Time Limit on Surge Draws Fire
DECEMBER 3, 2009.
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and YOCHI DREAZEN
A day after President Barack Obama laid out his plan to send at least 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, his promise to begin withdrawing them as soon as July 2011 had become as divisive as the surge.
Republican critics said setting a firm date for starting a troop withdrawal encourages the enemy to simply wait out the U.S. efforts, and many officials in Afghanistan agreed, calling the timeline unrealistic. Some Democrats, meanwhile, were concerned the deadline wasn't firm enough and that a sizable force would be left in Afghanistan indefinitely.
In Pakistan -- a key ally in the fight against al Qaeda -- officials said the timeline raises fears that the U.S. would only drive insurgents across the border into their country, and then withdraw. And it emerged Wednesday that Defense Secretary Robert Gates initially resisted the timetable; administration officials said he agreed only after securing flexibility to adjust it to the situation on the ground.
In all, the exit strategy, which Mr. Obama pushed to make the troop plan more palatable, threatened to become the biggest obstacle to gaining broad support for escalating the war. "The announcement just gives good news to the Taliban and others," said prominent Afghan lawmaker Shukria Barakzai in Kabul.
The Obama administration meanwhile was also winning support for its plans as it began the job of selling its new strategy to a skeptical Congress. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Wednesday that European nations will next year send "at least 5,000 more soldiers to this operation, and probably a few thousand on top of that."
Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, told reporters Wednesday that he expected the administration to submit a $40 billion supplemental spending bill next year to fund the new troop surge, and that it would almost certainly pass.
Senior military and defense officials said that Mr. Gates had received presidential authorization to send an additional 3,000 U.S. reinforcements to Afghanistan without further White House approval, enabling him to deploy a total of 33,000 new troops if he feels they are needed. The authorization hasn't been publicly announced.
Turning the Tide
The timeline has emerged as the linchpin in Mr. Obama's strategy to quickly turn the tide against Afghan insurgents, pressure the Afghan government to do its part and win over Americans skeptical of any escalation nine years into the conflict. It calls for 30,000 fresh troops to be deployed by next fall, and start returning less than a year later.
That should provide "sufficient time in order to train Afghan national security forces to assume control of providing security," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday. That argument was repeated from Kandahar to Capitol Hill Wednesday, by Mr. Gates, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The withdrawal timeline also doesn't apply to the 68,000 U.S. troops there now, or other troops under NATO command.
Still, Mr. Gates found himself trying to clarify the justification for the timeline, how firm it is, and what might change it. Mr. Gates said that the "surge" troops could remain in Afghanistan longer if the U.S. and its allies failed to reverse the Taliban's recent gains. "If circumstances dictate in December, I think the president always has the freedom to adjust his decisions," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The decision to set a date originated in the White House, administration officials said Wednesday, and faced initial skepticism from Mr. Gates. His doubts were overcome only after he secured language ensuring that the pace and end point of the withdrawal would be based on security conditions, the officials said.
'Challenges at Home'
Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, appearing on MSNBC, spoke of "tension" between military requirements and domestic demands.
"I think you heard some tension last night, understandable, between the desire to win the war, if you will, to achieve objectives on the ground, to do it as rapidly as we possibly can, to deploy as quickly as possible," Gen. Petraeus said. "And then that other dynamic, again, understanding the challenges at home."
Mr. Obama had been concerned about the lack of a timetable for withdrawal since Gen. McChrystal presented his recommendations for a 40,000-troop buildup this summer, according to people briefed and involved in internal deliberations.
A compromise presented to the White House in October -- and backed by Mr. Gates -- foresaw a surge of between 30,000 and 35,000 U.S. troops, with a review of the new deployment set for December 2010. That version did not contain any publicly-declared troop drawdown date, according to a person familiar with the plan.
But frustration was boiling over in the run-up to Mr. Obama's trip to Asia last month. On Nov. 10, cables leaked from Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, suggested that any troop increase would encourage complacency in a Kabul regime bedeviled by charges of corruption and vote-rigging.
At a critical war-council meeting the next day, Mr. Obama told his team he wanted to move in troops more quickly, and a plan for getting them out.
Mr. Obama was irritated by a Pentagon timetable, requested by National Security Adviser James Jones, that showed the deployment would not completed until the end of 2010. The president and Vice President Joe Biden said a faster schedule would allow the administration to set an earlier withdrawal.
The initial proposal set July 2011 as the time to begin transferring security responsibilities to the Afghans.
At a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday, Mr. Gates said the date was timed to the earlier deployments -- specifically, the arrival of thousands of Marines to southern Helmand province over the summer. "That July 2011 date was chosen because it will be two years after the Marines arrived in Helmand," he said. But the initial plan set no conditions on the withdrawal of U.S. forces, White House and Pentagon officials said.
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and Yochi Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com
online.wsj.com |
