Barack obama

So, the report written by ISAF commander, Stanley McChrystal, to President Obama on NATO’s Afghan mission has been published. It does not contain a request for more US troops, but most analysts think it is only a matter of time before a request is sent from Kabul. In the recently-published report, McChrystal says: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.” But serious changes will be required. These will have to address what McChrystal calls “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials.” The US general also admits “ISAF’s own errors”. Bear in mind, though, that the report was

Bob Woodward has the scoop that General McChrystal’s review of Afghan strategy calls for more troops. McChrystal is direct, stating that “ISAF requires more forces” and that “inadequate resources will likely result in failure”. He is also clear that these troops are needed now, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” McChrystal has yet to present his request for more troops to the Pentagon but it is clear that he will ask the administration for considerably more troops. Obama now has to decide whether

A great spot by Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome, who highlights this Wall Street Journal graphic on the words that both sides of the US healthcare debate should be using to score a rhetorical advantage.  For instance, it suggests that the pro-Obama team should say “rules” rather than “regulations”, while the President’s opponents should attack the system for being “too profit-driven” and “too bureaucratic”: As Tim says, words have power.  Indeed, over the past decade, the fiscal debate was partially

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, two of the people involved in devising the surge strategy in Iraq which so transformed the security situation there, have a strong piece in the Weekly Standard arguing that the Obama administration is in danger of repeating in Afghanistan the mistakes the Bush one made in Iraq: not giving the commander on the grounds the tools they need to do the job. The Kagans’ concern has been caused by strong hints from the Obama administration that it is not minded to send any more troops to Afghanistan whatever the review initiated by the new US commander there, General McChrystal, says. (The deadline for McChrystal to make

With Obama’s administration gradually filling up, problems appear to be brewing at the centre. Though picking ex-General James Jones as a National Security Adviser was seen as a smart move, associating the general’s wide experience and bi-partisan appeal with the young president, it may be turning out not to be so clever after all. President Obama continues to rely on his campaign advisers, principally Denis McDonough, nominally one of Jones’ deputies, and Mark Lippert, the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council and a confidant of Vice-President Biden. Both aides have a close personal bond with the President. General Jones, in turn, is often out of the loop and

President Obama showed that it was possible to apologise with good grace over his appointment of Tom Daschle and now the masters of the financial universe are falling over themselves to follow his lead. Somehow he turned the fact that he “screwed up” to his advantage, though how many times he can get away with this ruse in future is open to question. The sight of the men from RBS and HBOS making their excuses for “screwing up” the economy of an entire country was pretty hard to watch. The difference is that people like Obama. At times like this you have to turn to the tabloids to fnd an