Obama neglects american foreign policy .

[rusty]

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama says he hasn't asked his top commander in Afghanistan to sit on an expected request for U.S. reinforcements in a backsliding war, but he gave no deadline for making a decision about whether to send more Americans into harm's way.

Obama said in a series of television interviews broadcast Sunday that he will not allow politics to govern his decision. He left little doubt he is re-evaluating whether the renewed focus on hunting al-Qaida that he announced just months ago has become blurred and whether more forces will do any good.

"The first question is, `Are we doing the right thing?'" Obama said. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

The war has taken on a highly partisan edge. Senate Republicans are demanding an influx of forces to turn around a war that soon will enter its ninth year, while members of Obama's own party are trying to put on the brakes.

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

"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.'"

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he expected McChrystal's request for additional forces and other resources "in the very near future."

Other military officials had said the request would go to McChrystal's boss, Gen. David Petraeus, and up the chain of command in a matter of weeks. The White House discounted that timeline, but has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.

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 that the report is not complete.

"The resource request is being finalized and will be sent forward to the chain of command at some point in the near future," Smith said from Afghanistan.

McChrystal found security worse than he expected when he took command this summer to lead what Obama described as a narrowed, intensive campaign to uproot al-Qaida and prevent the terrorist group from again using Afghanistan as a safe haven.

In the interviews taped Friday at the White House, Obama mentioned concerns about the "mission creep" that befell former President George W. Bush's attempt to build and prop up a viable democratic government in a country unaccustomed to central rule and sensitive to foreign meddling.

Obama said he's asking this question now of the military regarding his plan: "How does this advance America's national security interests? How does it make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe?"

"If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward," the president continued. "But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration."

Obama has ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, increasing the number of U.S. forces there to a record 68,000, and watched as Marines pushed deep into Taliban-controlled districts ahead of Afghanistan's national elections in August.

The disappointing outcome of the voting ? no definitive winner weeks later and mounting allegations that the incumbent President Hamid Karzai rigged the election ? is coloring both Obama's view of the conflict and the partisan debate.

Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has told Obama he wants no new troops request at least until the United States makes a bolder effort to expand and train Afghanistan's own armed forces.

On Sunday, Levin addressed the give-and-take over McChrystal's report.

"I think what's going on here is that there is a number of questions which are being asked to Gen. McChrystal about some of the assumptions which have been previously made in the strategy, including that there would be an election which would be a stabilizing influence instead of a destabilizing influence," said Levin, D-Mich.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Obama should follow the military's advice. McConnell said Petraeus "did a great job with the surge in Iraq. I think he knows what he's doing. Gen. McChrystal is a part of that. We have a lot of confidence in those two generals. I think the president does as well."

Earlier this month, McChrystal offered this analogy suggesting he's waiting for Obama to make up his mind about a deeper involvement.

"My position here is a little bit like a mechanic. We've got a situation with a vehicle and I've been asked to look at it and tell the owner what the situation is and what it will cost to make the vehicle run correctly and I will provide that," he said.

"Now I understand that the vehicle owner then has to make a decision on what the car is worth, how much longer he intends to drive it," he added. "Whether he wants it to look good or just run."

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

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

We shouldn't even be in Afghanistan. Our troops should be protecting our fucking borders.

 

[rusty]

In reply to my own post,he turns his back on our allies,then leaves his own troops hanging.

Shame on you O!You sure fooled me on Afganastan before you got my vote.
You got no guts whatsoever!!!

 

[Duff Miver]

What a rusty crock-o. Hillary Clinton is doing a great job as Sec of State, and Bob Gates is doing an absolutely superb job as Sec of Defense. These are Obama's picks, and he's letting them do their jobs.

That's unlike Bush who appointed the complete asshole Rummy as Sec Def, and then appointed a good man, Colin Powell, to Sec State, and completely ignored what the bright and experienced Powell thought. Yeah, Bush knew better than Powell - LMFAO.

Hang your head in shame, rusty. Your right wing idiot made a mess it'll take a black man four years to clear up....But, hey, what do you expect from a coward AWOL idiot and a five-deferment POS?

Back under your rock, rusty.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

In reply to my own post,he turns his back on our allies,then leaves his own troops hanging.

Shame on you O!You sure fooled me on Afganastan before you got my vote.
You got no guts whatsoever!!!

You got no brains.

 

[rusty]

Obama the weak.

Obama the weak.

Obama the Weak
The perils of a sycophantic administration.

There are three President Obamas. There's the Obama who defers, the one who dithers, and the one who's out of touch. The Obama presidencies have one thing in common. They're all weak.

Obama is a great talker. He's also what used to be called a "press hound." That's a politician who can't go a single day without lavish attention from the media. But talking and availability aren't the same as leading. Nearly eight months into his presidency, Obama has yet to offer strong leadership, on anything.

What's more, Obama is a liberal who's surrounded himself with liberals. His weakness makes his liberal domestic policies more vulnerable than they otherwise would be. For a moment after Obama's inauguration, Republicans were fearful of him. They quickly found that opposing him is safe and fruitful.

But presidential weakness is dangerous in foreign affairs. Obama has been deferential to adversaries and tough on allies. He's pretended problems with Russia are as much America's fault as Russia's, taken human rights off the table with China, begged Iran to talk with him. This hasn't been productive. He's come down hard on Israel and Honduras. That hasn't been productive either.

Obama's tendency to defer has been most dramatic in his relationship with congressional Democrats, perhaps the most unswervingly liberal and partisan group in the nation. "If the president leads the way, his party can hardly resist him," Woodrow Wilson wrote. Obama has flipped that notion. His party in Congress leads, and he hardly resists at all.

The deference started early.

Last December, weeks
before the president took office, House speaker Nancy Pelosi set sharp limits on the role of Obama and his aides on Capitol Hill. A few days later, Democrats ignored the Obama team's desire for a tax credit for small businesses in the "stimulus" bill. It might have attracted Republican support and fulfilled the president's promise to be bipartisan.

Post-inauguration, Senate and House Democrats embarrassed the new president by sending him an omnibus spending bill studded with thousands of earmarks. Though he'd criticized earmarks, Obama knuckled under and signed the measure. On the cap-and-trade environmental legislation, House Democrats threw out Obama's cherished plan to raise revenue by auctioning off emission rights. They decided to give most of the rights away, mainly to political allies.

And after Obama reached a deal with pharmaceutical companies--they pledged $80 billion in cut-rate drugs for seniors in exchange for favored treatment in health care legislation--congressional leaders dismissed the deal as not binding on them. This prompted Obama to declare it nonbinding on him, too.

His biggest concession to congressional Democrats, though, has been to let them write the legislation on his three biggest initiatives: the stimulus, health care reform, and cap and trade. I can't think of another president--not one of the previous 43--who willingly yielded so much power to Congress.

Presidential scholar Charles Dunn of Regent University characterizes Obama as "a leader who's not leading. He's like a coach of a football team who says to go out and call your own plays while I watch from the sidelines. So things are chaotic."


Presidential dithering has abetted the chaos. When Obama addresses Congress and the nation this week, he intends to spell out "in clear, understandable terms what our administration wants to happen with regard to health care," according to Vice President Biden. Well, it's about time. The president has been unclear for months as four congressional committees approved health care bills in his name. Only now, weeks after his own deadline for final passage, is Obama prepared to reveal his bottom line on Obamacare--that is, unless he balks.

The president has dithered in another sense, too, actually hiding his views on matters inside his administration. As the war in Afghanistan has worsened, Obama has said practically nothing on the subject. (He did call it "a war of necessity.") When Attorney General Eric Holder decided to hire a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated captured terrorists--a step the president had earlier opposed--the White House claimed it was solely Holder's call.

But is Obama really out of touch with the country? Yes, indeed, and it's self-inflicted. In The Age of Reagan, his new book on the Reagan presidency, Steven Hayward argues that administrations rife with factional infighting over policies are more successful than what he calls "sycophantic" administrations. "Fractiousness in an administration is a sign of health," Hayward writes, citing Reagan's feuding but successful White House. He thinks serious disputes over issues lead to better policies.

Maybe they do. I suspect they have a more important value. Different factions help an administration stay attuned to grass-roots
opinion outside Washington in a way the Obama White House hasn't been. Obama and his advisers, for example, were the last to learn that the proposed government-run health insurance plan is a deal-killer for many millions of Americans.

By "sycophantic," Hayward means an administration with one view of the big issues, little dissent, and an inflated sense of the president's appeal. That's the Obama administration: pretty much all liberalism, all Obama, all the time. The one real disagreement among the president's top advisers is whether to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. And this quarrel has only recently erupted.

What the Obama team doesn't understand is the limit of the president's appeal. His base is the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which is less than one-quarter of the voting public. Yet his aides believe he's able to captivate and convince a far larger audience. That he's been failing at this for months hasn't stopped the White House from trotting the president out again and again with nothing new to say, as if it's the only option. Perhaps, in a sycophantic administration, it is.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

While there have been many issues on terrorism and foreign policy I have taken O and admin to task for--I agree with WSJ articles that he does deserve credit for keeping heat on the terrorist and abandoning a lot of the campaign posturing on doing away with our intelligence gathering--now if we could just get him to abandon trying to prosecute those who kept/keep us safe--

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574414903250393752.html


It's been a good few weeks in what used to be called the war on terror. The main credit here goes to the folks in the intelligence community that our friends on the left love to hate.
Credit goes as well to Barack Obama, who as President has abandoned much of his previous opposition to proven antiterror measures like warrantless wiretaps, and who has only stepped up the campaign of targeted hits on terrorist ringleaders. He's fortunate the Bush Administration left him with a potent intelligence team and the precedent of taking the fight, pre-emptively, to the terrorists on their home turf.


On Monday, U.S. special forces operating in Somalia killed top al Qaeda operative Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, believed to have been a planner in the November 2002 bombing of a hotel in Kenya in which 15 were killed. Also killed in recent days was senior al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri?via a U.S. drone attack in western Pakistan?and Indonesian terrorist mastermind Noordin Muhammad Top, suspected in the July bombing of two Jakarta hotels


Last week, too, a British court convicted three men for an August 2006 plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic. The convictions were obtained largely on the strength of communications intercepts?possibly warrantless?gathered by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to a report by Britain's Channel 4.
All this follows important gains for the Pakistani army in the area of the Swat valley, which fell briefly to the Taliban in the spring. Key among those gains was the August killing?again by a U.S. drone?of Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud, suspected in the assassination of former Prime Minster Benazir Bhutto. Two of Mehsud's senior deputies were also killed in drone attacks in recent months, while at least eight key al Qaeda commanders have been killed in the last 12 months alone.
For those who were the victims or near-victims of the attacks perpetrated by these men, this is justice. For the rest of us, it is an additional measure of safety. Despite conventional wisdom that killing terrorists only breeds more terrorists and fuels the proverbial "cycle of violence," there is a reason that the U.S. has not been attacked in the eight years since September 11, and that major terrorist plots in Europe have been foiled.
Last week, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that it had seen interrogation documents showing that European Muslim volunteers "faced a chaotic reception, a low level of training, poor conditions and eventual disillusionment after arriving in Waziristan [Pakistan] last year." It added that there is "evidence that al Qaeda's alliance with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is fraying, boosting the prospect of acquiring intelligence that will lead to Bin Laden's capture or death." This from a paper not exactly known as a cheerleader for the use of military force.
The logic of these attacks is simple, even if too many people are reluctant to accept it. Terrorist groups tend to coalesce around charismatic leaders, such as Abimael Guzm?n of Peru's Shining Path, Abdullah Ocalan of the Kurdish PKK, or Abu Musab al Zarqawi of al Qaeda in Iraq. Not only are these men difficult to replace, but their death or capture often leads to infighting, disarray and disillusion within the group. As terrorist leaders are forced to spend more time trying to save their own lives, they also have less time to devote to plans for killing others.
None of this means that the war on terror (or whatever you'd like to call it) is anywhere near over. It may never be. But in a struggle in which a day when nothing happens is a victory, it's worth recalling that nothing doesn't happen by accident.
<CITE class=paperLocation>Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A14</CITE><!-- article end -->

 

[bryanz]

While there have been many issues on terrorism and foreign policy I have taken O and admin to task for--I agree with WSJ articles that he does deserve credit for keeping heat on the terrorist and abandoning a lot of the campaign posturing on doing away with our intelligence gathering--now if we could just get him to abandon trying to prosecute those who kept/keep us safe--

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574414903250393752.html


It's been a good few weeks in what used to be called the war on terror. The main credit here goes to the folks in the intelligence community that our friends on the left love to hate.
Credit goes as well to Barack Obama, who as President has abandoned much of his previous opposition to proven antiterror measures like warrantless wiretaps, and who has only stepped up the campaign of targeted hits on terrorist ringleaders. He's fortunate the Bush Administration left him with a potent intelligence team and the precedent of taking the fight, pre-emptively, to the terrorists on their home turf.


