It was Bush's war. Now it's Obama's. And the heat is on
The military audience's applause after the President's speech had barely died away before the flak began to fly
Thursday 03 December 2009
Latest in Americas
On Facebook
From the blogs
HIV orphans in Thailand prepare for the future
In Baan Gerda, a community for HIV infected or affected youngsters in Northern Thailand, a group of ...
Online House Hunter: England’s most romantic places
Our Online House Hunter goes in search of romance this Valentine's Day...
Roy Hodgson for England: A club of one
To argue against Harry Redknapp for England is akin to arguing in favour of bankers bonuses. While s...
Time for a reality check on the Sri Lankan civil war
Sri Lanka, much like Britain, has side-lined accountability long enough.
It is the soldiers who will bleed and die. But yesterday Barack Obama braced himself for the flak that awaits any American president who decides he must not merely carry another leader's burden, but make a war his own.
Already the critics and doubters are circling like vultures, questioning among other things his mid-2011 deadline to begin withdrawing US troops and handing over responsibility for security to the Afghans themselves.
In his long-awaited speech to the West Point Military Academy on Tuesday evening Mr Obama attempted to satisfy both sides of the debate, announcing a 30,000-strong troop surge that will start within days while at the same time promising that the soldiers deployed would begin their withdrawal in just 18 months.
He may have satisfied few and infuriated many. Liberal activists and many Democrats continued to fret that any surge only takes America deeper into a Vietnam-type quagmire, while conservatives branded the very notion of a deadline to begin the process of pulling out as a military blunder.
"The President's proposal for escalation is going to hit rough waters," warned Tom Andrews, of Win Without War, a liberal group opposed to higher troop levels. "There's going to be a very serious battle ahead over the question," Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat, said flatly. "This is a mistake."
With the cacophony only just starting, the White House sent the President's top deputies to Capitol Hill to begin what may be a long and hard sell to members of both parties. That said, serious debate will not necessarily translate into fireworks or outright opposition.
The atmospherics so far appear a good deal less fraught than when George Bush unveiled his surge for Iraq three years ago. Then the chambers of Congress were invaded by angry anti-war protesters who yesterday were largely absent.
One of the President's own emissaries to the Hill, the Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, muddied the deadline issue suggesting that its viability would come under review at the end of next year. "We're not just going to throw these guys into the swimming pool and walk away," he said.
The stakes remain high for Mr Obama. There will be no more blaming Mr Bush for his being distracted from Afghanistan by the conflict in Iraq. It may be two years or more before the verdict is in on his new strategy – just as he will be seeking re-election.
In Kabul a grateful General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, who had originally sought an increase of 40,000 US troops, said: " This is the end of the beginning."
It will be General McChyrstal's job, with assistance from the Pentagon, to deploy the extra troops to their greatest possibly military effect to turn back recent Taliban gains. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Taliban now have the upper hand in 11 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.
Mr Gates insisted that not adding to troop numbers was not an option. "Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war. Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan."
Speaking in Kabul, Gen. McChrystal said that the "success of this will be determined in the minds of the Afghan people... It is not the number of people you kill, it is the number of people you convince." He also rejected talk of a withdrawal date allowing the Taliban to leave the battlefield and wait out the clock, because, he said, "that gives the government a good opportunity to make its case effectively to the people".
This was the main concern of many Republicans on the Armed Services Committee, including Senator John McCain. "I support the President's decision, and I think it deserves the support of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats," Mr McCain said. "What I don't support, and what concerns me greatly, is the President's decision to set an arbitrary date [to begin] the withdrawal."
It was in trying to mollify Mr McCain that Mr Gates seemed to suggest that the 2011 withdrawal promise is not set in stone. "It is our plan to begin this transition process in July 2011. If circumstances dictate in December [2010], I think as I said the President always has the freedom to adjust his decisions," he told the Armed Services Committee.
The cost of the deployments could reach as much as $30bn (£18bn) next year, and with the deficit soaring Mr Obama is being portrayed by conservatives as an overspending, big-government leader who will bankrupt the nation. There seems little doubt, however, that the additional budget lines will eventually be approved.
£18bn
The potential cost of the extra troop numbers approved by President Obama.
- 1 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 2 Fear for deported Saudi 'ridiculous', says Malaysian home minister
- 3 Eight arrests as Murdoch 'throws staff to the wolves'
- 4 Israel blames Iran for embassy bomb attacks
- 5 Now The Sun tries to call in its favours from Downing Street
- 6 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 7 BBC to issue global apology for documentaries that broke rules
- 1 Kate Allen: It's time for America to put an end to this shameful scandal
- 2 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 3 Chemotherapy is 'safe during pregnancy'
- 4 Rhodri Marsden: What we like and what we don't like are often closer than you'd think
- 5 BBC to issue global apology for documentaries that broke rules
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 8 Henry does it his way, ending on a high note
- 9 Modern lovers: The 'sexual body warriors' and pioneers transforming 21st-century relationships
- 10 Redknapp hints at same old faces for England
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
Apple admits it has a human rights problem
James Lawton: AVB looks all at sea
Procrastination: Not now – I'm busy
Silent revolution at the Baftas
The diva who had – and lost – it all




Comments