11-14-2009, 12:01 AM
Envoyâs concerns highlight deep US divisions
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: November 12 2009 09:43 | Last updated: November 12 2009 22:46
US president Barack Obamaâs biggest international challenge on Thursday became more daunting still with the news that his ambassador to Afghanistan has deep reservations about the US militaryâs call for more troops for the country.
In a move that shows the split not just in Washington but between US efforts on the ground, Karl Eikenberry, the former commander of US forces in Afghanistan who now heads the embassy in Kabul, has told Mr Obama in writing of his opposition to fulfilling the militaryâs request unless the Afghan government first changes its ways.
General Karl Eikenberry said the administration should step cautiously in planning for any troop build-up while there were still so many questions surrounding Afghan president Hamid Karzai
EDITORâS CHOICE
Gates âappalledâ over Afghan leaks - Nov-12
Europeans split on Afghanistan troop surge - Nov-12
Obama to press China on Afghanistan - Nov-12
In depth: Afghanistan - Nov-12
Philip Stephens: Obamaâs Afghan plan - Nov-09
Obama decision on Afghan strategy awaited - Nov-10
His warning, first reported by the Washington Post and other US newspapers, cites concerns about Hamid Karzai, Afghanistanâs president, and highlights a split within US ranks that may complicate hopes of prevailing against the Taliban.
The news serves as a counterweight to the push from the military and congressional Republicans for Mr Obama to authorise the sending of 44,000 more troops in addition to the 68,000 already in situ.
But it also reveals a clash between Mr Eikenberry and Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato forces in the field, who has spearheaded the call for more forces.
Washington insiders said on Thursday that Mr Eikenberryâs scepticism about the push for more troops became apparent several months ago, as Gen McChrystal finalised a high-profile strategy review.
They added that Mr Eikenberryâs stance reflected not only his personal position as a former commander in Afghanistan, but a traditional division between the state department and the Pentagon. This is despite the good relations between Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and Robert Gates, defence secretary, and Mrs Clintonâs stated support for a forceful US position in Afghanistan.
In a sign of the rival concerns the administration is seeking to reconcile, Mr Gates said on Thursday that Mr Obama wanted his eventual decision âto signal resolve and at the same time, signal to the Afghans as well as to the American people that this isnât an open-ended commitmentâ.
Mr Obama himself has signalled he does not want to be pushed into a decision that could be the most momentous of his tenure, not least when many congressional Democrats have expressed reservations about sending more troops and while mistrust of the recently re-elected Mr Karzai is on the increase.
Despite pressure from European governments for a speedy decision, the US says none is likely before Mr Obama returns from Asia in a weekâs time. He may not even announce his choice until December.
In an indication it may be seeking a middle way, the administration has already reformulated the choices presented to the president by Gen McChrystal into four options, ranging from sending a few thousand extra troops to the dispatching of the full 44,000.
But at a war council this week Mr Obama indicated that he was still not happy with any of his choices, because of doubts about the Karzai government and about the realism of one of the key tenets of the McChrystal plan: training 400,000 Afghan soldiers and police by 2013.
âThe president is pushing for revisions to clarify how and when US troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government,â said an administration official. He added that Mr Obamaâs questions at the war council on Wednesday âcould alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zoneâ.
The official said: âThe key sticking points appear to be timelines and questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.â
James Jones, Mr Obamaâs national security adviser, this week said reports the president had already decided he would send up to 40,000 troops were âabsolutely falseâ.
Nevertheless, diplomats and analysts expect the president to authorise the dispatch of troops, in part because he himself has identified Afghanistan as a war of necessity, not of choice. One assumption is that Mr Obama will send about 30,000 troops, give or take 5,000, but that they could take a year or more to deploy in full.
On Thursdayâs leak of Mr Eikenberryâs memo comes against the backdrop of divisions within the White House.
Joe Biden, the vice-president, has called for more focus on attacking suspected al-Qaeda terrorists rather than seeking to defend the whole Afghan population against the Taliban.
But some officials say this dispute is a matter of degree rather than of opposites.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: November 12 2009 09:43 | Last updated: November 12 2009 22:46
US president Barack Obamaâs biggest international challenge on Thursday became more daunting still with the news that his ambassador to Afghanistan has deep reservations about the US militaryâs call for more troops for the country.
In a move that shows the split not just in Washington but between US efforts on the ground, Karl Eikenberry, the former commander of US forces in Afghanistan who now heads the embassy in Kabul, has told Mr Obama in writing of his opposition to fulfilling the militaryâs request unless the Afghan government first changes its ways.
General Karl Eikenberry said the administration should step cautiously in planning for any troop build-up while there were still so many questions surrounding Afghan president Hamid Karzai
EDITORâS CHOICE
Gates âappalledâ over Afghan leaks - Nov-12
Europeans split on Afghanistan troop surge - Nov-12
Obama to press China on Afghanistan - Nov-12
In depth: Afghanistan - Nov-12
Philip Stephens: Obamaâs Afghan plan - Nov-09
Obama decision on Afghan strategy awaited - Nov-10
His warning, first reported by the Washington Post and other US newspapers, cites concerns about Hamid Karzai, Afghanistanâs president, and highlights a split within US ranks that may complicate hopes of prevailing against the Taliban.
The news serves as a counterweight to the push from the military and congressional Republicans for Mr Obama to authorise the sending of 44,000 more troops in addition to the 68,000 already in situ.
But it also reveals a clash between Mr Eikenberry and Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato forces in the field, who has spearheaded the call for more forces.
Washington insiders said on Thursday that Mr Eikenberryâs scepticism about the push for more troops became apparent several months ago, as Gen McChrystal finalised a high-profile strategy review.
They added that Mr Eikenberryâs stance reflected not only his personal position as a former commander in Afghanistan, but a traditional division between the state department and the Pentagon. This is despite the good relations between Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and Robert Gates, defence secretary, and Mrs Clintonâs stated support for a forceful US position in Afghanistan.
In a sign of the rival concerns the administration is seeking to reconcile, Mr Gates said on Thursday that Mr Obama wanted his eventual decision âto signal resolve and at the same time, signal to the Afghans as well as to the American people that this isnât an open-ended commitmentâ.
Mr Obama himself has signalled he does not want to be pushed into a decision that could be the most momentous of his tenure, not least when many congressional Democrats have expressed reservations about sending more troops and while mistrust of the recently re-elected Mr Karzai is on the increase.
Despite pressure from European governments for a speedy decision, the US says none is likely before Mr Obama returns from Asia in a weekâs time. He may not even announce his choice until December.
In an indication it may be seeking a middle way, the administration has already reformulated the choices presented to the president by Gen McChrystal into four options, ranging from sending a few thousand extra troops to the dispatching of the full 44,000.
But at a war council this week Mr Obama indicated that he was still not happy with any of his choices, because of doubts about the Karzai government and about the realism of one of the key tenets of the McChrystal plan: training 400,000 Afghan soldiers and police by 2013.
âThe president is pushing for revisions to clarify how and when US troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government,â said an administration official. He added that Mr Obamaâs questions at the war council on Wednesday âcould alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zoneâ.
The official said: âThe key sticking points appear to be timelines and questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.â
James Jones, Mr Obamaâs national security adviser, this week said reports the president had already decided he would send up to 40,000 troops were âabsolutely falseâ.
Nevertheless, diplomats and analysts expect the president to authorise the dispatch of troops, in part because he himself has identified Afghanistan as a war of necessity, not of choice. One assumption is that Mr Obama will send about 30,000 troops, give or take 5,000, but that they could take a year or more to deploy in full.
On Thursdayâs leak of Mr Eikenberryâs memo comes against the backdrop of divisions within the White House.
Joe Biden, the vice-president, has called for more focus on attacking suspected al-Qaeda terrorists rather than seeking to defend the whole Afghan population against the Taliban.
But some officials say this dispute is a matter of degree rather than of opposites.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.