Eight years after the United States first sent troops to Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Obama is wrestling with the right strategy - pulled in one direction by military brass, wanting to win the war but cognizant of increasing casualties, and warned by antiwar liberals who fear a prolonged conflict like Vietnam to make sure he has an exit strategy.
There are 68,000 troops there already, thanks in part to the change in strategy Obama announced in March. He said then he wanted to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda and nearly doubled the troops deployed to the region as he started to implement a drawdown in Iraq. That was following up on a campaign promise since the president has said Afghanistan is the "war we need to win."
Sources interviewed about the president's thinking and strategy said Obama wants to make sure it's a deliberative process since there is so much on the line. They said it hasn't been easy signing letters to families of troops killed abroad and he wants to avoid mistakes made by the Bush administration.
Obama wants everyone to feel invested in the decision and comfortable with the process, and wants every option and his range of possibilities to be debated within his close circle. Vice President Biden is helping the president by speaking his mind but also playing devil's advocate for positions he doesn't necessarily support himself. (He warned before they took office there would be an "uptick" in casualties.)
Sources said the president is spending most of his time listening and anticipate several more meetings before he makes a final decision.
Obama wants to make sure "that this was as grown up and serious and sober a decision making process as it could be and as it should be," a senior administration official told TPMDC.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who Obama picked for the job, wants 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan and has mounted somewhat of a PR offensive in an attempt to sell the idea, earning him a rebuke from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others.
The report leaked early and Republicans started pushing Obama to make his decision known.
The White House is keeping the strategy close to the vest, but a source familiar with some of the White House deliberations said Gen. McChrystal is lined up against Biden, National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Obama, who is conflicted on whether to pursue a counterterrorism or counterinsurgency strategy.
Administration officials said Obama stressed Tuesday in the meeting with Congressional leaders he was not considering a troop reduction and challenged lawmakers not to put up a "straw man" argument portraying the deliberations about "doubling down or leaving Afghanistan." People familiar with Tuesday's meeting said it was both serious and somber.
Officials batted down suggestions that have appeared in news stories that Biden prefers a strategy of using drones and air strikes.
Several White House sources said if there are leaks as to where the president is leaning on the issue, they are wrong, since Obama hasn't told anyone as he considers the positions of all the key players.
Meanwhile, the ramped up antiwar movement isn't helping. Aides said Obama hasn't paid attention to the increased protests outside the White House front gate (with Cindy Sheehan promising to move to Washington to keep the pressure on) or to the MoveOn petition circulating asking him for a clear military exit strategy.
Yesterday protesters held signs at the White House reading, "Is Afghanistan the graveyard of a potentially great presidency?"
Though Obama is consulting a wide range of voices in "military, civilian, diplomatic and
Congressional" circles, the White House said, he has not specifically met with antiwar voices outside of those in Congress who have made their sentiments known.
Iraq veteran Jon Soltz of VoteVets said members of Congress have been calling the left-leaning group to find out his position because people are looking to see where the president is going to be politically. He's told them to be patient, but said timing is important.
"Everyone's waiting," Soltz told TPMDC. "It needs to happen quick."
A White House aide said Obama understands that but feels "the urgency is to make the right decision, not just a decision."
There is a general sense of unease with some progressives, who pointed out that in two major cases so far during his presidency - whether to publish torture photos and whether to halt Don't Ask, Don't Tell dismissals - Obama has sided with the generals instead of with liberal Democrats.
Today at 3 p.m. he'll huddle in the Situation Room with top advisers focused on Pakistan, which Obama believes must be intertwined with Afghanistan policy.
The White House said the expected attendees are Biden, Gates, Jones, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Rep. Susan Rice, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Gen. David Petraeus, Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, special assistant to Obama for Afghanistan and Pakistan and John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security.
McChrystal and the ambassadors to Afghanistan and Pakistan will participate through videoconference.
Today's meeting on Pakistan will be followed by another one on Afghanistan Friday and at least one more before Obama makes the decision.
Jones met with 63 senators last week.
A new Quinnipiac University poll showed 65 percent of 2,630 American voters think it's worth potential troops losses to eliminate threats from terrorists operating in Afghanistan, but only 38 percent support sending more troops while 28 percent want a reduction and 21 percent want the number of troops to remain the same.
It showed most voters trust Obama to make the right decision, 55-38 percent. The poll also showed 30 percent of voters are willing to have large numbers of American troops in Afghanistan "as long as it takes."
The White House also flagged a new survey showing the U.S. has risen from the seventh most admired country to the No. 1 global image. The Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index put the U.S. at the top of 50 countries in 2009, and the pollster attributes the shift to Obama's election.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

rbeats
October 7, 2009 10:23 AM
Another way to spell Afghanistan is Vietnam.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 7, 2009 10:55 AM in reply to rbeats
The left's habit of comparing everything to Vietnam makes about as much sense as the right's habit of comparing everything to World War II. It's a way to give a statement born of mindless dogma a patina of faux wisdom.
There's plenty of reason to be worried about Afghanistan that has nothing to do with either Vietnam or World War II. The country has a long, long, long history of sucking foreign countries in and spitting them back out a few (or several) years later, wounded and bloodied and with nothing accomplished. The terrain and the location are the textbook epitome of the kind of place where you don't want to be fighting a war. A case can be made that our one good opportunity to "win" the war in some meaningful sense was squandered (like so much else) by the Bush Administration when it started diverting resources to it's brilliant plan to conquer Iraq at precisely the moment they were needed in Afghanistan. (And if they really wanted a World War II analogy, they should have referred to the lesson about what happens to countries who start a war of choice before they finish the one they're already fighting).
Yes, there is some basis for analogizing the situation to Vietnam in the presence of an insurgency opposing a weak, corrupt and unpopular government seemingly incapable of becoming worthy of the support of the people. What's lacking, however, anything comparable to the roles that the USSR, China, North Vietnam, or the NVA played in making Vietnam an intractible problem. And, unlike in Vietnam, so much of the Afghan National Army as there is fights well and fights hard.
Another thing that's different is that we have an officer corp that is steeped in the lessons of Vietnam and the institutional cost that war took on it.
Oh, and we also don't have a draft.
If you think war is never justified and that the consequences of ending it are never worse than the consequences of continuing it, that's a valid position to take. If you think this particular war should be ended because there's no chance of accomplishing anything that's worth the likely cost, that's a valid position to take as well. Vietnam, at the macro level, is even a useful example to cite in support of for both of those propositions.
But implying that Vietnam is somehow mystically determinitive of the outcome in Afghanistan is like the opposite of thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
October 7, 2009 10:32 AM
"Sources said.."
"..a senior administration official told TPMDC."
.."a source familiar with some of the White House deliberations said.."
"Administration officials said.."
"People familiar with Tuesday's meeting said.."
"Several White House sources said.."
"Aides said.."
"A White House aide said.."
Is it TPM policy to grant anonymity to everyone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 7, 2009 11:16 AM in reply to theWalrus
disclosing confidential information from a meeting about national security is prosecutable by law.
THat said you can bet your ass the white house is the one purposely doing the leaking
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
October 7, 2009 10:49 AM
I am fortunate enough to lurk on a mailing list of Vietnam-era journalists. Many of them see some disturbing parallels.
Perhaps first among them in my view is that we are propping up a government there that has absolutely no chance of standing on its own in our absence.
Trying to win a war against an enemy that has the support of (at least some of) the people and is fighting on its home ground is always a bad idea. Irregulars are difficult to find and harder to isolate.
There is also the logistical nightmare, exacerbated by the lack of a coast and seaports. Everything and everyone comes in overland or by air, from great distances.
As we did with the partisans in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded, perhaps we should also do with the Pakistani military, which does now seem to have found its legs and is preparing to move into the Waziristans - where the al-Quaeda hierarchy is now believed to be hiding. This is bolstered by the Pakistani government's finally getting serious about cutting the al-Quaeda purse strings.
And Pakistan is finally realizing that it must secure control over the "really big empty" of the tribal areas, not for our sake but for theirs.
Encourage them, assist them, and remove ourselves from Afghanistan. That's the best idea, if you ask me.
What? You didn't? Well, it's my idea anyway...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 7, 2009 10:49 AM
Christina, since you worked for that Moonie paper, I thought you were a right-winger, even though you always sounded sane in your TV appearances. Does your job here at TPM signal you're not a right winger or do you just need a job?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 7, 2009 10:52 AM
"some folks are born made to wave the flag
ooo their red white and blue"
feels like we're back in the vietnam minus the good music
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeff Evans
October 7, 2009 11:18 AM
This is a poorly written article with several fragments and run-on sentences. The writer's style is awkward and detracts from the details being conveyed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 7, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Jeff Evans
I comprehended the details being conveyed.
Nice work
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mark
October 7, 2009 12:02 PM
How long until the best political blogs, like this one, contain the same types of manipulative language that the mainstream news contains -- I ask this in light of presenting strategy on Afghanistan as between 'military brass who want to WIN' and liberals. Hmm. Sheesh, we want to win, so what's wrong with the liberals, one might ask. Manipulative? Yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?