Obama to send more troops, seek Afghanistan exit

The goal, Obama said in a prime-time televised address,  will be to fight the Taliban, secure key population centers and  train enough Afghan security forces so they can take over.

Obama’s gamble that a troop surge will turn around a  deteriorating situation in Afghanistan marked a defining moment  in his presidency.

Trying to convince skeptical Americans, Obama recalled the  spirit of unity after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States  by al Qaeda in 2001 and warned that the militants were plotting  fresh attacks.

“If I did not think that the security of the United States  and the safety of the American people were at stake in  Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our  troops home tomorrow,” he told cadets at the U.S. Military  Academy at West Point, New York.

The accelerated timetable Obama unveiled, after a  three-month strategy review, surprised some Pentagon planners  who had expected a 12- to 18-month period for deploying forces  to bolster the 68,000 U.S. troops already in the war zone.

Major U.S. troop movements are likely to begin in January  and all 30,000 troops should be in place by the end of August,  defense officials said.

The head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said after Obama’s  speech that he expected “at least 5,000 more forces from other  countries in our alliance and possibly a few thousand more.”

Beyond the United States, members of the alliance now have  about 42,000 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.

‘VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST’

The U.S. troop surge will cost about $30 billion this  fiscal year, Obama said.

“As commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our  vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S.  troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin  to come home,” he said.

These U.S. troops plus the NATO contingent, Obama said,  “will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to  Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces  out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”

Under that timeframe, the soldiers would begin returning  home before Obama’s expected re-election bid in 2012.

Obama made clear any drawdown would be contingent on  security conditions on the ground at the time, giving him some  leeway to change his schedule if needed.

The vanguard of the U.S. buildup is expected to be the  swift deployment of 9,000 Marines into some of the most  dangerous parts of the country — Taliban strongholds in  southern Afghanistan, including Kandahar and Helmand.

Obama’s speech had many audiences at home and abroad.

He attempted to straddle the political divide in  Washington, seeking to satisfy Republican demands for more  troops while trying to convince war-weary Americans and fellow  Democrats that the troops will not stay there long.

And he sought to reassure NATO allies and the leaders of  Afghanistan and Pakistan that he was not abandoning the effort,  while pressuring them to make sure they hold up their end of  the bargain.

Initial reaction was positive, although Republicans worried  that his setting a July 2011 deadline to start a pullout would  send the wrong message to U.S. allies.

“A withdrawal date only emboldens al Qaeda and the Taliban,  while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely  that they will risk their lives to take our side in this  fight,” said Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the  Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senior administration officials said Obama’s decision to  start bringing the troops home by July 2011 represents a faster  exit timetable than any of the options presented to him during  the three-month review of Afghan policy.

Obama defended his decision and promised any pullout would  be done responsibly.

“The absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us  any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government,” he  said.

The anticipated $30 billion needed to fund the troop surge  will push the cost of military operations in Afghanistan to  nearly $95 billion for this fiscal year, eclipsing the $61  billion to be spent in the same period on the Iraq war.