GOP Likely To Criticize Any Escalation Short Of 40,000 Troops, Aide Says
Republican leaders are gearing up to critize Obama’s eventual decision on the way forward in Afghanistan even if it falls modestly short of sending an additional 40,000 troops, a senior GOP aide says.
But there’s an interesting caveat, one that underscores the political challenges the GOP will face as they respond to Obama’s decision: What if he decides to send less than 40,000 troops, but the decision is endorsed by the commanding officer, General Stanley McChrystal?
Republicans have repeatedly called on Obama to follow the advice of his commander, who has reportedly sought 40,000 additional troops. With some of Obama’s top advisers coalescing around a plan to send around 30,000 more troops, GOP leaders are laying the groundwork to criticize anything short of 40,000 as a failure to give his commander the resources he said he needed, the GOP aide tells me.
“There better be a hell of a compelling reason for ignoring the advice of our generals on the ground or Republicans will ensure that this Administration spend the next few years explaining to the American people how dismissing our military’s advice has made our troops and our country safer,” the aide says.
But, interestingly, the demand by GOP leaders that Obama follow McChrystal’s recommendations may leave them treading carefully. What if McChrystal full-throatedly endorses Obama’s plan, even if it falls short of 40,000 additional troops? How will Republicans criticize a plan supported by the commander when they called on Obama to follow his commander’s advice?
McChrystal, of course, is expected to publicly endorse the Commander in Chief’s final decision, whatever it is. So the GOP’s response to Obama’s plan is likely to be determined by whether it is perceived to honor the spirit, if not the letter, of McChrystal’s request for additional resources for an expanded counterinsurgency.
Bottom line: The politics of Afghanistan are going to get very murky — for both sides.
*******************************************
Update: Spencer Ackerman does a nice job gaming out the implications of this.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Shorter Neo-Confederates: Our military is expendable.
Where were the goopers when shrub-dumbsfeld-darth evil combine turned down more troops for eyerack ?
More troops in afghansitan = more body bags. That’s what repugs want so that they can build military creds.
via dkos this nyt piece
“But administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not yet made up his mind, and that other top advisers, among them Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, remained skeptical of the value of a buildup.”
Good, Mr President. Take your time. The repugs ignored Afghanistan for 7 years. Now they want “action” pronto ? Fvck them.
That nyt linky
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11policy.html?_r=2&hp
I would criticize the president if he decides to “split the difference” or wage a war of half-measures in Afghanistan. The Iraq surge showed that dropping the hammer on the enemy works.
The Iraq surge showed that dropping the hammer on the enemy works.
Actually what it showed is how ignorant of world history most Americans are, you included.
So after years of Republicans failures in Afghanistan suddenly now it’s an emergency to send all of the troops that were consistently denied military leaders by Republican fraud Bush?
Where are all the College Republican Cowards?
College Republican Cowards consistently refuse to serve, Republican elites believe fighting and dying for America is someone else’s job.
It’s why Republican Bush was hiding, drunk in Alabama to avoid military service.
It’s why Republican Cheney repeatedly got deferrments.
It’s why Republican Tancredo was too depressed to go into the military.
Even Republican Reagan was too weak to join the military.
But all those cowardly Republicans were always the loudest to call for war.
And many of those same Republican cowards were the first to smear actual combat vets.
And even while Republican cowards call for war, Republicans idolize their boy-child cheerleaders and Hollywood entertainers.
And lets not forget that the cowardly Republicans that call for war certainly don’t want to pay for the wars they start.
In fact, Republicans expect both tax cuts during a time of a war AND the right to war-profiteer even while they run the country into debt (and, yes, it’s the Republican Debtor Party who have been putting America into debt the last 30 years).
The point is not how many troops get sent. The point is what is the overall plan. Why do we constantly get distracted by shiny objects? There is a lot at stake here and if the overall plan is not right or followed through it won’t matter how many troops you send.
AD, The Iraq surge also had the benefit of tens of thousands of Sunni Muslims being payed off and somewhat of a half assed functioning central Govn’t that could pay a substantially sized police and military force.
Afghanistan is a shell of a country compared to Iraq.
Therein lies one of the biggest problems.
I’m curious to see what they announce in a couple weeks.
Greg, I want to be the gadfly here and put you in a spot.
What’s your opinion on the troops increase in Afghanistan ? Your “bottom line” sucks.
Who could have ever predicted?
Oh wait…everyone. But I’ll bet anyone on here that the Republican poutrage will be the talk of the media for about a week after whatever decision is made.
Greg…why are so many of those in your profression so utterly and completely inept at their jobs?
BBQ – who gives a fvck what the repugs think at this point ? They have proven incompetent in and out of power as well. Only the beltway ‘journos’ could believe in that repugs are getting “headwind’ stoopid meme.
Greg…why are so many of those in your profression so utterly and completely inept at their jobs?
…Here’s how Stephen Colbert, the ironic comic oracle of “The Colbert Report,” explained the game in his keynote speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 29th (with President Bush and his wife sitting nearby):
“But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ‘em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know—fiction!”
The disease has been diagnosed and treatment prescribed, but the patient is still dying—journalists rarely speak out against their profession’s failings….
The GOP will criticize anything that President Obama says or does. If Jesus Christ, the 12 Apostles, and a choir of 1,000 angels pronounced a resounding “Amen!” to any act of Obama’s, the GOP would slam it as being socialist, communist, fascist, too expensive, cowardly, un-American, and anti-Christian. The GOP is conditioned to reflexively oppose anything that the president does or says.
It is a bit ridiculous when you think about it.
Bush dithers 8 years….silence.
Obama dithers a few months….outrage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CIA led attack, with minimal troops, on the guys that ran airplanes into our cities, allowing bin Laden to escape and regroup….silence.
Obama, with the assistance of Gates, Jones, Harward and McRaven come up with troop plans to get the job done that might be under one of McChrystals suggestions….outrage.
There is a reason why we have a *civilian* constitutionally in charge of the military: there are more than military reasons for dealing with conflict.
@amk
That’s exactly my point. I’m tired of having Republican yahoos on “news” programs spouting off about national security…while the jacka**es interviewing them convienently the fact that it’s 100% about politics for them – not the lives of our men and women in uniform, not securing freedom for others, and certainly not about the security of this nation. It’s about scoring political points, tearing down the President of the United States, and winning elections.
F*** them. Both of them.
The Wall Street Journal has the aide’s “one hell of a compelling reason” right here.
mike from A, imho, more like:
Bush dithers 8 years….silence.
Obama does comprehensive review for the first time ever….outrage.
BBQ – There are ways to beat Greg’s “smart moderation” here.
Jus’ saying.
And Greg, we don’t give a fig’s leaf (being polite here) what the repugs might “think” or “do”. OK ?
Elections have consequences. So, let’s push the dem agenda and not play this “fair & balanced” craap.
There is a reason why we have a *civilian* constitutionally in charge of the military: there are more than military reasons for dealing with conflict.
EXACTLY!
Ask a military officer for an answer and you’ll get a military answer, but if you ask a military officer for an answer to an inherently political question there’s no guarantee the military answer will be useful!
I think there will be more than enough progressives who are disappointed and complaining about an escalation that the Repubs should just shut up.
OT – vis dkos – CNN reports that Justice O’Connor’s husband has passed away.
Condolences to her.
“I think there will be more than enough progressives who are disappointed and complaining about an escalation that the Repubs should just shut up.”
Politics over country. Heckuva job.
“Politics over country. Heckuva job.”
Huh?
I’m assuming (wrongly?) that Obama will make the correct decision. Thereafter, of course it becomes a political calculation.
“I’m assuming (wrongly?) that Obama will make the correct decision. Thereafter, of course it becomes a political calculation.”
Nice dancing on the head of a pin. Your comment above tells us how you really feel. That Republicans should make Afghanistan a political issue instead of contributing to the debate in a way that represents what is best for the American people.
It’s too late to take that one back. It is obvious that you subscribe to the same terrorist tactics as the rest of the Republican/Right Wing extremists.
@amk
“BBQ – There are ways to beat Greg’s “smart moderation” here.”
If you’re referring to the *’s in my post…I hand typed them in. It gets the point across enough for me, I don’t feel the need to add underscores or something to show every letter.
“Condolences to her.”
Yeah. It’s a blessing – he had Alzheimer’s.
We have to listen to Gen McChrystal…the same guy sho signed the false documents concerning Pat Tillman, turning a friendly fire incident into a propaganda fiasco…but trust him now? Don’t think so!
‘when they called on Obama to follow his commander’s advice?’
Obama is McChrystal’s commander.
!
President Obama is the Commander In Chief. Period.
Why do right wingers hate American democracy?
Beyond the right wing’s contempt for democratic elections is the right wing’s failures as military leaders.
Taking advice from Republican con-artists and frauds on military matters is beyond stupid.
Republicans FAILED in Afghanistan for years.
Republican Bush created a bigger mess in Afghanistan then he started with.
It may be useful to recall that Gen. McChrystal recommended an optimal number of 80,000 troops. This, he argued, was the “lowest risk” plan.
Shouldn’t the Repubs be criticizing anything less than 80,000?
40,000 was only one of three troop requests, recall.
Obama will likely lose this war for us- he clearly lacks the judgement, dedication, and principle to win such a labrilynthine conflict.
He already was caught dozing while the Russians nabbed the Kyrgizstani air base SO vital to any plans for a US “surge” strategy in Afghanistan. –
The clueless Obama (and foreign-policy “expert” Biden) were the most vocal opponents of the Petraeus Surge strategy in Iraq, with Slow Joe coming-up with a harebrained plan to surrender and split the country 3-ways. If America had followed their advice then, Iraq would be an Al Qaida Caliphate by now.
Of course, the media is too preoccupied with articles on the Dear Leader’s puppy-vetting process and how he likes to play basketball to call him on these serious strategic errors… reality starting to hit hard now, though-
Republicans failed in Afghanistan for over seven years.
Republican Bush’s failure to wage the Afghanistan War correctly is the root of the problem. Bush provided to few troops and then misdirected the troops to early to fight in Republican Bush’s Iraq War Lie.
During Republican Bush’s Presidency the Taliban not only took over much of Southern Afghanistan, they metastasized into Pakistan.
But Republicans never take any responsibility for their failures and even Orwellianly pretend their failures are “successes”.
So when Republican President George Bush was on vacation a month before the 9/11 attacks, and received a very clearly worded warning that Osama bin Laden was going to attack the United States, he completely ignored it and remained on vacation.
And after the attacks, which were clearly staged out of Afghanistan and was manned primarily by Saudi Arabians, the Republicans immediately tried to figure out how to lie US into Iraq, despite it NEVER having anything to do with the attacks.
Republicans are a heck of a bunch of failures at their jobs.