Meet the Press Roundtable Jan. 17

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Speaks on Afghanistan at West Point Dec. 1

Update Dec. 1: Speech over. Watch the video here.

At 8 pm eastern, from West Point, Obama will address the nation for about 30 minutes in prime time on Dec. 1. Here is a good outline from the Center for American Progress of what Obama needs to explain:

The international community has a stake in fostering stability in Afghanistan and South Asia, and the United States is playing an important leadership role in addressing the security threats. The region is host to two nuclear powers and several terrorist networks with a global reach, and addressing these threats to global stability is vital. U.S. objectives should be to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a launching pad for international terrorism and to prevent a power vacuum in Afghanistan that would further destabilize Pakistan and the region. We believe that any strategy moving forward requires these five critical elements:

1. Set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Ultimately, Afghans must take control of their own destiny. A flexible timeframe for U.S. military engagement is necessary; the United States and NATO should aim to turnover security in certain areas to the Afghan Security Forces beginning in 2011 and have all Afghan forces in the lead within four years, or the 12-year mark of our engagement. Throughout this time period, the United States must continue to prioritize the training of Afghan National Army and Police.

2. Maintain the international nature of the mission. The United States cannot advance stability in Afghanistan alone, nor should it have to. Instability in Afghanistan and the region affects the globe, and all countries must take responsibility for the mission. Currently, more than 40 countries are contributing to the NATO mission, but support for the mission in NATO countries is deteriorating. Canada and the Netherlands have decided to withdraw within the next two years, and attacks on United Nations employees have caused them to relocate hundreds of personnel outside of the country. The U.S. administration must reassure allies through consultation and concrete steps that it has a viable strategy to address their concerns, especially corrupt Afghan leadership and the sustainability of Afghan security forces. It must also highlight the shifts in strategy that have already occurred, which were major points of disagreement with our European partners, related to civilian casualties and the absence of a regional strategy.

3. Insist that the Pakistani government battle extremists within its borders. Pakistan has served as a partner in the hunt for Al Qaeda and has recently undertaken some effective military actions against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (Taliban Movement of Pakistan) in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. However, it has not yet taken sufficient steps to counter those militant actors within their territory that threaten regional security but do not directly target the Pakistani state. Its concern about threat posed by its neighbor India and the short-term nature of U.S. interests in the region have prevented it from undertaking any full-scale divestiture of ties to groups attacking coalition and Afghan troops like Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura in Balochistan or the network of Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. The United States should work with international allies to have a coordinated effort to shape Pakistan’s calculations and actions in order to reduce official support that it extends to militant groups, while playing a behind-the-scenes role in decreasing tensions between India and Pakistan.

4. Press reform and require good governance in the Afghan government. The United States cannot defend an Afghan government that has little support from the Afghan people and continues to pursue policies of cronyism and self-enrichment. The majority of the Afghan people see their government as corrupt and predatory, and they possess few levers with which to hold these officials accountable. The Afghan constitution—which was developed in late 2001—created a strong central government in the form of the presidency and a weak parliament, and local governing structures have been weak and neglected. By supporting the re-entrenchment of former warlords in government positions and pouring aid money into Afghanistan with inadequate monitoring, the international community has played a critical role in enabling this corruption. Moreover, the absence of effective local and national-level justice systems has ultimately allowed for a “culture of impunity” in Afghanistan. The Taliban insurgency has taken advantage of this situation by offering quick arbitration where none exists, thereby increasing their support in certain communities. The international community needs to pressure its Afghan partners to follow through on recent commitments to tackle corruption, and reform its own practices in order to provide the Afghan government with the political support necessary to confront well-entrenched figures. Ultimately the justice vacuum will only be solved when the Afghan government and its international supporters show the political will to demand and enforce its provision.

5. Pay for the mission. The United States currently spends more than $3.6 billion a month in Afghanistan, and these troop increases will raise monthly costs to at least $6 billion. The Bush administration hid the costs of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq by hiding the expenses in congressional supplementals, outside of the normal budgeting process. The nation’s debt is now approximately $12 trillion. The United States cannot push the cost of the war to future generations, and should not use the deficit to finance the conflict.

Stanley McChrystal and others are expected to testify before Congress on Afghanistan right after Obama's address. Apparently, the smug McChrystal would be satisfied with 30,000 troops. Afghanistan's defense minister recently mocked Obama's "over elaborated" decision on Afghanistan while announcing that Afghanistan was beefing up Afghani troops. I find it interesting that the defense minister would be mocking Obama when adding more Afghanistan forces is what Afghanistan should've been doing a long time ago. It's their country.

Ultimately, I think all the Afghanistan hoopla has been another attempt by the rightwing to discredit Obama. McChrystal may be a party to that if he leaked his report to the media. Robert Gates warned against further media leaks.

Al Jazeera has a report on the leaks, including one on Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry's viewpoint (no troop escalation), which it attributes to the Obama administration:

Escalating troops will be a tough sell for Obama:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama is Forcing Accountability on Afghanistan

Bob Woodward said something interesting on Meet the Press this morning. He said the deliberate Afghanistan strategy meetings are forcing everyone to dig in, which will have the effect of accountability.
On the Nobel Peace Prize, Lindsey Graham says Obama will earn it if he sends more troops to Afghanistan. Meanwhile, democrats are saying he'll earn it if he pulls troops out of Afghanistan.
It's pretty clear that the Peace Prize has become just another obstacle thrown in Obama's way.
It's also pretty clear that no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to Afghanistan. Everyone just has an opinion. No one seems to know the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people. No one knows what's the best path for Afghanistan.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Full episode:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Robert Gates on This Week Sept. 27

On This Week, the roundtable debated a middle ground on Afghanistan and Obama's gut. The roundtable concluded that Obama has not yet made up his mind yet.
Bob Woodward said this is what makes Obama unique. He's listening and he's willing to change his mind.
George Will, who's against boosting troops in Afghanistan, says that's the hardest thing for a president to do--change his mind in public.
The biggest hindrance to progress in Afghanistan now appears to be the vast corruption in the Afghan government and the flawed election. Read Stanley McChrystal's assessment of Afghanistan here.
Watch John McCain, who's for an increase in troops (the surge in Iraq was his idea after all). McCain said he recently gave Obama his input on Afghanistan.
There is a question as to whether our troops are too stretched already.
Watch Robert Gates talk about the strategy decision here. Having the wrong strategy could be more deadly in Afghanistan, Gates said. Gates said he is sitting on McChrystal's troop request. He hasn't given it to Obama yet. Gates and McChrystal differ troop numbers.
Moving to Guantanamo, Gates said he was one of the people who recommended a deadline for closing Gitmo. A deadline needed to be imposed to overcome bureaucracy, he said. McCain disagreed.
This week's This Week was a good one. It was a rational discussion of Afghanistan, Gitmo and Iran. I highly recommend taking in the whole show.

Obama Rethinking Afghanistan Strategy

Yesterday Bob Woodward's story about Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, based on a "leaked" document, wasn't anything that hasn't already been said before, though there are more specifics, and it actually says that "doubling down" isn't going to help matters:

Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder of "doubling down" on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operation."

Read the "leaked" document here:
My first hunch was that the White House leaked the document. But one these folks could've had a hand in "leaking" the unclassified document. Politico is playing it like a whodunit today:

White House officials greeted the leak with a grimace, but none suggested they’d begin a witch hunt for the leaker. Woodward is famous for his access to the principals themselves — he recently traveled to Afghanistan with National Security Adviser James Jones — and leak hunters couldn’t expect with confidence that they’d find themselves disciplining just an undisciplined junior staffer.

But inside the White House and out, the leak touched off another familiar Washington ritual: speculation about the leaker’s identity and motives. Politico

Politico also says it could've been leaked by someone seeking fame:

“It’s most likely someone who has or is cultivating a personal relationship with Bob Woodward and positioning himself to look good in Woodward’s next book,” said Matt Bennett, vice president at the Democratic-leaning think tank Third Way, echoing the views of many inside government and out. The history of Woodward sources portrayed as heroes is long, including the likes of Colin Powell and, for a time, George W. Bush. But Woodward’s take on the Bush administration also changed dramatically with time, and some portrayed positively in his early books were savaged in the later ones.

The Washington Post concluded that Obama is rethinking the strategy:

Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed -- which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers -- or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan....
The principal game-changer, in the view of White House officials, was Afghanistan's presidential election last month, which was compromised by fraud, much of it in support of President Hamid Karzai. Although the results have not been certified, he almost certainly will remain in office, but under a cloud of illegitimacy that could complicate U.S. efforts to promote good governance.
WaPo

Unnamed sources (I hate when the media does that) are getting antsy:

But Obama's deliberative pace -- he has held only one meeting of his top national security advisers to discuss McChrystal's report so far -- is a source of growing consternation within the military. "Either accept the assessment or correct it, or let's have a discussion," one Pentagon official said. "Will you read it and tell us what you think?" Within the military, this official said, "there is a frustration. A significant frustration. A serious frustration."

Still, it looks like we're going to be in Afghanistan one way or another. In this recent interview with Al Jazeera, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he disagrees with McChrystal on the troop levels (at 7:22 mark). He worries that the U.S. could be seen as occupiers. But Gates also says that withdrawal from Afghanistan is out of the question:

Face the Nation Roundtable on Obama's Economic Challenge

Woodward: Military Leaders Opposed Surge

Bob Woodward appeared on 60 Minutes last night.
He's got a new book: "The War Within." The Bush administration sounds like it was a catastrophe at every turn. When he was told we were losing the war, Bush told us we were "winning" the war (whatever that means.)

CBS: Asked what the generals at the Pentagon thought when presented with the idea of a surge, Woodward told Pelley, "They think that it won't work. And the president actually at one point goes and meets with them. And the Army chief of staff, General [Peter] Schoomaker, says 'You can't add five brigades, it will take many more,' 'What about another crisis?' 'We don't have troops for this,' 'What about the damage your doing to the force, the young kids who see nothing but endless rotations?'"

"What does General Casey, sitting in Baghdad, think of having additional troops?" Pelley asked.

"He thinks that Baghdad is a troop sump-a place you can put endless numbers of troops in. And he does not want to add force," Woodward said.

"The president, who has said in public, endless times, that he relies on his generals to tell him what they need, is actually going his own way here," Pelley remarked.

Part 2