Mr. President, no more troops
As if President Obama didn’t have enough conflicting advice on Afghanistan, here’s more: Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. Ambassador to that country, has sent private cables to the White House warning against more troops.
Given his job, Eikenberry has a front-row seat on the corruption and ineptitude of Hamid Karzai’s government, and that’s his worry.
Eikenberry’s last-minute interventions have highlighted the nagging undercurrent of the policy discussion: the U.S. dependence on a partnership with a Karzai government whose incompetence and corruption is a universal concern within the administration. After months of political upheaval, in the wake of widespread fraud during the August presidential election, Karzai was installed last week for a second five-year term.
For all those armchair hawks who insist that the generals are in the best position to decide the strategy for an armed conflict, Eikenberry’s credentials should be interesting: He’s a retired four-star general who once commanded troops in Afghanistan.
In addition to placing the Karzai problem prominently on the table, the cables from Eikenberry, a retired four-star general who in 2006-2007 commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan, have rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon — as well as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, defense officials said. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has stated that without the deployment of an additional tens of thousands of troops within the next year, the mission there “will likely result in failure.”
A few months ago, I thought the U.S. should commit to winning the war in Afghanistan, as it should have done eight years ago. I believed that we should send enough troops to decapitate the Taliban and keep al-Qaida from using the country as a home base.
But since then, I’ve listened to countless experts who say that even if thousands more American men and women give their lives, the chances of success are low. (The president has heard from countless experts, too.) And I’ve changed my mind.
One of the most persuasive arguments against more troops came from a young foreign service official who quit his post because he disagrees with the recommendation to send more troops. And he’s a former military man, too — a Marine who fought in Iraq.
With people like that arguing against more troops, I’m persuaded.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
31 comments Add your comment
Peadawg
November 12th, 2009
8:27 am
OMG I agree w/ Cynthia!!!!! She’s decided to not defend the Muslim terrorist @ Fort Hood today!!!
Turd Feguson
November 12th, 2009
8:43 am
“A few months ago, I thought the U.S. should commit to winning the war in Afghanistan”
So did I. However, and in light of the corrupt Karzai govt, the people of Afghanistan are unwilling to fight for their own freedom. I also would surmise they sell US military info to the local cheiftains. Some have probably participated in assisting OBL and on and on.
Regardless the people of Iraq/afghanistan, even after US assistance, refuse to stand up and fight. To hell with them all. Pull out all US TROOPS and afghanistan heroine (I hear its top quality) immediately.
Donovan
November 12th, 2009
8:46 am
Make up your liberal mind, Tucker. You want more troops to decapitate the Taliban and prevent al Qaida from using Afghanistan as a base, but now you are willing to sacrifice the homeland and wage our battle here waiting for the next terrorist attack. Do you really expect the FBI to keep us secure when they let the Ft. Hood terrorist run around for years? As you can see folks, this is the ravings of a lunatic mind working for the AJC. And they pay her to write?
breaker 1 niner
November 12th, 2009
8:53 am
i am in shock, as i too agree with cynthia. if your enemies include the very people you are trying to help free, then, it is time to get out.
Jimmy62
November 12th, 2009
9:02 am
So all I have to do is find a couple of former soldiers and generals that think we can win if we send more troops, and Cynthia will change her mind again? I mean with people like that arguing for more troops, she should be persuaded.
Or maybe she simply looks for people who agree with what she already thinks?
Goldie
November 12th, 2009
9:51 am
Cynthia — agreed! And we need to hold our President accountable for getting us outta both those sinkholes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is way too long to be occupying those lands and attempting to “spread democracy” by gunpoint.
Afghanistan and the General
November 12th, 2009
9:51 am
[...] in Afghanistan retired Gen.Karl Eikenberry gave the President the cover he needed to delay. Mr. President, no more troops | Cynthia Tucker Eikenberry was last seen attending a peace vigil in Afghanistan. General McChrystal is reportedly [...]
Common Sense
November 12th, 2009
9:53 am
It’s called “having a mean dog by the ears”. You can’t hang on forever and when you let go you are going to get bit ! By the way, I predict this will cost Obama his next four years ……….. welcome to the big leagues private Obama. Now it’s time to be the Commander in Chief !
