AP source: US envoy objects to troop increase

Associated Press ^ | Nov. 11, 2009 | ANNE GEARAN

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. envoy in Afghanistan, a former Army general who once commanded troops in the country, has objected strongly to emerging plans to send tens of thousands of additional forces to the country, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

Ambassador Karl Eikenberry resigned his Army commission to take the job as U.S. ambassador in Kabul earlier this year, and his is an influential voice among those advising President Barack Obama on Afghanistan. Eikenberry sent multiple classified cables to Washington over the past week that question the wisdom of adding forces when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain, said an official familiar with the cables. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations and the classified documents.

Cables are diplomatic messages that may or may not be classified and carry greater heft than other forms of communication such as e-mail.

[Dementio]

Obama probably told him to say that.

[JmyBryan]

“The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations and the classified documents.”

Just doing my job...

[HardStarboard]

>>>Eikenberry sent multiple classified cables to Washington over the past week that question the wisdom of adding forces when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain,

Guys with guns tend to stabilize a political situation - one way or another! And I'm all for that in Afghanistan.

[Texas Fossil]

Karl Eikenberry.

[Source: NATO]

See: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=karl_eikenberry_1

Was the senior commander of US forces in Afghanistan.

[DoughtyOne]

I do believe an honorable government is a must. We can’t allow the government to devolve to the level Vietnam’s did during that war.

That being said, a stable Afghanistan is crucial to our future, because terrorism runs rampart there and from there otherwise.

More troops are a must.

[aShepard]

.............when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain.........................

Hey,

They have a leader, such as it is!

The Afgan leader is 2000% more knowledgable about his country than our US leader. The Afgan leader may have gained his position by ballot box fraud. The US leader funded ACORN and others to gain his office by fraud.

So far we’re even!

The Afgan leader wants to spur his country into growth and prosperity by getting the opium growers to farm crops, to spur investment in the cities to create individual wealth and the incentives that individual pride bring to the family!

The American leader wants to super tax the productive citizens, to spread the wealth to the less productive; to stiffle the incentives for innovation, and to reward the unions for their activities to kill productivity; to control the financial sector so that growth funding is only available for unionized companies, under terms oked by the government!

I think that the Afgans win! Good luck to them!

[Terry Mross]

I’m about to the point of saying “screw it and bring ‘em all home”. If we are so afraid that we’ll insult the enemy by calling a terrorist attack what it is, I’m afraid they’ve already won. Now don’t think for a minute that I believe this will stop them from trying to kill us as the muslim lovers assert.

I said on 9/11 that we’d never win this “war on terror” because we won’t be willing to do what has to be done and that is to kill them all. It’s gotten even worse than that. Now we make excuses for those who kill us.

[smonk]

this leak has rahm emanuel's name written all over it. you do NOT argue war policy in public, and that is what is happening here. this is turning into an even bigger disaster than it already was, if that is even possible.

the longer obama dithers, the worse this will get.

[Godwin1]

A clueless military man miscast as an ambassador. He has been captured by the political officers of his embassy, a class of people that abhors the use of force in any and all circumstances. He also may be a crass careerist, telling the boss what he knows he wants to here. This was leaked by the Obamunists, to bolster the case for doing nothing and eventually surrender.
The Afghan partner argument misses the strategic point: we want to kill, capture and destroy the Taliban and Al Quaeda. It would be nice if Afghanstan were like Switzerland and the Afghans were as civilized and developed as the Swiss. But you can’t always pick your allies. And undermining the guys now on our side by talking about abandoning them is the LAST way to get stability. Like the South Viets, the Afghans who have thrown in with us may be destroyed by their enemies and the ever disloyal Democrats. Appalling.

[tinamina]

Obama probably told him to say that.

That was my first thought too!

[spyone]

A stable Afghanistan is cruicial to our future? Come on, that country has never been stable. It is in no way crucial to the way of life of the USA.

[Jeff Chandler]

I noticed an increase of news stories about troubled military personnel. Just this afternoon I mentioned to Mrs. Chandler, that the word seems to have gone out to the media to prepare for a surrender in Afghanistan.

This perfumed prince is probably playing his part.

[PhiKapMom]

He is a Clinton general which says it all!

[DoughtyOne]

If left alone, the Taliban and Al Qaeda that is present there would continue to spread out to other nations. Either we neutralize the terrorist contingent there, or Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and other parts of the Middle-East will be forever a hot bed of terrorist activity.

Will we eliminate all of it? I don’t think so. I’d still rather we have to deal with 10% of what we do today.

The down side isn’t limited to the region either. It’s effects are felt in Europe and the U.S.

Do we just lay down and die or do we try to end the threat now on their soil instead of our own?