White House Mulls McChrystal’s Call for Troop Increase, Costs a Consideration
EmailABC’s Jordyn Phelps reports:
There has been a lot of talk in the White House these days about the costs of health care reform and recovering the economy. But there is another debate raging in which money is playing an important role in the decision-making process: the war in Afghanistan.
Gibbs said that although cost is not the determining factor in the Afghanistan debate, it is a consideration. The cost of 1,000 troops is $1 billion per year, according to Gibbs.
“It's something we certainly have to be mindful of,” Gibbs said. “We don't have unlimited money. We certainly don't have unlimited troops.”
President Obama sat down with Congressional leaders in a bicameral, bipartisan meeting about Afghanistan on Tuesday.
Gibbs recalled that during Tuesday's meeting there was a discussion about costs. The President thanked those who had supported his decision in March to send an additional 21,000 troops but recalled that Congress was less agreeable when it came to funding the troops.
“He [President Obama] did take the opportunity to mention that, despite their statements of support, he did not remember as clearly the appropriations bill sliding through the House, as he said,” Gibbs recalled. Representative David Obey was among the Congressional leaders who met with the President on Tuesday. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Obey also has significant control over funding the war.
In a statement released today, Obey voiced reservations about whether the troop increases and counterinsurgency strategies being discussed are sustainable.
Obey warns that the price tag on military costs would be “astronomical”—in the range of $1 trillion –if the U.S. pursues the counterinsurgency option and that the time commitment would be about ten years.
“I simply do not believe that that kind of long term commitment is sustainable in this country,” Obey said. “I do not believe the American people will buy it.”
Tomorrow President Obama is scheduled to meet with his National Security team about Afghanistan and Pakistan for the fourth time. The White House says this will be the first meeting in which they discuss details about a potential troop increase.
–Jordyn Phelps
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
What is one trillion dollars nowadays? Ron Paul warned, people laughed, might as well just print the money now.
Posted by: Huh | October 8, 2009, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm
President Obama, (and this is the first time I’ve ever capitalized your name), I want the Taliban, al qaeda, the Iranian assists, to be all taken out in Afghanistan. I know you want peace and I know you want to attempt peaceful negotiations with rogue countries. But, the Taliban wants back in power and Iran is helping them. This cannot happen.
Remember why we went into Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban was supporting the terrorists and allowing them to train in their country. The Taliban treats women horribly and do not allow them to be educated.
Please take them out. They are evil. We can do this. Believe in your country and your military men and women.
Posted by: Jenny | October 8, 2009, 8:16 pm 8:16 pm
Hey, what’s the big deal about spending a trillion to defeat terrorists rather than allow them to have safe havens to plot future mass killings of Americans on American soil?
After all, we are spending about three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a non-stimulus stimulus, with Congress again talking about even more “stimulus” they say will not be called a “stimulus” but some more innocuous nomenclature even though it is intended to create jobs for a change (which would be a change).
And we are about to go into debt for an additional trillion (or two) in order to destroy a health care system that is the best in the world, and also which is funded by health insurance that more than 80% of Americans find to be just fine — but destroy we must because our Congress and President have a “better” plan that will cost everyone more for far worse care.
Oh, yes, and we went into debt within the past year for yet another three-quarter trillion dollars to bail out banks and insurance companies, and do not yet have any idea in the world what has been done with that money since our Treasurer is too understaffed for lack of appointees to high level positions, or maybe he doesn’t care anyway, to be properly monitoring all that TARP money like he has been repeatedly told by the TARP Special IG that he must do.
Plus, our president wants to marshall his forces to ram through a couple of more trillion dollars in crap and tax in time to make a big impression at the Climate Change conference in December to persuade the rest of the world to jump off the cliff with America in order to fight the Climate Change War that was formerly known by as Global Warming (until the warming stopped) and before that known as the Coming Ice Age (until it became Global Warming), but which by whatever name is THE WAR that must be won if we are to survive at all.
So, agains, what’s the big deal about spending a trillion to fight terrorists in the Middle East so that we can keep a few American cities and millions of Americans from being blown into uitter oblivion by a couple of terrorists with a few dirty bombs one day?
