Obama’s Afghanistan Problem

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was scheduled to brief President Barack Obama on Afghanistan on Monday afternoon. The pair, according to some media reports, were expected to review Pentagon plans for sending more than 15,000 US troops to Afghanistan. But at Monday’s daily press briefing, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said nothing so definitive was on the agenda and that the Obama administration’s review of its Afghanistan policy was still under way.

Still, one question is whether Obama’s basic approach to Afghanistan—which appears to involve beefing up the troops in the NATO-led force there–has a fatal flaw. Bloomberg reports:

President Barack Obama has made clear he is counting on America’s NATO allies for greater military contributions in Afghanistan. He may be in for a disappointment.

Most European leaders have either ruled out sending more troops to buttress the fight against a resurgent Taliban or talked about increases that number only in the hundreds.

Who’s to blame for this? George W. Bush, of course;

In encountering such reluctance, the U.S. is paying a price for its past errors, says Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But whoever’s at fault, it’s Obama holding the bag. Can he use his charm and squeeze more troops out of the allies? Germany and France recently have said, forget about it. And no other nation has offered any significant amount of soldiers. His options may be limited—thanks to Bush.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate