WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Wednesday there will be no quick decision on whether to send more U.S. troops into wartorn Afghanistan, saying “my determination is to get this right.”

The U.S. and NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, delivered a grim assessment of the war to Washington last month and is expected to follow up soon with a request for thousands of additional troops and more equipment.

That would leave Obama to decide whether to expand a war polls say is rapidly losing public support and drawing increasingly pointed criticism from lawmakers in Obama’s Democratic Party.

The president already has roughly doubled the size of the American military force in Afghanistan, with only limited gains to show for it.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Oval Office, Obama promised a deliberative process on how to proceed, not just on the military front but in the civilian and diplomatic arenas as well.

He said he must consult widely before deciding, with foreign leaders as well as U.S. generals, aides and officials. Obama said there is no “immediate decision pending.”

Asked whether the U.S. and its allies are winning the war, he didn’t answer. Obama did say, though, that it was clear the war he inherited from former President George W. Bush lacked a clear strategy to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist network.

WASHINGTON  – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that this is the last time Congress will go through the ordeal of passing an expensive, unpaid-for war spending bill. It may also be one of the more difficult.

The House, with almost no Republican support, on Tuesday barely approved a $106 billion emergency spending measure that includes $80 billion to sustain military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through this budget year ending Sept. 30.

Republicans supported the war funds but objected to other parts of the bill, particularly $5 billion to open up a U.S. line of credit for an International Monetary Fund loan program for poorer countries hit by the world recession.

The war spending bill sailed through the Senate on a 86-3 vote last month, but passage of the House-Senate compromise worked out last week will be more of a challenge.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. is expected to raise a point of order against a provision inserted in the compromise providing $1 billion for a “cash for clunkers” program that gives consumers government rebates when they trade in old vehicles for more fuel efficient models.

And Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is upset that the final version removed a ban, backed by Graham and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., on releasing photos depicting U.S. troops abusing detainees. President Barack Obama sent Congress a letter pledging that he would stop any attempt to release the photos, but Graham’s office said he wants more assurances and a vote on the issue before it goes to court next month.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate both to waive a point of order and to proceed to legislation over the objections of a senator.

Reid, citing the lack of Republican support in the House, said “it’ll be interesting to see what happens here. Are my Republican colleagues going to join with us to fund the troops? I hope so.”

He also said this would be “the last time we’ll have to do this because President Obama is honest with his budgeting.”

Every year since the Sept. 11 attacks Congress has passed emergency spending bills to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and enhance security programs. Because these bills are off-budget – not included in annual budget considerations – they are not paid for and add to the national debt. If the current bill is enacted, the total spending for these “supplementals” since 2001 will approach $1 trillion, with about 70 percent going to Iraq.

Obama, who is seeking to wind down military operations in Iraq while bolstering military forces in Afghanistan, has pledged to fund all war operations through the regular defense budget. He has asked for $130 billion in the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

The spending bill also includes $10.4 billion for economic and other assistance to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and other countries, and $7.7 billion for pandemic flu preparations. It has $534 million for some 185,000 service members who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended since Sept. 11, 2001. They will receive $500 for every month they were held under stop-loss orders.

The House on Tuesday brought to the floor the first of 12 appropriations, or spending, bills that it must pass to run the federal government during the 2010 fiscal year. It immediately ran into trouble.

Appropriations bill are traditionally debated under a process that gives the minority free rein to offer amendments. But after Republicans proposed more than 100 amendments and would not agree to time limits on debate on a $64.4 billion measure funding law enforcement, science and census programs, Democrats temporarily pulled the bill so they could tighten the amendment procedure.

“If this continues, we will not finish appropriations bills before August” and there will be no time for other priorities such as health care and energy reform, said Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis.

But Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, top Republican on the committee, said it appeared that the intent of Democrats “is to change the rules of the game in the middle of the first inning and shut the minority out of the legislative process altogether.”

Lewis will be allowed to offer an amendment that would prohibit funding for any attempt by the Obama administration to shut down the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. That amendment
would strengthen a provision already in the bill rejecting the administration’s request for $60 million for the Justice Department to carry out the closing of the facility.

The war spending bill also states that no money can be used for closing the detention facility this fiscal year. It also prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the United States except to be prosecuted and only after Congress receives a plan detailing risks involved.

The war funding bill is H.R. 2346. The appropriations bill is H.R. 2847.

ANNAPOLIS, Md.  – President Barack Obama promised graduating midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy on Friday that, as their commander in chief, he will only send them “into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary.”

In his first address to military graduates, Obama also pledged to invest in the men and women who defend America’s liberty, not just in the weapons they take with them into battle.

“I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done,” the president told more than 1,000 graduates during a sun-splashed ceremony at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay.

Obama praised the role of Navy SEALS in freeing a U.S. sea captain by killing his Somali pirate captors last month.

“The extraordinary precision and professionalism displayed that day was made possible, in no small measure, by the training, the discipline and the leadership skills that so many of those officers learned at the United States Naval Academy,” Obama said. He said he has halted reductions in the Navy, is building up the Marine Corps and investing in the hardware – combat ships, submarines and fighter aircraft – they’ll need to do their jobs. He also promised higher pay, enhanced child care and improved support and other benefits.

“In short, we will maintain America’s military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen,” Obama said, as more than 30,000 watched from the stands.

The ceremony included the son of Obama’s presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, who was among the proud parents. Had the Arizona Republican and Naval Academy graduate defeated Obama, McCain could have been the speaker.

Obama did not recognize McCain in his speech. But he did so before leaving the White House, praising the senator as he signed into law legislation giving the Pentagon new power to curtail wasteful defense spending. McCain was a sponsor of the bill.

“Senator McCain couldn’t be here today because he’s making sure he has a good seat to watch his son graduate from the Naval Academy in a few hours, and that’s where I’m headed as soon as I catch my ride over here,” Obama said at the bill signing in the Rose Garden.

Presidents typically deliver the commencement address at one of the service academies each year. Friday’s speech was the third graduation address by Obama in the past nine days. He used the previous two to tackle issues that threatened to overshadow both events.

At the University of Notre Dame last Sunday, abortion opponents protested the president’s appearance because he supports abortion rights. Obama jumped into the debate, telling graduates of the Roman Catholic university that people on both sides of the abortion issue must stop demonizing one another.

At Arizona State University, where Obama spoke on May 13, the issue was the school’s decision not to award him an honorary degree on grounds that he hadn’t accomplished enough. Obama said he agreed, saying no one’s body of work is ever complete.

On Thursday, Obama delivered a different kind of speech, one in which he sought to regain control of the emotional debate over closing the detention center for suspected terrorists in Cuba. He denounced “fear-mongering” by political opponents and insisted that maximum-security prisons on the U.S. mainland can safely house the dangerous detainees he wants transferred out of Guantanamo Bay.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney countered the same day with a speech denouncing some of Obama’s actions as “unwise in the extreme” and repeating his contention that the new president is endangering the country by turning aside Bush-era policies.

WASHINGTON  – President Barack Obama’s request for continuing military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan easily cleared a procedural test Thursday on its way toward a final vote later in the day.

The $91.3 billion measure before the Senate closely tracks Obama’s request for war funds, although the $80 million he was seeking to close the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was dropped Wednesday.

The 94-1 vote to limit debate paves the way for easy passage later on Thursday. A final House-Senate compromise is likely when Congress returns in June from a weeklong Memorial Day recess. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., cast the sole “no” vote.

Senate debate has featured none of the angst over the situation in Afghanistan that permeated debate in the House last week on companion legislation. Obama is sending more than 20,000 additional troops there and, for the first time next year, the annual cost of the war in Afghanistan is projected to exceed the cost of fighting in Iraq.

With support forces, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is expected to be about 68,000 by the end of the year – more than double the size of the U.S. force at the end of 2008.

The Senate bill includes $1.5 billion as cautionary funding to fight a possible flu pandemic, including the current outbreak of H1N1 swine flu. It also provides a $100 billion line of credit to the International Monetary Fund to shore up the ability of countries around the globe to cope with financial crises, as well as $8 billion for existing commitments to the IMF.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., promised to try to strike the IMF funding from the bill on Thursday. The funding is estimated to cost taxpayers $5 billion since the U.S. government is given interest-bearing assets in return.

The underlying war funding measure has gotten relatively little attention, even though it would boost total approved spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars above $900 billion.

The Pentagon would receive $73 billion under the legislation, including $4.6 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces, $400 million to train and equip Pakistan’s security forces, and $21.9 billion to procure new mine-resistant vehicles, aircraft, weapons and ammunition, among other items.

The House version adds $11.8 billion to Obama’s request, including almost $4 billion for new weapons and military equipment such as eight C-17 cargo planes, mine-resistant vehicles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker armored vehicles. The measure adds $2.2 billion to Obama’s request for foreign aid – much of which appears to be designed to get around spending limits for 2010.

The Senate measure also includes $6.9 billion in foreign aid, mainly for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. There’s also $50 million to combat AIDS overseas, and $173 million for peacekeeping operations in Somalia and elsewhere.

The bill also contains $350 million for various security programs along the U.S.-Mexico border. But the money would not be awarded to the Pentagon, which asked for it and had contingency plans to use it to send National Guard units to patrol the border.

WASHINGTON  – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration “deeply, deeply” regrets the loss of innocent life apparently as the result of a U.S. bombing in Afghanistan and will undertake a full review of the incident.

Opening a meeting with the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan at the State Department, Clinton said Wednesday that any loss of innocent life is “particularly painful.”

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai thanked Clinton for “showing concern and regret” and added that “we hope we can work together to completely reduce civilian casualties in the struggle against terrorism.”

The international Red Cross confirmed “dozens of bodies” on Wednesday in graves and rubble where Afghan officials alleged that U.S. bombs killed civilians.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

9:40 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Please be seated.

