Nov 30, 2009 12:06pm

President Obama Gave the Orders for the New Afghanistan Strategy

ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:

At 5 p.m. ET Sunday evening, President Obama met in the Oval Office with key members of his national security team and “communicated his final decision on the strategy…and issued orders on the strategy’s implementation,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reports Monday morning.

Joined by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Vice President Biden, President Obama gave the orders to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, JCS Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright, Central Command Commander Gen. David Petraeus, and National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.). Earlier in the day he spoke by phone with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After that meeting, the President walked from the Oval Office to the Situation Room and held a similar meeting by secure video teleconference at 6 pm EST with commander of US forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Gen. Karl Eikenberry (Ret.).

The President will be in “close consultation with our friends and allies throughout the day,” Gibbs said.

At 10:40 a.m. EST this morning the President spoke with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He also spoke to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary general of NATO. He was scheduled to talk with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at noon, and and at 1 pm over a secure video teleconference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Today’s calls to foreign leaders will be to update leaders on the “strategy, the process that’s gone into this,” Gibbs said, noting that Secretary Clinton will head to Europe for meetings with NATO next week.

The President is meeting with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the Oval Office later this morning, though the president will not be asking for more troop contributions from down under.

“The Australians have throughout the Spring, increased their contribution to Afghanistan,” Gibbs said, “to a level that we are obviously quite pleased with.” There are currently 1,550 Australian troops in Afghanistan.

The president will call Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari later today or tomorrow before his speech, scheduled for shortly after 8 pm ET from West Point.

Gibbs said the President will mention in the speech, “the limits on their resources, both from a manpower perspective as well as a budgetary perspective.”

“The President will talk about, ‘This is not an open ended commitment,’” Gibbs said, “that the goal and the purpose of the strategy is to train Afghan national security force, comprised of an Afghan national army and a police, that can fight an unpopular insurgency in Afghanistan so that we can then transfer that security responsibility appropriately back to the Afghans.”

“I think he will go through why we are there, what he believes this process, what this process brought about and outline what he hopes to see,” Gibbs said. “You will hear the president discuss clearly that this is not open ended….that this is about what has to be done in order to insure that the Afghans can assume the responsibility of securing their country.”

In England over the weekend, Brown announced he would chair a conference in London on January 28, 2010, for the leaders of Afghanistan, the countries contributing troops to the region, Afghanistan's neighbors, regional powers and key international institutions “to drive forward our campaign in Afghanistan, to match the increase in military forces with an increased political momentum, to focus the international community on a clear set of priorities across the 43-nation coalition and marshal the maximum international effort to help the Afghan government deliver.”

Setting benchmarks for the Afghan government, Brown said:

• Within three months the Afghan government “needs to have identified additional troops to send to Helmand province for training,” part of what he said would be an increase of 50,000 troops in the Afghan army by the end of 2010.

• Within six months, Brown said, the Afghan government will need to provide “a clear plan for police training, and that means that the corruption that has been identified in the police has been dealt with and we have police trainers to have a police force that works with the local community rather than sometimes against it.”

• Within nine months, Afghan President Karzai will need to have appointed almost 400 provincial and district governors to provide services to the Afghan people.

• Within a year, an additional thousands more Afghan troops will need to have been trained, with the goal of transferring in at least five Afghan districts and provinces – one or two in Helmand Province — to lead Afghan control during 2010.

“Consultations with Congress will continue today and tomorrow in the run-up to the speech,” Gibbs added.

There will be a full briefing of the new strategy at the White House tomorrow at 4:30 pm EST for Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.

- Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

User Comments

wow…3 months after an urgent request from his general, BO responds in gradniose fashion. Somehow, I am not impressed by this ditherer in chief- sorry aint buying the spin

Posted by: realman1963 | November 30, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm

O bow ma is a poor excuse for commander and chief.

Posted by: John | November 30, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm

“wow…3 months after an urgent request from his general”
…Better than conspiring to start one war 3 years before becoming president, and then letting another war drift into chaos for 7 years with no strategy or resources.

Posted by: bco | November 30, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm

This is very, very good. The Afghans need to be in the driver’s seat. We can only hold their hands for so long.

Posted by: warrottjr | November 30, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm

And if McChrystal can’t learn to keep it zipped in public, he should be shown his own exit strategy.

Posted by: bco | November 30, 2009, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm

This is very, very good. The Afghans need to be in the driver’s seat. We can only hold their hands for so long.

Posted by: warrottjr | November 30, 2009, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm

Can we hype this up any higher? Just send in the troops, but now we need a new speech to do it. Can this guy do anything without a soapbox?

Posted by: lfrichar | November 30, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm

Very, very wise use of American power. Hurray for the Red, White, and Blue.

Posted by: purrhos | November 30, 2009, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm

First guys, let me get my picture with you before you die.. then I will take one with your coffins

Posted by: nothing more than a photo-op | November 30, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm

Okay, no need for the speech.

Posted by: OverExposed | November 30, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm

First, it was to be 40,000 troops–the MINIMUM Gen. McChrystal said was needed for success. Then last week the administration announced 34,000.
Now they’re saying 30,000. And Obama is cutting BACK on plans to expand the Afghan security forces.
How many men and women will it be by tomorrow night??
Obama himself called this a “war of necessity.” But necessity is being defined down significantly, due to pushback from the radical anti-war base of the Democratic party.

Posted by: Appeasement Czar | November 30, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm

Where are the anti-war protesters? Oh, that’s right! Ramp up the “war of necessity”!!!

Posted by: Mary | November 30, 2009, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm

To the Left, War without George W. Bush is just not War at all.

Posted by: Community Agitator | November 30, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

Where are the anti-war protesters? Oh, that’s right! Ramp up the “war of necessity”!!!
___________________________________
Yeah, I don’t see the right wingers out marching in the streets against this war.
Obama ran on ramping up this war; now he is doing it.

Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm

“Yeah, I don’t see the right wingers out marching in the streets against this war.”
The left owns anti-war marches. Where are they?
“Obama ran on ramping up this war; now he is doing it.”
No he didn’t. He ran on HOPE AND CHANGE and YES WE CAN. His comments on the Afghanistan War were buried by the mainstream media. The majority of Obama voters said they wanted LESS war. The mainstream media avoided polls on the topic, spending their time distracting everyone with manufactured Palin scandals. I wonder why that is.
Liberals, you’re getting the CHANGE YOU DESERVE. Enjoy!

Posted by: Mary | November 30, 2009, 8:42 pm 8:42 pm

“Where are the anti-war protesters? Oh, that’s right! Ramp up the “war of necessity”!!!”
From the GOP’s propaganda arm itself
“The anti-war left is turning on the president it helped put into office, launching a counteroffensive against President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan. “

Posted by: Ryan C | November 30, 2009, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm

When Obama sends 30,000 more troops to the war this Tuesday:
* What will the radical Left do
* Obama will have Lied about his whole election campaign.
* Obama will be just like BUSH!!! The Liberals will have no way to defend this action of their political leader.
* Will Code Pink Protest Obama and Clinton
* Will Sean Penn go to Afghanistan with his little camera to undermine the war effort.
* Will ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times all condemn night after night Obama and the War? Will they show all the soldiers coming back all dissolutioned and the families of the Dead soldiers that will follow Obama around to ask him why?
* Will Hollywood come out during their award shows and protest against Obama and his war?
* Will the Left and Hollywood be found out to be
just HYPOCRITES and political HACKS and FRUADS??
* We shall see….

Posted by: Captain A | November 30, 2009, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm

“The left owns anti-war marches. Where are they?”
You’ll see them march on the Iraq Invasion anniversary as they have for the last 5 years.
Even though attendance is far down from the millions that first marched, they still attract more people that a FoxNews produced “meet our talent” event (some have called them tea parties)
“His comments on the Afghanistan War were buried by the mainstream media.”
ROFLMAO!
“The majority of Obama voters said they wanted LESS war.”
Yes less war as in get out of Iraq.
Though I would not be shocked at all if large numbers of very anti war liberals voted for Obama given the alternative of McCain/Moron.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 30, 2009, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm

“Obama ran on ramping up this war; now he is doing it.”
No he didn’t.
Posted by: Mary | Nov 30, 2009 8:42:41 PM
_______________________________
Mary, you’re going to have to pay more attention to reality – Obama ran with ramping up the war in Afghanistan as a major part of his platform.

Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm

“Mary, you’re going to have to pay more attention to reality – Obama ran with ramping up the war in Afghanistan as a major part of his platform.”
I love getting lectured about “reality” from liberals who voted for HOPE AND CHANGE without a clue what CHANGE even meant.
The Afghanistan War was NOT a “major part of his platform.” The economy was the major part of his platform. Obama did speak often about Afghanistan. However, the mainstream media purposely downplayed that aspect of his campaign in lieu of hyping his other more palatable and populist rhetoric…and of course attacking McCain/Palin at every opportunity. THAT was the reality. Now Obama’s poll numbers reflect the new reality as voters are waking up to the fraud they elected.

Posted by: Mary | December 1, 2009, 12:13 am 12:13 am

The one thing he might
be doing right, and
he takes three months
to make up his
alleged mind
to do it.

Posted by: tanarg | December 1, 2009, 4:21 am 4:21 am

All you Libs forgot what Obama said about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda all the way back in March 2009:
“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you.”

Posted by: Obama's War | December 1, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am

Posted by: Helene | Dec 1, 2009 1:14:26 PM
Suddenly, Libs like you and Michael Moore are wailing and lamenting over Obama finally following through on a troop surge. This is after you voted for a guy who spent his whole campaign talking up Afghanistan as the “war of necessity,” which needed more resources that Bush wasted on Iraq.

Posted by: Obama's War | December 1, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm

Helene -”"he should not be deluded in believing the GOP will in any way support him. They will oppose him every step of every initiative. They will call him incompetent if Afghanistan deteriorates”—
And that differes from what the Libs in congress did to Bush in what way???
Wasn’t it Reid who said “this war is lost” while we had boots on the ground? Wasn’t it Murtha who accused our troops of killing innocents?
H Clinton who accused bush of lying to receive approval of congress under the war powers act? Bush was supposedly too stupid to be president, yet he was smart enough to manipulate intelligence reports from 17 countries to get his “lie” past Congress.
So far, the only “non support” that the GOP has vocalized is is there concerns about taking over three months to act on the recommendations of the General that Obama himself appointed..

Posted by: arkievet | December 1, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.