It’s only money, after all. And we are far beyond worrying about a trillion or two more debt here and there. The kids (and their kids) will just have to pay for it all one day anyway.
We’ll just vote “present” on all that debt for the time being, and leave the whole mess for someone else to clean up.
Posted by: TParty4USA | October 8, 2009, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm
WAY TO GO, OBAMA!! NICE SHOT, AFGHANISTAN GOES DOWN, NEXT PAKISTAN AND THEN THE THE BAD GUYS HAVE THE NUKES. EIGHT NINETY BILLION FOE A CRAZY HEALTH CARE BILL AND YOU CAN’T SPRING SOME BUCKS TO SAVE OUR BUTTS? IT WAS A HELL OF AN EXPERIMENT – SORRY THE STUPID GAVE IT AWAY!!
Posted by: Jimbo | October 8, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
Obama’s “necessary war” could put a serious crimp in the reckless way he likes to spend our money.
Obama must be worried how he will continue to reward special interests, and support the poor at the same time.
When all the others wake up and leave him those ends of the spectrum will stay. They are his only hope for 2012.
Obama put everything ahead of the war–that’s how much he really cares about it.
Posted by: pami | October 8, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
Obama has saddled future generations with debt and now all of a sudden he is worried about money?
Maybe he should have taken as much time thinking about the stimulus and 9,000 earmarks before he hurredly signed those bills.
Posted by: max | October 8, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
Jake when I heard about this latest outrage from Gibbs, I immediately checked to see if you had picked up on it. Kudos to you for blogging about this stunning statement.
I guess our national security and the ability of Americans to go to work without being blown up is second or third to the need to spend a trillion dollars on health care and the need to spend $750 billion in order to give 95 % of Americans a tax cut of less than $15 per week.
As for Obamz new potential policy to make nice with the Taliban, do you think you could remind Gibbs and Obamz that the last time we tried to make nice with them, Bill Clinton gave them $10 million in aid to eradicate their poppy fields.
The result of that “make nice policy” was that the Taliban continued to give a safe haven to Bin Ladin enabling him to bomb two of our embassies, the Cole and ultimately the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11.
Please the safety of millions of Americans is at stake.
Posted by: JAZ | October 8, 2009, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
So everything this clown said about Afghanistan during the campaign was bs…just like his presidency so far..
Posted by: HobokenJohn | October 8, 2009, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
Once Obama breaks his campaign promise with a national sales tax he will have additional money.
But probably not for our troops.
He was one of the senators that voted against body armor for troops in Iraq.
He’s got better ways to spend money.
Non-stop campaigning, photo ops, date nights, CEO bonuses, NEA grants–just to name a few.
Posted by: tyler | October 8, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
“I guess our national security and the ability of Americans to go to work without being blown up is second or third to the need to spend a trillion dollars on health care…”
While getting blown up by terrorists sounds so much more scary than getting cancer and possibly having your insurance company dump you on a technicality or having somebody crash into you with their car because they’re talking on a cell phone these latter things are actually far more dangerous statistically [among many seemly mundane risks]. But the Right doesn’t want us to pay attention to domestic issues, just stay focused on those scary terrorists. It’s time we stop listening to hysterics and re-prioritize realistically. Healthcare should be top priority.
Posted by: Skip | October 8, 2009, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
All a part of Obama’s plan.
Bankrupt the country so he doesn’t have to keep the promises he made about the war in Afghanistan.
Pretending to be tough about fighting the necessary war may have helped him get elected–just like the other promises he never intended to keep.
Sort of like the promises he made to Israel–a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.
Now not so much.
Posted by: ollie | October 8, 2009, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
Sun Tzu, in the Art of War, said that “a battle is won even before it is lost”. Mr. Obama will have already have lost a “war of necessity”.
Posted by: young_voter | October 8, 2009, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
Healthcare should be top priority.
Posted by: Skip |
The men and women fighting in the Afghanistan war are the top priority.
Speaking of priorities, a year ago runaway greed almost bankrupted our country. Some argue we actually are bankrupt. Many say we haven’t really fixed many of the problems yet. Why isn’t reform of our financial system getting any significant play?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | October 8, 2009, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
What ever you do Mr. Obama,do Something and do it QUICK.American servicemen are dying NOW. Don’t be Carter.LEAD or GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Posted by: Nephron | October 8, 2009, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
Confucius once wrote that with warning that indecisiveness is often mistaken for cautiousness. Mr. Obama’s indecisive leadership might get us all killed, militarily or symbolically.
Posted by: young_voter | October 9, 2009, 12:05 am 12:05 am
just go buy your own insurance like i have to. $100 a month $3500 deductible. It isn’t hard.
fighting a war is hard and painful and horrific. these boys are brave and courageous and shouldn’t be treated this way. they are giving their lives for our safety and you are whining about someone giving you insurance.
get a job and pay for it yourself. if you want it for free…join the military.
Posted by: wow | October 9, 2009, 1:32 am 1:32 am
Maybe the next time him & Michelle Antoinette head out of town they could limit themselves to just one 747 and accompaning entourage.
Maybe cut funding for Murtha’s 200 million dollar personal airport and the new Boeing contract the military does not even want…
Right now either pull the troops out or lets get it over with and clean house.
This is not the IOC Obama is dealing with now.
Posted by: Robert Gibbs | October 9, 2009, 1:38 am 1:38 am
It’s getting hard to tell if this administration is just plain stupid & naive, if they are just serial bunglers, if they know but are a bunch of liars, or if they just don’t care about consequences as long as they further their left-wing agenda. You have to wonder if this president is on our side. The sheer incompetence boggles the imagination.
Can anyone seriously believe that there is a difference between Al-Qaeda & the Taliban? And what about the danger of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda? And what about Iran? Will we have a whole bunch of fanatics armed with nuclear weapons?
It’s becoming very clear that Obama inhabits an imaginary world, that there is a major disconnect from reality.
Posted by: Terry | October 9, 2009, 1:49 am 1:49 am
Obama is waving a French white flag of surrender before Islamic terrorists.
An Islamic terrorist only needs to declare, “I am Taliban”, to be granted a free pass on scrutiny. What criteria, what tools will our military boys and girls use to distinguish between Taliban and Terrorist? Is there truly any difference?
This is much like distinguishing between Vietnamese and Viet Cong, which is why my husband came home all shot up.
Our military boys and girls are not to be given a task of distinguishing between friend and foe, our military is to fight anyone who fights them, Taliban or Terrorist.
Obama is not only demoralizing our troops, Obama is also setting up our troops for defeat, placing our troops in harm’s way by Obama fighting a political image war rather than fighting to win a war.
Obama is playing right into the hands of our enemy, Islamic terrorists who masquerade as Taliban.
Okpulot
Posted by: Okpulot Taha | October 9, 2009, 4:23 am 4:23 am
Mr. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: young_voter | October 9, 2009, 8:26 am 8:26 am
Mr. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: young_voter | Oct 9, 2009 8:26:40 AM
************
He might have known it all along – that’s why he hasn’t made a decision on Afghanistan. He was waiting to be crowned peaceful so that he couldn’t go full force in Afghanistan. Or maybe the committee did this because they don’t want the US to finish the job there.
Posted by: Jenny | October 9, 2009, 8:31 am 8:31 am
Maybe this McChrystal thing is the military coup.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | October 9, 2009, 8:34 am 8:34 am
It’s something we certainly have to be mindful of,” Gibbs said. “We don’t have unlimited money. We certainly don’t have unlimited troops.” Obama and the Democrats seem to have unlimited money for all of their pet projects. Gibbs is right though, we don’t have unlimited troops. The safety of our troops and giving them the resources they need to win the war should be the first priority now.
It seems like Obama thinks that ignoring the war in Afganistan will make it go away, but this is one of the times that he can’t vote present.
Posted by: Susan F. | October 9, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am
Great news for Slick Barry. This gives him all the political cover he needs not only to deny Gen. McChrystal his additional troops, but begin withdrawal from Afghanistan. The glory of the Nobel academy makes us forget the many speeches Obama gave calling the Afghan War a “war of necessity,” and how we must defeat the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda.
Posted by: Appeasement Czar | October 9, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am
Any chance we can get Kanye West to attend the ceremony for the Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about a time for him to step up.
Posted by: HobokenJohn | October 9, 2009, 9:31 am 9:31 am
The Nobel Peace Prize for giving speeches.
Should have been awarded to Obama’s
speechwriter.
What a joke–just like his presidency.
Posted by: riley | October 9, 2009, 9:31 am 9:31 am
Any chance we can get Kanye West to attend the ceremony for the Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about a time for him to step up.
Posted by: HobokenJohn | Oct 9, 2009 9:31:01 AM
*********
LOL! That will be the opening Saturday Night Live skit tomorrow!
Posted by: Jenny | October 9, 2009, 9:32 am 9:32 am
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty percent now (50%) disapprove. Polling for today’s update was completed before the news that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. It is unclear what impact this will have on the President’s ratings. Last fall, a plurality of Americans said politics played a role in deciding who was honored with the Nobel Prizes.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 9, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am
So basically all Obama had to do to win the Nobel was go on an apology tour–blame America for the world’s problems and criticize Bush.
I’m sure he’ll donate the cash award to charity–hee heee heeee!
Posted by: larry | October 9, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am
This is the first time a teleprompter has won the Nobel Prize. The Teleprompter was unavailable for comment. Aides to the Teleprompter said that Obama would accompany it to the award ceremony.
Posted by: Terry | October 9, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Obama did host a peace conference between a black professor and a white cop. I alos expect him to win the Cy Young award this year since he did throw out the first pitch at the All-Star game….
Posted by: HobokenJohn | October 9, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
I found out how Obama won the Nobel Prize.
Richard Daley and ACORN counted the votes.
Posted by: drjohn | October 9, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
The 1983 Laureate, Poland’s Lech Walesa, was more blunt.
“Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast – he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet,” Walesa told reporters in Warsaw.
“For the time being Obama’s just making proposals. But sometimes the Nobel committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action,” said Walesa.
Posted by: HobokenJohn | October 9, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
‘”For the time being Obama’s just making proposals. But sometimes the Nobel committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action,” said Walesa.’
Then they should have awarded it to Kanye West and Lindsay Lohan.
Posted by: drjohn | October 9, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize on a NOMINATION SUBMITTED TEN WHOLE DAYS INTO HIS TERM OF OFFICE in part due to his effort in “easing American conflicts with Muslim nations.” Helming that effort is Dalia Mogahed, Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, who gave British television viewers a taste of how Obama won the Nobel. She explained that the oppressive shari’a law that results in stonings, mainly for women, is actually “gender justice”, which might be news to women’s-rights groups around the world.
Posted by: Appeasement Czar | October 9, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
I bet the Nobel Committee gave Obama the award if he promised to not send Michelle and Oprah on his behalf.
Posted by: kyle | October 9, 2009, 9:58 am 9:58 am
Fascist Hyena forgot to tell us that the Rasmussen (choice pollster of conservatives) likely voters gave Obama the lowest level of Strong Disapproval since mid July – 35%. Again, daily polling was completed before the news that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: Numeros | October 9, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Axelrod said the Olympic Committee did not choose Chicago because of politics.
Will he say Obama won the Nobel because of politics?
Obama has Bush to thank once again.
He was elected president for simply not being Bush–and now the Peace Prize for not being Bush.
How does the Committe get around the fact that Obama has continued many of Bush’s most questionable policies?
Rendition, Patriot Act, indefinite detention.
Posted by: pami | October 9, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
It’s amusing. It ramps up the expectations for Obama.
You wonder if he’ll have to return it when he fails miserably.
It does nothing for Obama since this is transparently ludicrous, but it does further diminish the Nobel Prize.
Posted by: drjohn | October 9, 2009, 10:14 am 10:14 am
Even the UK papers, which are certainly NOT conservative, are ridiculing the Nobel committee with headlines like this: “absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize.” For the third time this decade the committee gives the finger to GW Bush.
—The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president, and hope that Washington will honor its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronizing in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.—
Posted by: I'm Not a President, but I Play One on TV | October 9, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
“We don’t have unlimited money. We certainly don’t have unlimited troops.”
I thought we were going to get the troops be ending the war in iraq.
We have money for Murtha’s airport to nowhere. We have money for Pelosi’s marsh mouse. We have money for ACORN.
But no money for troops?
Posted by: drjohn | October 9, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
How can the Nobel Peace Prize winner send in more killing troops and expand the war in Afghanistan?
A Nobel Peace Prize winner that kills more people? – that will be a new one.
Posted by: Ignasius | October 9, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
The Nobel Committee did the same thing 53% of voters did back in November.
They put their faith in an empty suit
with no accomplishments based on his celebrity and charm.
Guess hope and change is still alive.
Rediculous.
Posted by: larry | October 9, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
The most angry and edgy responses have seemed to come from the Taliban, Hamas and the RNC. Hmmm….
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the President won simply because Obama isn’t Bush but the international community was clearly outraged by Bush and his admin’s leadership of the United States. They’re obviously very glad the dark ages are over, and that we’re going in a new direction.
Posted by: Alyson | October 9, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am
Some people had to work their whole lives and actually prove they earned this
award–the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa.
For Obama to be given this without earning it–based on what he hopes to do?
What a slap in the face to previous winners.
Posted by: max | October 9, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
The Nobel committee rendered the Peace Prize utterly and totally meaningless when they awarded it to Al Gore over Irena Sendler.
Fantasy over reality.
Riciulous.
Posted by: drjohn | October 9, 2009, 10:32 am 10:32 am
So according to the Right Obama went on this huge ‘apology tour’ and spent way to much time ‘befriending our enemies’ and were quite happy to make long lists of all the his apparent misdeeeds toward these ends, but when the international community gives him a prestegiois award for doing just that now he didn’t really do anything to earn it. It sounds like more just plain talking out of both sides or your mouths right-wing baloney to me.
Posted by: Skip | October 9, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
“Rediculous,” someone says.
“Riciulous,” says another.
This Nobel Prize news has some folks in such a tizzy they can’t even type straight.
Posted by: WWW | October 9, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
awwwww… poor ‘right wingers’ and ‘freepers..
Obama awarded a ‘prize’ and baby is upset..awwww…. pick up yer sippy cup and chill
Posted by: PO'd | October 9, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am
“It’s something we certainly have to be mindful of,” Gibbs said. “We don’t have unlimited money.
Since When ????????????????
Posted by: Mike_C | October 9, 2009, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
OMG…How can you put a price on a soldier’s life…I thank God everyday when my kid got out, (two tours under Bush), when Obama got in………..Maybe Obama will donate his million dollar Peace Prize to The Wounded Veterans, because they will surely be more of them with policies such as this………………
Posted by: Parallex View | October 9, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
“It’s something we certainly have to be mindful of,” Gibbs said. “We don’t have unlimited money. We certainly don’t have unlimited troops.”
We can spend hundreds of billions on stimulating the economy and trying to create jobs, but we can’t spend $40 billion to surge 40k more troops in Afghanistan for a year? Don’t these geniuses know that they could create a hell of a lot of good paying jobs by improving military pay and attracting more recruits, and also by spending money fixing military equipment that has broken down over the last decade? There are a lot of jobs that could be created in making sure our military has everything they need so they aren’t overwhelmed by the enemy and needlessly die.
Posted by: Jason | October 9, 2009, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
“It’s something we certainly have to be mindful of,” Gibbs said. “We don’t have unlimited money. We certainly don’t have unlimited troops.”
Right you are Mr. Gibbs, so from now on every life of a US service-personnel is on your hand. You can’t outsource it this time and blame everyone else.
Posted by: Lizzie | October 9, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
Aside from Jasons point about military spending being the biggest welfare program in the history of the world, has anyone taken a serious look at what we have actually accomplished after 30 years of meddling in Afghanistan?
Posted by: Flash Override | October 9, 2009, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm