Colin Powell visited WH, expressed skepticism more troops would guarantee success in Afghanistan NYT

[jefferson_dem]

Afghanistan Troop Request Splits Advisers to Obama
By PETER BAKER and ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: September 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs sending more troops to Afghanistan, one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, he has discovered that the military is not monolithic in support of the plan and that some of the civilian advisers he respects most have deep reservations.

...

Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star Army general, visited Mr. Obama in the Oval Office this month and expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success, according to people briefed on the discussion. Mr. Powell reminded the president of his longstanding view that military missions should be clearly defined.

Mr. Powell is one of the three people considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate —former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed — have all expressed varying degrees of doubt about the prospect of sending more forces to Afghanistan.

Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, where he served, and has floated the idea of a more limited counterterrorist mission. Mr. Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and an Army veteran, has not ruled out supporting more troops but said “the burden of proof” is on commanders to justify it.

“The one thing that’s very clear is this is the decision that will have huge consequences,” Mr. Reed said in an interview. “It has to be made carefully.”

In the West Wing, beyond Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has advocated an alternative strategy to the troop buildup, other presidential advisers sound dubious about more troops, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and James L. Jones, the national security adviser, according to people who have spoken with them

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html

[rmp yellow]

1. Powell the dove

Time changes, don't they? I'm glad he learned his lesson.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Indeed, they do. I've never been a Powell-basher...

Quite the opposite, actually. I respect and trust his judgment, on military / foreign policy issues in particular.

[Captain Hilts]

4. So his refusal to do anything about Gitmo, Abu Grahib and the Iraq War are okay with you?

[jefferson_dem]

9. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Some prominent Democrats defended the war long after Powell left the Bush administration in 2005.

Since Powell has a history of misjudgments, in your view, I suspect you question him in this case (Afghanistan) too.

[frylock]

5. you trust his judgement?

[jefferson_dem]

8. Yeah. A dark moment that has been hashed over and over and over...

By me and others, here and elsewhere. Not going there again. Feel free to check the DU archives if you want.

Yes, I trust his judgement. Sorry.

[CJCRANE]

6. He isn't a dove, he just follows the "Powell Doctrine":

(Excerpt)

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

[Captain Hilts]

3. You mean the guy who should have resigned over Gitmo and the Iraq invasion who

opposed gays in the military?

Oh, him.

[Cha]

7. I found this interesting..

"In the West Wing, beyond Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has advocated an alternative strategy to the troop buildup, other presidential advisers sound dubious about more troops, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and James L. Jones, the national security adviser, according to people who have spoken with them."

So Rahm isn't all "bad".

[masuki bance]

10. The occupations must end. nt