President Wasn’t Talking About Rumsfeld Under-resourcing Afghanistan — but Experts Say He Under-resourced Afghanistan
EmailIn his address to the nation from West Point Tuesday night, President Obama said that in the previous administration, “commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.”
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who left office in 2006, called that “a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense.”
"I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006,” Rumsfeld said. “If any such requests occurred, 'repeated' or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan." He called for Congress to review the President's assertion to “determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed on Wednesday that the president had been talking about troop requests made after Rumsfeld left office by then-Gen. David McKiernan, as we covered last month.
On Wednesday, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reaffirmed the longtime White House claim that McKiernan’s requests for more U.S. troops were not met by the Bush administration.
“General McKiernan specifically had a fairly substantial request for upwards of 20,000 forces, which we couldn't meet because they just weren't there,” Mullen testified before the Senate Wednesday. “They were in Iraq.”
That said, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, instead of explaining that the president had not been talking about Rumsfeld’s reign and trying to quell the dispute,did the opposite, saying Rumsfeld should answer questions as to “whether he thinks that the effort in Afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure as Secretary of Defense.”
There certainly are questions for Rumsfeld — not least of which from Mullen who said “I spoke out very early that Afghanistan had been under-resourced and that, from where I lived, the heart of that was under-resourced with military forces. We didn't have them, because they were pushed to Iraq. And we really didn't have the flexibility to move them. That was a priority of a previous president. We do what the president says, and that's what we did.”
Robert P. Finn, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, told the New York Times in August 2007 that “I said from the get-go that we didn’t have enough money and we didn’t have enough soldiers. I’m saying the same thing six years later.”
-jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Gibbs and Gates should resign.
Posted by: nothing more than a photo-op | December 3, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Obama made a specific charge that Rumsfeld refuted. Rumsfeld said he did not turn down requests from commanders.
Obama should be careful about pointing fingers backwards because he doesn’t know what is ahead of him. If his plan is successful, that will be great. But perhaps he, too, will be accused of under resourcing Afghanistan. Perhaps he, too, will be accused of ignoring future requests of commanders.
His ideas for Iraq, although not implemented, were not always sound. He isn’t perfect, he isn’t going to be perfect, and he should just keep moving forward and praying people are better to him than he was to the previous CinC.
Posted by: MayBee | December 3, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
Then what happened to the troops that was asked for during the Bush adminastration. They were never sent.
PEOPLE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TROOPS THEN DID THEY GO SOMEWHERE ELSE
Posted by: Littlejohn | December 3, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
Obama logic — The general I appointed requested 40,000 to 60,000 troops. I wait 3 months to decide, then approve only 30,000 and then tell the world that I will start removing them again in 18 months.
During the SAME speech, I blame the current problems in Afganistan on the previous administration’s failure to provide additional troops when they were requested.
How stupid does he think we are??
But then again, from the looks of a few of these posts, maybe he’s safe in his assumption of our stupidity.
Posted by: arkie vet | December 3, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Does anyone else think it’s strange that our president’s representative lies, dissembles, deflects and avoid answering questions, and he knows it, and the press knows it, and the people know it, and NO ONE SEES A PROBLEM WITH THIS SITUATION? Jake Tapper’s job is to ask honest questions to people he knows are going to somehow be dishonest. This is supposed to be a functioning democracy? No. It cannot be.
I’m not even saying it’s just this administration, but this administration is particularly egregious because there was so much talk about hope, change, transparency, changing politics, talking to us like adults, etc. More lies. Wake up, America — our government establishment (ESPECIALLY Congress) is filthy and corrupt, government officials telling lies about the fundamental workings of our government is considered standard operating procedure, and everyone is just walking around like it’s another acceptable day in the greatest country in the world. Who are you?
Posted by: Chiara | December 3, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
And that last post was not directed at anyone who has posted to this particular story. But htere are some who have posted on the abc website that make it clear that no amount of logic can sway them.
Posted by: arkie vet | December 3, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
Robert P. Finn, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, told the New York Times in August 2007 that “I said from the get-go that we didn’t have enough money and we didn’t have enough soldiers. I’m saying the same thing six years later.”
Posted by: tierra | December 3, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
Rumsfeld wasn’t President. Obama is.
Posted by: Ron | December 3, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
chiara…so what is your point? Better yet what is your solution? You are a great example of what has happened wrongly with politics,however. All people like you do is criticize, be negative and throw around conspiracy theories. “Don’t trust anyone” seems to be your battle cry. LOL… Yeh, I’ll bet that works.
Posted by: CND FOX | December 3, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
Lindsey Graham: “If we go, if Afghanistan becomes a chaotic situation, it affects Pakistan, so we’re going to need more of everything. My message to my Democratic colleagues is that we made mistakes in Iraq. Let’s not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let’s not do this thing on the cheap.”
Posted by: Ryan C | December 3, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
“Does anyone else think it’s strange that our president’s representative lies, dissembles, deflects and avoid answering questions, and he knows it, and the press knows it, and the people know it,”
Were you born in the last 10 months?
Do you have any idea what the modern Press Secretary has been like for the last 30 years?
Posted by: Ryan C | December 3, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
“Obama logic — The general I appointed requested 40,000 to 60,000 troops. I wait 3 months to decide, then approve only 30,000 and then tell the world that I will start removing them again in 18 months.
During the SAME speech, I blame the current problems in Afganistan on the previous administration’s failure to provide additional troops when they were requested.
How stupid does he think we are??”
3 months is the equivalent of 7 years?
The right wing …stuck on stupid.
Posted by: Ryan C | December 3, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
OK Bush blamers. I am sure thats what is popping up here. Remember’ the dems fought Bush on every aspect of the war the last two years of his office. And now its come back to haunt them. They made him look bad for their gain in the elections and now its back fired. The DEMs are to blame for the war now and how its progressed. Look how long it takes to send help. Hope we do not get attacked again. It will take 3 to 4 months to decide what to do.
Posted by: Jim Rod | December 3, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
“Remember’ the dems fought Bush on every aspect of the war the last two years of his office”
Name a single aspect the Dems fought Bush on in regards to Afghanistan other than indefinite detention.
Posted by: Ryan C | December 3, 2009, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Remember’ the dems fought Bush on every aspect of the war the last two years of his office.
_______________________________________
You’re getting your wars mixed up – Dems opposed Bush on Iraq.
Obama ran his campaign on INCREASED efforts in Afghanistan – and that is what he’s doing.
Posted by: tierra | December 3, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
arkie Vet Said: “Obama logic — The general I appointed requested 40,000 to 60,000 troops. I wait 3 months to decide, then approve only 30,000…
How stupid does he think we are??”
======================================
LMAO! Arkie, you’re funny…if you’re comparing a 3 month wait for the President to resource 30,000 troops for a war that should have been resourced at, AT LEAST, 50,000 eight years ago when it started (conidering the land mass and terrain of Afghanistan)…….. it’s easy to answer the question you asked in your post (LOL)… just go look in the mirror.
Posted by: X-Republican Because of Bush | December 3, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
I wouldn’t disagree with this assesment. Rumsfeld did indeed try to go cheap in Iraq as well and it didn’t succeed until adequate forces were on the ground.
Posted by: david | December 3, 2009, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
What is the price of opium, heroin and oil since we invaded? How many Taliban/al-Qaeda are in Afghanistan? (est. 100) Compare these statistics and why we are there becomes self evident. Just remember Pat Tillman died for this.
If this war is about stopping the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then WHY are we sending troops to the one place where they AREN’T. American troops are on the Southern border, and the NATO troops are on the northern border, where there are no hostilities if you buy what Michael Ware is reporting on CNN. This isn’t a coaliton, this is a JOKE!
Why are we in debt and our children dying… Look at the evidence and you tell me. It sure as hell has nothing to do with terrorism.
The Iraqi’s want us to leave, and the Afghans want us to leave, just like the Russians before them. Want to know why they are fighting us, I suggest you watch “Red Dawn”. If it doesn’t become apparent to you after that, then you are beyond hope, and are truly void of critical thinking.
Posted by: jafo | December 3, 2009, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
You’re getting your wars mixed up – Dems opposed Bush on Iraq.
Obama ran his campaign on INCREASED efforts in Afghanistan – and that is what he’s doing.
Posted by: tierra | Dec 3, 2009 5:00:47 PM
Increased efforts for what has now been revealed to be only 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Explination please.
Posted by: Shoe | December 3, 2009, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm
PEOPLE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TROOPS THEN DID THEY GO SOMEWHERE ELSE
————
As the story states per one official, they were tied up in Iraq.
Posted by: malcat | December 3, 2009, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
Shoe: “Increased efforts for what has now been revealed to be only 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?”
We have no idea how many Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan. If we knew where they all were, they would be dead by now. And they don’t stay put anyway. They move back and forth across the border as if it weren’t there. Even if we knew how many were in one place yesterday, it wouldn’t be the same today.
Posted by: jock59801 | December 3, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
What is Obama’s excuse for not supplying the 40k requested troops? How does he criticize Bush for not supplying requested troops in the same speech where he announces he isn’t supplying the requested troops?
Posted by: Kilroy | December 4, 2009, 12:11 am 12:11 am
What is Obama’s excuse for not supplying the 40k requested troops?
_____________________________________
Obama was supplied by his military advisors with options of various levels of troops – with strengths and drawbacks to each level.
Posted by: tierra | December 4, 2009, 12:24 am 12:24 am
You guys have your story confused. Bush did ignore requests for more troops and after he sent the initial soldiers to Afhaanistan, he paid little attention to that part of the world and concentrated on Iraq. Now if you want to be angry at something, be angry at that. We went into a country on lies and misconceptions about weapons, etc. Bush ignored the committee who he sent their for their evaluation and sent men to die even after the told him they found nothing there. So be angry at the right things. Obama is doing what he promised. He is sending 35,ooo men and some will come from other countries bringing the total over the 40,000 Mc Crystal asked for. He also let Karzai and his men know that we do not intend to stay there forever and continue to send money and soldiers if they don’t get their act together. He also has an exit strategy. Now what he plans may not happen but he is looking ahead to when the soldiers can come home for good. Also, there are not too many men to draw from as so many of them have had three and four deplorements. He has considered all alternatives which was not done by the previous administration. At least he is bringing the soldiers who are killed home in honor and not behind closed doors. They are receiving the honor they deserve if the family wants it and many do want it.
As for Mc Crystal…he was the guy in charge when the football player was killed by friendly fire. He hid this fact and told the family he died a hero which was a made up story. His family did not believe this story and searched for the truth. If a man can lie about something like this I don’t have too much respect for him. He also leaked his demands to others before he presented them to the president which as many men I know who were in the service said should never be done. He broke the chain of command
Posted by: talmag | December 4, 2009, 1:19 am 1:19 am
It would be nice if Gibbs ever really said anything that meant anything…just saying.
Posted by: wow | December 4, 2009, 2:10 am 2:10 am
CND FOX — my point is that people need to stop accepting lies from their elected officials, and instead hold them accountable for what they say and do. I hope that’s not too complicated and difficult for you to comprehend.
Posted by: Chiara | December 4, 2009, 4:36 am 4:36 am
CND FOX – LOL.
Posted by: Chiara | December 4, 2009, 4:36 am 4:36 am
It would be nice if Gibbs ever really said anything that meant anything…just saying.
Posted by: wow | Dec 4, 2009 2:10:47 AM
______________________________________
fuuny, I didn’t hear you complaining about the hogwash being thrown around in the last administration…….
convenient for you I guess
Posted by: dk | December 4, 2009, 4:57 am 4:57 am
dk — are you a longtime follower of “wow”‘s comments? You must be if you know what he or she said or didn’t say about the last administration.
Posted by: Chiara | December 4, 2009, 5:46 am 5:46 am
ABC News to the rescue.
Posted by: Ccs | December 4, 2009, 7:42 am 7:42 am
Al Qaeda and not the Taliban is the enemy. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan …
Obama is going to have to separate the nationalistic Taliban from the Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Go after the enemy where they are and begin negotiations with the moderate Taliban leaders.
There is no military solution and the political solution will have to include the Taliban.
Posted by: Allan Eizinas | December 4, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am
The dems did. Remember they fought Bush on every issue the last two years of Bush. And now they are being haunted for what they did to win an election. Now sadly’ it’s the dems turn to fall.
Posted by: Jim Rod | December 4, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Blaming others is what Obams is all about. Taking responsibility is not. It is one of the reasons that his presidency will go down in history as one of the worst.
Posted by: jonny | December 4, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
Iraq, of course.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | December 4, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am
The dems did. Remember they fought Bush on every issue the last two years of Bush.
____________________________________
Almost everybody began fighting Bush by the last two years of his Presidency.
His approval rating was below 40% in 2006 and fell below 30% before he left office.
It wasn’t just the Democrats who opposed Bush.
Posted by: tierra | December 4, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm