No pictures. No names. No job descriptions. No Such Agency.
Last week we learned of 7 C.I.A. agents who were killed in Afghanistan in one of the remote camps. The agents were killed by a suicide bomber who apparently was working as a double agent. Today, the news showed the bomber’s wife on TV, bragging about her husband and saying he would never work for the Americans or help them. Yet, our people, trained in espionage, trusted this man and allowed him on base with few questions asked.
Furthermore, we really don’t know who these people were. The C.I.A. has not released their names. We know a few names only because their families have spoken to the press. The C.I.A. is known for being a tight knit community and for being very proprietary about their intelligence. Yet, somewhere in this mix we find out that there were 2 Blackwater (now known as Xe LLC) C.I.A. agents also killed. 2 of the C.I.A. agents were women. This too, is highly unusual.
Unfortunately, our glimpse into this tight-knit society is only because of their deaths. One of the women who was killed will probably never be known. The New York Times, after consulting with the C.I.A. has agreed to not release her name. This is serious stuff. The other woman’s name was released by her father.
President Obama has ordered approximately 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan. In September General McCrystal requested 40,000 more in order to get the job done. President Obama will surely have difficulty with his liberal base over sending more troops.
Mr. Obama conveyed his decision to military leaders late Sunday afternoon during a meeting in the Oval Office and then spent Monday phoning foreign counterparts, including the leaders of Britain, France and Russia.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, declined to say how many additional troops would be deployed, but senior administration officials previously have said that about 30,000 will go in coming months, bringing the total American force to about 100,000.
President Obama will ask NATO nations to help fill in the additional 6,000 needed troops. While he has suffered criticism from the left, the President has also been criticized from the right for deliberating for what some see \as too long. He was accused of ‘dithering’ by some Republicans. President Obama will address the nation tonight from the United States Military Academy at West Point at 8:00 PM.
What should happen here? Should a time line be announced? Should Obama have sent troops immediately without the many meetings with his military advisors? Does it endanger the existing troops in Afghanistan if there are not enough boots on the ground? Should generals always get what they ask for? How many troops are still in Iraq?
Tonight the following was released from the White House:
Editor’s note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:
“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”
Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.
The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.
It sounds like someone stumbled out of the gate, we just aren’t sure who.
Should President Obama send additional troops into Afghanistan?
General Stanley McCrystal has asked for additonal troops in Afghanistan. It was his opinion:
that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure” without an urgent infusion of troops has been endorsed by the uniformed leadership. That includes Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and architect of the troop “surge” strategy widely seen as helping U.S. forces turn the corner in Iraq.
Meanwhile, President Obama has said that the administration needs time to assess the situation and look again at options and objectives. According to the Washington Post,
Obama’s public remarks on Afghanistan indicate that he has begun to rethink the counterinsurgency strategy he set in motion six months ago, even as his generals have embraced it. The equation on the ground has changed markedly since his March announcement, with attacks by Taliban fighters showing greater sophistication, U.S. casualties rising, and the chances increasing that Afghanistan will be left with an illegitimate government after widespread fraud in recent presidential elections.
Should we risk getting bogged down even further in the war in Afghanistan by sending in more troops? Is it possible to win in Afghanistan? Must we get Bin Lauden to be successful? What would really denote ‘winning?’ Should the Taliban be totally removed?
The Afghanistan government seems corrupt and the elections were questionable. Must the Afghanistan governement be stable? Must the Afghanistan army be able to defend the country before we go? Have there been efforts to make this happen?
The drug situation is still deplorable. The Taliban almost eradicated poppy growing in 2001. Now they do not seem to be quite the intense opponents of the poppy industry as they used to be. This past year was a bumper crop. Much of the world’s opium comes from this area of the world. Can we turn our backs on this cash crop?
Politically speaking, will President Obama lose his liberal support if he continues the war in Afghanistan? Did he make promises about the Afghanistan front or did he mainly speak about the Iraqi war? What does American stand to gain or lose by either action?