O.K. out there ……….. I’m not looking to argue the point anymore but just to find out the facts.
Some of you that are good at research please help me out. Did the Ft. Hood military victims get awarded purple hearts? Yes or no. I just want to know – not start a debate.
booger
November 12th, 2009
10:04 am
In the end Obama will not be judged so much on the decision he makes as on his inability to make a decision. This is getting embarassing.
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama
November 12th, 2009
10:05 am
Can you say Barack is in too deep? mmm, mmm, mmm
Turd Feguson
November 12th, 2009
10:10 am
Perhaps selling the afghan heroin on US streets would be an option in the financing of OboboCare.
clyde
November 12th, 2009
10:14 am
If Pakistan was stable,I would agree to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and let Karzi sink.Pakistan isn’t stable and it has nuclear weapons.This fact has to be taken into account when you withdraw troops,so withdrawal isn’t an optiion.
Holding the same level of troops as is now there may prove to be dangerous to the troops.Capitulating to the Taliban is not an option.Capitulating to a perceived enemy is never an option.The world has done this before with disastrous consequences.
TnGelding
November 12th, 2009
10:24 am
Troops should have never been sent in to begin with. The role for the military was a covert one, but Bush felt pressured to do something after he got caught with ihis pants down around his ankles on 09/11. He was successfully working with the Taliban to eradicate the poppy fields up until then. Since al Qaeda has reportedly fled to Pakistan, why not begin a troop drawdown? The Taliban is Karzai’s problem. They need to work out a political solution and should be able to with the U.S. out of the picture. Afghanistan will never support a strong central government.
We do need to help provide Afghan farmers protection and price support as they change from growing poppy plants to food, if they can ever be convinced to do so.
Del
November 12th, 2009
10:26 am
Common Sense,
I’ve seen no report that Hearts have been or will be awarded. Awarding Purple Hearts won’t bring them back, however, as a symbolic gesture it would have them dying in an act of war rather than just being victim’s of at very least a war time turncoat if not a terrorist. Although I believe Hasan to be the latter.
jconservative
November 12th, 2009
10:43 am
The issue in Afghanistan is not the number of troops but to how best get the troops already there out.
McChrystal’s solution is to fight an expanded counter-insurgency war. This would allow time for the creation of a marginally acceptable national government. Military solution to a perceived military problem.
Everyone knows that the American people are not going to support another 8 years in Afghanistan. The American people will fight a war at the drop of a hat, but not a decades long war.
Obama’s problem is how to best get NATO troops out & also assist Pakistan in their efforts against their Taliban insurgents. Obama may need to stick a few more troops in just to create an environment in which to safely exit the country.
My two cents.
Big D
November 12th, 2009
10:50 am
This is a classic case of paint your dumb A#% into a corner because you have done nothing except follow the totally stupid liberal line for ever. This stupid president can’t make a decision that requires more thought than: Golf or Basketball. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. All that BS you and the liberal media choked us to death with that he was going to do ( Go get that OBL, pay everybody’s bills) is now seen for what it is. If you can’t see how bad this president and this pitiful congress is then are just plain stupid.
jconservative
November 12th, 2009
11:00 am
Big D November 12th, 2009 10:50 am
That was quite an indictment of the Bush 43 presidency. But most people supported going after OBL (including me) and most people supported the Medicare Part D plan (not me) that pays the drug bills for seniors.
And after all that, and a few more liberal measures, he was re-elected.
Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee
November 12th, 2009
11:17 am
Obama and his team must be some of the stupiest people in all of Government. Here is a guy that comes out and starts talking about Native Americans for several minutes and then says something like oh yeah you might have heard there was a shooting at Fort Hood. Couldn’t the guy have taken a more appropriate time to discuss the bad things native Americans suffered through hundreds of years ago? The answer is yes. Change in 2010 and 2012, Change we are looking forward to.
Chris Broe
November 12th, 2009
11:35 am
What is the mission of US troops in Afghanistan?
Rant
November 12th, 2009
11:45 am
“We’re learning more about Major Nidal Hasan. We now know that many of his colleagues thought that he was dangerous. They thought he might go postal. They couldn’t fire him though. Why not? Because he was a Muslim .. and they didn’t want to go through all of that “discrimination” nonsense. So … 13 people are dead. PC dead.”
DAVID
November 12th, 2009
12:25 pm
YES….Let’s just leave ….with our tails tucked between our legs……waving the WHITE FLAG of surrender.
AH
November 12th, 2009
1:00 pm
Mrs. Tucker, no more articles
I thought months ago when they removed you from the editorial chair and moved you to the DC office I thought you would become more informative and thoughtful. Unfortunately after the past several articles that you wrote all proved to be nothing other then propaganda for the administration it has become universally clear that nothing you say will every be anything other than hype and spin.
As a country we are hurting and hurting bad. And instead of pushing the president to actually live up to the hype and hope that was promised last year, you choose instead to help further the problems by backing the administration in its indecision and failures.
With people like you arguing that the administration can do no wrong, I’m persuaded that 2010 is going to be a lot worst than 2009.
Got Change, ’cause I’m running out.
Richard
November 12th, 2009
1:08 pm
I am very surprised at the relative calmness of the comments on this Afghanistan column. You are losing your touch to set off firestorms, Ms. Tucker.
Now for my take on these issues. First of all, I am a radical liberal who thought Obama was too conservative to be president in the 21st century although I voted for him [who else was there?]. Supposedly President Obama had studied the Afghan situation thoroughly before even being elected so he has had almost two years of prep time for any decisions on that war. I find his current vacilation unacceptable. Centuries of warfare in that ill-fated “nation” have all been disastrous for outside armies and while it is always admirable to spread the blessings of liberal [yes, all you ranting "conservatives," the political philosophy that founded and still guides this nation is historically radically liberal] western political and economic thought, it isn’t always in our best interests to think that stable, capitalist democracies result from armed invasions.
Now for all that BS about helping the poor Afghan farmers grow crops other than poppies. As far as I can see, they are following radical conservative economic theory perfectly — grow what is cheap and easy AND sell to the market at the highest price as they supply that which is highest in demand [is anyone excited about and demanding Afghan grown cotton, beans, corn or whatever?]. I think the farmers employ western capitalist theories to near perfection. That they are doing this against our best interests is deplorable considering all the lives and treasure we have invested in their “nation.” In reality, their main export crop is probably killing more Americans daily than any terrorist or jihadist inspired by Osama bin Laden ever hoped to do. They are little better than murderers whose product is quite effectively destroying many American lives in all areas of this nation. And they do it for “filthy lucre” which is somehow even more reprehensible although perfectly in line with the free market capitalism and supply side theories so lovingly adored by Reagan conservatives.
I can hear you all now asking, “Okay, smart ass, you can criticize but what remedies can you supply?” Valid question and here is my solution. We can probably spend far less money on quick, surgical, multiple invasions like the ones that toppled Sadam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan than we have in eight years of occupation, warfare, and billions to change any “hearts and minds” — so destroy those governments that are “evil” and if they spring up again in a few years time [as is likely], do it again. Maybe after a while, they might get the idea that it isn’t so smart to f____ with the West. Now the lesson they learn is, “Let them destroy our government and wait for all the billions in handouts as we continue to do as we please.” In my plan, there would be no handouts or help. You messed up and now take care of yourselves. At the same time, we should use all our aerial technology to wipe out any and all poppy or drug fields that come up on the radar screen. The heroin they produce is more lethal right here on Main Street America than most of the bullets expended by Al Quaida in the Middle East. I have no compassion for the growers of death dealing drugs which corrupt our society probably as much as the Karzai regime is corrupt — just in a different way. In the United States, we have severely punished [financially] the comparatively innocuous makers and purveyors of tobacco products but want to treat with kid gloves the growers and suppliers of lethal drugs in Afghanistan??? Does that make sense? Coming from a family decimated by cancer, I have no love for tobacco but it is nothing compared to heroin. Just trying to put things into a little perspective here.
If this policy were followed, there would be no questions about troop levels in Afghanistan. We would have no troops there longer than it took to take down bad governments and leave. It would also be cost effective in the long run and please fiscal conservatives. Nor would there be any controversy over wimpy presidents who take two years to make a major decision on foreign policy. And yes, all you conservatives are right that it is the “bleeding heart” brand of liberals who would oppose such a policy and might be making Obama so indecisive. This “radical liberal” isn’t of that group. I love this nation and all the freedoms it has provided and have no qualms about destroying those who set out to destroy our way of life.
Food for thought? I hope so.
clyde
November 12th, 2009
2:00 pm
Chris Broe,
Their mission in Afghanistan is to sit and wait until Obama decides what to do.Some time next year.Maybe.
Patrick
November 12th, 2009
2:23 pm
The only people who comment on editorials are people that are incapable of forming their own opinions. This person’s entire job is to be “controversial” so you people will read her column and argue and fight. This so called “journalist” doesn’t care if you agree or disagree. She only cares that you read her column so she can keep her job. You people are really a very sad group.
And to clarify, I am commenting on the pathetic losers that comment on editorials, not the editorial itself. There is a difference.
William
November 12th, 2009
2:33 pm
You are right cynthia! We should not have a war that the liberals like you do not approve–even if it meant losing a few citizens and a city or two.
We must apologize to everyone including native americans who could not come out of the stone age to protect where they lived or what they believed in. I agree with you cynthia we too should fall back and let the rest of the world take care of things. Maybe they will treat us like we treated the poor stone agers when we came to America to spread socialism.
Skip
November 12th, 2009
2:36 pm
Eight years of Bush doing nothing there was OK but Obama not clearing the mess up in eight months is a big deal to some of you? You like death so much join up.
ck Hall
November 12th, 2009
3:05 pm
Cynthia, you would agree with anyone who supported your lefty aganda!
Tom Middleton
November 12th, 2009
3:06 pm
CT: And I’ve changed my mind.
Change it again, Cynthia. Leaving our troops at their current levels with momentum on the enemy’s side is not a good thing. We’re losing more of our precious soldiers every week.
Withdrawing to leave Afghanistan (and the region) in chaos over who’s ultimately going be in control is even worse. How will we influence the world for the better without being involved, and how can we be involved by running home every time we get out-thought and out-fought?
And what are we doing to our allies by running away, leaving them ultimately go it alone against Al Qaeda and anyone else wanting to destroy freedom in their part of the world?
Things used to be fairly simple when dealing with our enemies, but not anymore. We can’t win by just military means alone, and we can’t run away every time we get out-matched (which apparently is our fate until we learn to change).
There is a third (next-level) option, and that’s putting the defense of freedom and the Free World on the whole Free World itself, and learning to deal effectively with hot spots like Afghanistan. It’s the only way we’ll ever have the troop numbers and overall resources to get the job done quickly and efficiently.
We’re dealing with a borderless enemy in Al Qaeda with its divide-and-conquer strategy, and how is running away or staying with inadequate troop levels and resources doing anything but helping it win? Is there anyone these days NOT understanding that Al Qaeda’s strategy is actually working? Cynthia, that means we’re losing the War on Terror!
We need troop numbers and resources, and from Vietnam until now, we’ve never had enough of either, save our one quick skirmish with Saddam in Desert Storm when we were guided by the genius of the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force) and had a large-enough coalition.
And while things are much more difficult now, this basic approach is the correct one, but it needs to be on a whole-Free-World level – a democratic alliance, if you will, that cannot be beaten in any way, shape, or form.
Not only will we start winning these things for a change and adding to the Free World in the process, we’ll be doing it in the only way possible. Add to this that, as an alliance, the Free World will have increasingly non-violent options available as means-to-an-end, and we can finally start bringing that peace everyone keeps talking about but no one seems to think they’ll see in their lifetime. So will this be a bad thing?
Like I said, Cynthia, change it again. We haven’t lost yet!
Peaches
November 12th, 2009
7:01 pm
Soooooooo
Mr. President what are you going to do. If you expand troop levels you will be crucified by the liberal wing of the democrat party and you will need republican help to sustain funding. If you pull out, history will damn you for what ever happens next in Pakistan or Afghanistan. If there is another attack it will be yours alone. You have discarded all of the professional advice and have decided to set the plan yourself.
This is going to hang around your neck like a dead bird. The longer you dither the worse it gets.This four month group grope is not encouraging our friends or frightening our enemies.
TnGelding
November 12th, 2009
7:11 pm
AP IMPACT: Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1
BRUSSELS – There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn’t led to anything close to victory.