Archive for afghanistan

Pentagon wants $450M for Guantanamo prison upkeep

moneytoilet

I’m thinking $450m would go a long way helping Oklahoma right about now.

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon wants more than $450 million for maintaining and upgrading the Guantanamo Bay prison that President Barack Obama wants to close.

New details on the administration’s budget request for next year and other expenses emerged on Tuesday. The cost of the facility that houses 166 prisoners indefinitely includes $200 million for military construction work that could stretch over a decade.

The request also includes $40 million for a fiber optic cable and millions more for military commissions at the facility in Cuba.

Since he took office in January 2009, Obama has pushed to close the prison but has faced opposition from Republicans and some Democrats in Congress. Obama is expected to renew his plea in a speech on counterterrorism on Thursday.

Video Mid Day Distraction- Marine reunited with K-9 who served by his side

h/t Cat.

Video- Presidents Weekly Address: Ending the War in Afghanistan and Rebuilding America

U.S. force in Afghanistan may be smaller than expected after 2014

Via Kevin Frayer/Associated Press

Despite some commanders saying more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan, President Obama could very well keep the numbers much lower than they’d prefer, per the L.A. Times:

The Obama administration plans on keeping 6,000 to 9,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistanafter 2014, fewer than previously reported, and will confine most of them to fortified garrisons near the capital, leaving Afghan troops largely without American advisors in the field to fight a still-powerful insurgency, U.S. officials said.

Although it is not final, contours of the plan have become increasingly clear in the weeks since President Obama’s reelection. Officials close to the discussions say the final U.S. presence will be substantially smaller than the 15,000 troops senior commanders have sought to keep after most of the 68,000 remaining American troops leave in the next two years. [...]

Bagram will become the hub for U.S. special operations teams charged with tracking and killing members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the chief American military mission after the drawdown. Bagram also will be the main air base for U.S. drones and other combat aircraft in Afghanistan, the officials said.

Zero troops would be a good number, too. In fact, it seems President Obama agrees, but unfortunately, that’s just wishful thinking:

“One of the things that Obama and Karzai have always agreed on is the need for a reduced force presence,” a U.S. official said. “I could see them both wanting zero, but at the end of the day I don’t think that will happen.”

Details here.

VIDEO: Romney’s Afghanistan reversal a disqualifying character issue

First, the surprising and news-making reversal of Mitt Romney on Afghanistan, and some initial reaction to the debate:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Next, the commentary:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On the Tee Vee machine so far today, what I’m seeing from political commentators is that Romney simply “shifted to a more moderate, more appealing” position as opposed to completely and hypocritically reversing himself two weeks before Election Day.

He has zero credibility. He cannot be trusted, he cannot be believed. He’ll say anything he thinks voters want to hear.

Rachel Maddow nailed it:

“…68,000 American lives on the line… This is a real war... This is changing your mind… about the fate, the lives and deaths, of 68,000 Americans… and that you can get away with running from the things that you’ve previously claimed were your heartfelt beliefs and now denying that you ever believed they were true. It’s a character issue and I find it disqualifying.”

“It’s an existing war. It’s not hypothetical.”

Video- Fox’s Kilmeade On U.S. Troop Deaths: “Where Is [Obama's] Apology To Our Troops?”

Hey Kilmeade, where is Bush’s apology to the country? Then we’ll talk about PBO. Via Media Matters.

Top senators, including Republicans, can’t explain Mitt Romney’s Afghanistan policy

I’m guessing that even Willard Romney can’t explain Willard Romney’s Afghanistan policy. Josh Rogin reports that nobody else can either:

Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties. [...]

But when it comes to what a President Romney would do differently from Obama on Afghanistan if and when he became president, the details remain sketchy. [...]

Last week, The Cable asked several senior senators from both parties whether they supported Romney’s plan for Afghanistan. None was able to articulate exactly what that policy is or what the U.S. force in Afghanistan might look like if Romney is elected.

“What is it?” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a Romney supporter and senior member of the Armed Services Committee.  [...]

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he wasn’t sure exactly what Romney’s Afghanistan policy entailed and didn’t want to get into it

Of course, Team Obama can use this GOP comment stew to compare Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience to the president’s, not to mention Obama’s national security successes *coughBinLadencough*.

Add a big splash of Bain Pain and a big pinch of Where’s the Tax Returns? and a big ol’ slab of Mystery Mittstery Meat and voila! A recipe for Willard Fail.