Download the AOL News Toolbar
Our new toolbar integrates latest news into your Web browser and installs in seconds. Download it now!
News Video
Find, view and share videos about news and entertainment from around the Web.
See Videos »

News Alerts

The latest updates sent straight to your inbox.

Get AOL News Alerts »

Obama Expected to Boost Troop Levels

By ANNE GEARAN
,
AP
posted: 17 HOURS 5 MINUTES AGO
comments: 2288
Text SizeAAA
WASHINGTON (Nov. 24) — War-weary Americans will support more fighting in Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday, announcing he was ready to spell out war plans virtually sure to include tens of thousands more U.S. troops.
He is expected to make his case to the nation in a speech next Tuesday night, even as the military completes plans to begin sending in reinforcements in the spring.
Eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Obama said it is still in America's vital national interest to "dismantle and destroy" al-Qaida terrorists and extremist allies. "I intend to finish the job," he said.
Skip over this content
Skip over this content


Skip over this content
Obama said he would announce after Thanksgiving his decision on additional troops, and military, congressional and other sources said the occasion would be a Tuesday night televised speech laying out his plans for expanding the Afghan conflict — and then ultimately ending America's military role.
Republican critics have been pressing him for months to decide on a next step in Afghanistan, but Obama has said repeatedly he was more concerned with making a decision that was right rather than quick.
Neither he nor his advisers has detailed an exit plan, but the strategy he is expected to describe next week would include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not final.
With U.S. combat deaths climbing on Obama's watch and more than half the American public opposed to escalation, the president seemed to acknowledge Tuesday that he has a lot to explain.
"I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said, speaking at a White House news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
"I can tell you, as I've said before, that it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively" in the area, he said. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. And Afghanistan's stability is important to that process."
Military officials expect an infusion of approximately 32,000 to 35,000 troops to begin in February or March, the largest expansion since the beginning of the war and one that could bring the cost above $75 billion annually.
Returning to a campaign theme, Obama said the Afghan effort had been starved for resources and attention during the Bush administration and he intended to finish the war.
Skip over this content
http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,localizationConfig,entry&id=629806&pid=629805&uts=1248382477
http://www.aolcdn.com/ke/media_gallery/v1/ke_media_gallery_wrapper.swf
Photos From Afghanistan
Afghan villager watch a US Marine stand guard in Helmand province on July 23, 2009. US regional envoy Richard Holbrooke arrived in Afghanistan on July 23 and headed to southern Helmand province, where recently deployed US Marines are battling Taliban insurgents, a local official said. US President Barack Obama's troubleshooter for Afghanistan and Pakistan travelled from Islamabad, where government officials had expressed concern that a fresh offensive in the Afghan south would push rebels over the border. AFP PHOTO/Abdul Malek (Photo credit should read ABDUL MALEK/AFP/Getty Images)
AFP/Getty Images
AFP
To that end, much of the White House discussion during months of deliberations has centered on how the U.S. would end its military role.
Obama held his 10th war council meeting Monday evening, and officials said it was his last. The Situation Room sessions that began in September were the most visible markers of a strategic and political debate inside the administration about how to address a resurgent Taliban and other insurgents and whether the U.S. was creating its own enemies the longer it remained.
Military officials have said Obama is choosing one of the least risky options he was presented, but one still expected to lead to increased U.S. casualties without guarantee of success.
War commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has warned that the war risks failure without a large troop infusion. Although he preferred a higher figure — about 40,000 — McChrystal is expected to tell Congress next week that this lesser addition still gives him the tools to better combat insurgents in the south and east of Afghanistan.
The expected increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent, officials said.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress has been miffed that the administration blocked McChrystal from testifying during what many Republicans considered an inordinately long decision-making period. His testimony has not been scheduled, but would probably come late next week or early in the week after.
Among others likely to take part in congressional hearings are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. All were among about 20 officials and advisers participating in the president's final deliberations Monday night — one of the biggest groups gathered for these sessions.
The administration figures will have a tough sell among some congressional Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has questioned the value of adding forces and pointed to the war's rising cost.
The Afghan war bill hit $43 billion annually this summer, with the addition of 21,000 forces Obama has already added to the fight this year. The White House has given Congress this rough yardstick for future troop increases: Approximately $1 billion a year for each 1,000 troops atop the current record figure of 68,000.
NATO and other allies collectively have about 45,000 troops in Afghanistan.
If the full expansion that U.S. military planners anticipate does happen, it would take up to two years to get all the additional U.S. forces into the landlocked country.
The United States is quietly pressing NATO and other allies to increase forces as well, with a goal of between 5,000 and 7,000 additional non-U.S. troops. European and other diplomats have said that number is probably optimistic.
Obama's expected address is timed in part to come before a NATO foreign ministers meeting, taking place in Brussels, Belgium, at the end of next week.
AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-11-23 19:52:16

Related Articles

  1. See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
COMMENTS ( 2288 )
Page 1 of 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>
BlnBernie
12:31PM Nov 25 2009 
Congress has to declare war. to all the people who cry about iraq and afgan- how hard would you cry it terrorists obtained nukes and set them off in all the major cities in the usa? who would you turn to? the only people left would by you and the terrorists. then you could cry longer and harder with no good results.
REPLY RATING
(1 RATINGS)
 
Bkind7x
11:37AM Nov 25 2009 
If the Democrats wanted to stop the War - They would allow America to drill for oil - which would automatically diminish Terrorism - Oil money to Terror supporting country's = Terrorism support = Democrats idea
REPLY RATING
(1 RATINGS)
 
Map1246
10:03AM Nov 25 2009 
HEY AOL!!! HOW ABOUT 1968 1972 1980 1984???
REPLY RATING
(2 RATINGS)
 
Map1246
10:00AM Nov 25 2009 
When Goldwater was trounced by LBJ *******, the lefties said that the Repubs would never win the WH again. Of course LBJ turned out to be just about the most despicable president in the history of the Republic and the Repubs were back ***********************, 1988, 2000,2004. Every once in a while the country must relearn a lesson; Repubs may be awful but the Dems are worse.
REPLY RATING
(3 RATINGS)
 
bklyn1652
10:00AM Nov 25 2009 
Everything is about this narcissistic human dung pile. We did fantastic as a nation without hussein and we will do much better without him in the future, 2012 is coming soon.
REPLY RATING
(4 RATINGS)
 
WapaLo
9:51AM Nov 25 2009 
Its funny how the Only Thing the republicans can come up with is Words. Why the Poor Leaderless party should be taken as a thing of Pity!!!! Oh Well, maybe someday their Shining Ship will come in...MAYBE... in about 20 years!!!
REPLY RATING
(2 RATINGS)
 
SeanLean
9:46AM Nov 25 2009 
Prez Obozo, The Socialist Turd of Doom, is the worst President in the history of the United States. .... Without exception, EVERYTHING that astoundingly arrogant and shockingly stupid socialist in the White House touches turns into a massive political and financial train wreck. .... From The Turd's abortive stimulus plans, to "Gatesgate", to his buffoonish attempts at international politics, to his incompetent handling of the economy, to his health care fiasco, and on to his vacuous vascillation on Afghanistan, The Turd of Doom has screwed-up EVERYTHING that he touches. ..... He truly has a "reverse Midas Touch" where everything he touches turns into stinky, smelly shee-it. .... Any questions why a growing number of parents won't let The Turd of Doom ***anywhere near*** their children?
REPLY RATING
(5 RATINGS)
 
DonDon747
9:21AM Nov 25 2009 
The wars in Iraq and Afganistan are a terrable mistake. No possible good will come out of these wars, they will not prevent terrorism, help the countrys or make them into peacful demoracys. Our country is making terrorist, our country has killed a few hundred thousand people. Our country is dumping weapons and money on these people, and bombing there countries. They hate us. Our Miltary should be used to control our own borders and protect our own country not Iraq or Afganistan.
REPLY RATING
(4 RATINGS)
 

This comment has been deleted.

Jurmik
8:00AM Nov 25 2009 
The wars will soon stop if the USA would stop warmongering all over the world. Do not put your nose to every countrys business, stay home, you are not wanted.
REPLY RATING
(4 RATINGS)
 
Page 1 of 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?
YOU'LL BE ASKED TO REGISTER OR SIGN IN BEFORE POSTING A COMMENT.
Make a Comment
Comment
To prevent registration fraud. Type the code in the image.
*Image:
*Code in Image:
Can't see this image?
 

News Makers

NewsmakersDonny Osmond tangos his way to victory on ABC's "Dancing With the Stars." 1 of 8

News Makers

 

All Good News, All The Time

GNN

The Savings Experiment

cleaning products


* Want the latest Hot Seat polls delivered to your Vista desktop? Hot Seat Vista Gadget »

 

Politics Daily

Sports

Money

Technology

Health

Entertainment

War-weary Americans will support more fighting in Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday, announcing he was ready to spell out war plans virtually sure to include tens of thousands more U.S. troops. He is expected to make his case to the nation in a speech next Tuesday night, even as the military completes plans to begin sending in reinforcements in the spring.