From the Washington Post:
President Obama will tell the nation Tuesday night that he wants to quickly deploy an additional 34,000 U.S. troops and military trainers to Afghanistan, launching what he hopes will be an "endgame" to the long-running military effort there, U.S. officials and diplomatic sources said. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the deployment would be accelerated, in an effort to drive back militant insurgents and speed the development of a more effective Afghan military and police force.
CNN reports "Obama will travel to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, later Tuesday to officially announce his plans. It would be his second escalation of U.S. forces in the war-torn Islamic country since he came to power in January." Several media outlets are reporting the President spent the early morning hours in a video conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and today speaking with lawmakers and advisors before his address to the nation tonight.
Sue Sturgis at Facing South writes the plans for protests are already underway, "Anti-war groups are already planning protests against the escalation. United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 1,400 local and national groups, is holding numerous protest actions around the country today and tomorrow, as is the anti-war group Code Pink."
The buzz from the anticipated speech currently surrounds language the President may use to describe a time-frame for an exit strategy. The Hill reports Republicans are "likely frustrated...many of whom have stressed since this weekend that any mention of withdrawal during Tuesday's speech would undermine the war effort."
Allison Kllkenny at the Huffington Post calls President Obama's Afghanistan decision and rhetoric familiar, "Obama's Afghanistan goals and promises are virtually identical to Bush's Iraq plans: A demand by the Occupier for the Occupied to take personal responsibility for the chaotic aftermath of their society, which was destroyed by the Occupier: A prerequisite to 'taking personal responsibility' is that the government gets its act together, a dubious outcome for Afghanistan..."
Rebekah Sanderlin, a military family blogger, writes, " My opinion, in a nutshell, is that we have people in harm’s way there and a mission we cannot afford to lose, so we need to allocate the resources necessary to keep our people safe and to accomplish our mission. If the Generals say we need more troops, then I say send them and, send them yesterday."
All major networks are slated to air the speech tonight, live, at 8pm Eastern.


Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Yahoo


We'll See
noelle01520 December 1, 2009 - 1:54pmI'll have to reserve final judgement until after I see him speak tonight, but from what I've heard so far, more troops seem like a mistake. Isn't this the country that helped us win the coldwar by bankrupting the Soviet Union when they tried to do the same thing in the 80's? Do we really need to repeat failed history? I think we (and Afghanistan) would be better served if we sent them food, clothing and books.