On Monday, U.S. special forces operating in Somalia killed top al Qaeda operative Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, believed to have been a planner in the November 2002 bombing of a hotel in Kenya in which 15 were killed. Also killed in recent days was senior al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri?via a U.S. drone attack in western Pakistan?and Indonesian terrorist mastermind Noordin Muhammad Top, suspected in the July bombing of two Jakarta hotels


Last week, too, a British court convicted three men for an August 2006 plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic. The convictions were obtained largely on the strength of communications intercepts?possibly warrantless?gathered by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to a report by Britain's Channel 4.
All this follows important gains for the Pakistani army in the area of the Swat valley, which fell briefly to the Taliban in the spring. Key among those gains was the August killing?again by a U.S. drone?of Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud, suspected in the assassination of former Prime Minster Benazir Bhutto. Two of Mehsud's senior deputies were also killed in drone attacks in recent months, while at least eight key al Qaeda commanders have been killed in the last 12 months alone.
For those who were the victims or near-victims of the attacks perpetrated by these men, this is justice. For the rest of us, it is an additional measure of safety. Despite conventional wisdom that killing terrorists only breeds more terrorists and fuels the proverbial "cycle of violence," there is a reason that the U.S. has not been attacked in the eight years since September 11, and that major terrorist plots in Europe have been foiled.
Last week, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that it had seen interrogation documents showing that European Muslim volunteers "faced a chaotic reception, a low level of training, poor conditions and eventual disillusionment after arriving in Waziristan [Pakistan] last year." It added that there is "evidence that al Qaeda's alliance with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is fraying, boosting the prospect of acquiring intelligence that will lead to Bin Laden's capture or death." This from a paper not exactly known as a cheerleader for the use of military force.
The logic of these attacks is simple, even if too many people are reluctant to accept it. Terrorist groups tend to coalesce around charismatic leaders, such as Abimael Guzm?n of Peru's Shining Path, Abdullah Ocalan of the Kurdish PKK, or Abu Musab al Zarqawi of al Qaeda in Iraq. Not only are these men difficult to replace, but their death or capture often leads to infighting, disarray and disillusion within the group. As terrorist leaders are forced to spend more time trying to save their own lives, they also have less time to devote to plans for killing others.
None of this means that the war on terror (or whatever you'd like to call it) is anywhere near over. It may never be. But in a struggle in which a day when nothing happens is a victory, it's worth recalling that nothing doesn't happen by accident.
<CITE class=paperLocation>Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A14</CITE><!-- article end -->

kept us safe from what ???? 911 hapenend on the bush/cheney watch... if you say they kept us safe a million times doesn't make it so. Let's talk about HUGE MYTHS !

 

[bryanz]

No one wants to dismantle the intelligence agencies that we spent billions on under bush/cheney , even though they gave us 911 & ZERO WMD'S IN IRAQ.... everyone has to believe something ! Even if it's nothing !

 

[bryanz]

THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE STRONG..... GIVE IT UP !!! ~`

 

[bryanz]

Lets get them with intell, special ops, fight terror with terror, no conventional foces on the ground anywhere... that's what I said before Obama, that's what I say now. All the posturing and BS is just that ! You can't expect your gov to defeat an enemy that they and you don't understand ! the art of war 101 ....we learn nothing from history and then we do it again ! We won Nam, hundreds some days to prove it.. Let's do it again ! Spill the blood, minds, bodies, souls, hearts, piece of minds of loved ones for eternities; for WHAT ????? They kept us saafe ??? What cost ??? What did we gain ? I say let them walk into a walmart and blow it up. Then we all have a taste of it... You gun lovers should welcome the terrorist , why don't you guys defend yourselves.. You hang Our Boy's out to dry in the name of God & Liberty.... Fuck you !

 

[rusty]

Mind as well bring them home,if O gonna only put 1foot in.

Mind as well bring them home,if O gonna only put 1foot in.

This is my point to the post.Dont leave the troops hanging.Stop worrying about healthcare for 1second,and do the right thing in Afganastan.

Guarantee sucess .Dont leave no room for error.
Dont fail in your own policy,that you promised on.

Report: More troops needed for Afghan war success

Washington ? The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has reported to President Barack Obama that without more troops the U.S. risks failure in a war it's been waging since September 2001.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary. His confidential 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by Obama.

"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.

Geoff Morrell, a deputy assistant secretary of defense for communications issues, said in a statement the 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."

Obama, like former President George W. Bush before him, calls Afghanistan a vital bulwark against the spread of bin Laden's al-Qaida network. But congressional Democrats have been critical of the Obama administration's handling of the war and have spoken out against the prospects of sending more troops. McChrystal is expected to submit a second assessment in coming weeks that is widely believed to ask for more troops to fight the stalemated war.

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out in his report 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.

Obama is re-evaluating whether the renewed focus on hunting al-Qaida that he announced just months ago has become blurred and whether more forces will do any good.

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

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 actually on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

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.

Nor has the president asked his top commander in Afghanistan to sit on a request for U.S. reinforcements in a backsliding war.

"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.

But he 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.'"

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.

___

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

This is my point to the post.Dont leave the troops hanging.Stop worrying about healthcare for 1second,and do the right thing in Afganastan.

Guarantee sucess .Dont leave no room for error.
Dont fail in your own policy,that you promised on.

Report: More troops needed for Afghan war success

Washington ? The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has reported to President Barack Obama that without more troops the U.S. risks failure in a war it's been waging since September 2001.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary. His confidential 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by Obama.

"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.

Geoff Morrell, a deputy assistant secretary of defense for communications issues, said in a statement the 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."

Obama, like former President George W. Bush before him, calls Afghanistan a vital bulwark against the spread of bin Laden's al-Qaida network. But congressional Democrats have been critical of the Obama administration's handling of the war and have spoken out against the prospects of sending more troops. McChrystal is expected to submit a second assessment in coming weeks that is widely believed to ask for more troops to fight the stalemated war.

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out in his report 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.

Obama is re-evaluating whether the renewed focus on hunting al-Qaida that he announced just months ago has become blurred and whether more forces will do any good.

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

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 actually on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

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.

Nor has the president asked his top commander in Afghanistan to sit on a request for U.S. reinforcements in a backsliding war.

"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.

But he 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.'"

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.

___

You are so brainwashed. How many more kids need to die for nothing?

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Just what does victory mean to you? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[kcwolf]

Rusty,

I really take exception to the Fred Barnes article. Totallly biased and riddled with stretches of the truth.

And Rusty, you might want to read many, many military articles as I have over the last week. They are written by the people dedicated to making us safe. Not a person with a political slant, whether it be from the right or the left.

Is Obama turning his back when he sent 700 CIA agents and special ops people to Afghanistan last week? There is even a pictures of them loading into a KC135 in the darkness of night at a US air base.

Their mission is to step up intellegience gathering, identify al queda leaders, and perform special ops to pick off or capture their leaders. They are hoping for a major disruption in the chain of al queda command and gain valuable information. I see no turning of anyone's back. And how ironic, as I type the news is being portrayed as black or white - winning or losing. The situation, as history has proven, is difficult and intricate: herion, culture, neighboring countries, Afghan corruption, etc. I assume some delay is ligitimately caused by the Afgan election. Who are we supporting? Someone who riggs elections? Karzai needs to step in line.

I say lets get it right. Define our plans and goals. When that is established, I have no doubt our military will complete those goals. I don't see any president ever allowing Pakistan's nuclear weapons being compromised, one of the main goals. Al Qaida can organize terriosts anwhere in the world, as was shown in US intelligence squashing a pocket in Somalia a coupe of weeks ago.

As all of our presidents have mentioned, it is very difficult to send our troops into harms way - as it should be. Focus on the mission, not what political pundits of both sides are spewing.

 

[Duff Miver]

Focus on the mission, not what political pundits of both sides are spewing.

The political spewers are the Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh types - never served, and now they stand safe on the sidelines yelling "Go gettum, boys. I'll hold your coat".

Yellow-bellies like Raymond, skulnik and hedge.

 

[hedgehog]

We shouldn't even be in Afghanistan. Our troops should be protecting our fucking borders.

they took the fight to us here, now we are licking their ass on their soil. I see the argument for leaving Iraq but not Afghanistan, we need to find Osama, you would have thought by now we could find his ass, I think he is dead. We need to close the borders and make English the official language of the US

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

they took the fight to us here, now we are licking their ass on their soil. I see the argument for leaving Iraq but not Afghanistan, we need to find Osama, you would have thought by now we could find his ass, I think he is dead. We need to close the borders and make English the official language of the US

Excuse me. Who took the fight to us? The people we are bombing?

 

[Duff Miver]

they took the fight to us here, now we are licking their ass on their soil. I see the argument for leaving Iraq but not Afghanistan, we need to find Osama, you would have thought by now we could find his ass, I think he is dead. We need to close the borders and make English the official language of the US

WE? WE? Does that mean you're going to crawl out from under your bed and actually contribute something, do the hard work?

LOL!

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

now we are licking their ass on their soil.

Pretty gay. :shrug: