policy Needs Less Focus On ‘An Exit Strategy’

Last night Fox News, host Greta van Susteren asked former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) what he thought of reports that President Obama plans announce his intention to send 34,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. McCain said he’s not concerned about how many troops Obama is sending, he just wants to succeed — regardless of whether we have an exit strategy or not:

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you think about that? Is that a decision that — that you think is a wise one or do you want the full 40,000 that was originally requested?

MCCAIN: Well, I’m not so much concerned about the number because I understand that it may be additional allied troops to help out, too. I’d like to look at the overall strategy. I would like to see the emphasis on succeeding, not on an exit strategy.

Greta, the exit strategy takes care of itself once you succeed just as it did in Iraq. But I’d like to hear the whole thing. I hope the president will make the right decision here. And I would like to support him if he does.

Watch it:

At least McCain is consistent; an exit strategy for the war in Iraq has been of little concern to him as well. When running for president, the Arizona senator and fervent Iraq war supporter said he would “be fine with” the U.S. military staying in Iraq for “a hundred years” and later “excitedly declar[ed] that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for ‘a thousand years’ or ‘a million years,’ as far as he was concerned.”

Indeed, as the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has noted, McCain’s knee-jerk reactions to the crises in Iran last June and in Georgia last October, and now with his “no exit strategy necessary” policy, reminds the U.S. of the bullet it dodged last November by not electing him president.

Obama reportedly plans to announce an exit strategy in the coming days.

Fred Thompson Declares The War In Afghanistan ‘Has Been Lost’

In April 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the war in Iraq was “lost” and that the surge was “not accomplishing anything.” Conservatives and war hawks ripped into Reid for the comment, calling it “reckless,” “disturbing” and “playing to the worst elements of the antiwar left.”

One of the fiercest critics of Reid’s Iraq war stance was former senator Fred Thompson, who accused him of “encouraging our enemies”:

But Reid’s comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid’s comments I’ve noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.

But now Thompson is singing a different tune on the appropriateness of declaring an American war “lost.” In a commentary on his radio show today, Thompson declared that the Afghanistan war “has been lost”:

“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today. “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said.

Listen here:

According to Thompson’s own logic, his declaration of defeat today — “whether he means to or not” — is “encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.”