Before I begin today, let me acknowledge, first of all, Your Excellencies, all the ambassadors who are in attendance.  I also want to acknowledge both the civilians and our military personnel that are about to be deployed to the region.  And I am very grateful to all of you for your extraordinary work.

I want to acknowledge General David Petraeus, who’s here, and has been doing an outstanding job at CENTCOM, and we appreciate him.  I want to thank Bruce Reidel — Bruce is down at the end here — who has worked extensively on our strategic review.  I want to acknowledge Karl Eikenberry, who’s here, and is our Ambassador-designate to Afghanistan.  And to my national security team, thanks for their outstanding work.

Today, I’m announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.   And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office.  My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats.  We’ve consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations.  We’ve also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. And now I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.

The situation is increasingly perilous.  It’s been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily.  And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

Many people in the United States — and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much — have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan?  After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there?  And they deserve a straightforward answer.

So let me be clear:  Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.  And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan.  In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier.  This almost certainly includes al Qaeda’s leadership:  Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.  They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan.  For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

But this is not simply an American problem — far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order.  Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul.  If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people — especially women and girls.  The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people.  We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future.  We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:  to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.  That’s the goal that must be achieved.  That is a cause that could not be more just.  And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same:  We will defeat you.

To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy.  To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq.  To enhance the military, governance and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support.  And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan — which is why I’ve appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is here, to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan.

The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people.  They have a rich history and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy.  The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want:  an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law.  The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together.

The terrorists within Pakistan’s borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan — they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan.  Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They’ve killed many Pakistani soldiers and police.  They assassinated Benazir Bhutto.  They’ve blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state.  So make no mistake:  al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.

It’s important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda.  This is no simple task.  The tribal regions are vast, they are rugged, and they are often ungoverned.  And that’s why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists.  And after years of mixed results, we will not, and cannot, provide a blank check.

Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders.  And we will insist that action be taken — one way or another — when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.

The government’s ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security.  To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners.  To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan.  To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people.  And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.

A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone.  Al Qaeda’s offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction.  We stand for something different.  So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years — resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan’s democracy.  I’m also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence.  And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part — including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.

I don’t ask for this support lightly.  These are challenging times.  Resources are stretched.  But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future — because the security of America and Pakistan is shared.  Pakistan’s government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people.  And these steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our efforts in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.

Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility.  And that’s why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretaries Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort.  Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development.

This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe haven that it was before 9/11.  To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy.  Our civilians have made great sacrifices.  Our allies have borne a heavy burden.  Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future.  But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq.  Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

I’ve already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months.  These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.  This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That’s how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home.

For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training.  And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq.  Now, that will change.  The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity.  And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police.  Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner.  We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 — and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort.  Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people.  The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency.  The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future.  Yet once again, we’ve seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

So to advance security, opportunity and justice — not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces — we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That’s how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs.  And that’s why I’m ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground.  That’s also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations — an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it’s tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort.  But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don’t invest in their future.  And that’s why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs.  These investments relieve the burden on our troops.  They contribute directly to security.  They make the American people safer.  And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run — because it’s far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village than to help a farmer seed a crop — or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the special inspector generals for Afghan Reconstruction.

And I want to be clear:  We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders.  Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.

In a country with extreme poverty that’s been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies.  Now, I have no illusion that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda in Iraq.  We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban.  They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.  But there are also those who’ve taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price.  These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course.  And that’s why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province.  As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated.  And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans — including women and girls.

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course.  Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.  We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents.  We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production.  And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

None of the steps that I’ve outlined will be easy; none should be taken by America alone.  The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked.  We have a shared responsibility to act — not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it.  And what’s at stake at this time is not just our own security — it’s the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security.  That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago, and that must be our common purpose today.

My administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe.  As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part.  From our partners and NATO allies, we will seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities:  supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan security forces, a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people.  For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region — our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China.  None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos.  All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.

That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans.  The sacrifices have been enormous.  Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives.  Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price.  All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side.  And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who’ve borne a burden as great as any other generation’s.  They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.

I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan.  Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.  Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries.  Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater number than any other people.  That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan — a future without hope or opportunity; a future without justice or peace.

So understand, the road ahead will be long and there will be difficult days ahead.  But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that promise a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future.  Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity.  That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.

Thank you.  God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The new troop build up he announced is aimed principally at bolstering the Afghan army and turning up the heat on terrorists that Obama said are plotting new attacks against Americans.

He called the situation in the region “increasingly perilous” more than seven years after the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan.

“If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged,” Obama said, “that country will again be a base for terrorists.”

He announced the troop deployment, as well as plans to send hundreds of additional civilians to Afghanistan, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top intelligence and national security figures at his side. The announcement came at the end of an extensive policy review that Obama launched on Afghan-Pakistan policy not long after taking the oath of office.

The 4,000 troops come not long after the new administration approved the dispatch of an additional 17,000 forces to the war-weary nation.

Obama bluntly warned that the al-Qaida terrorists who masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were actively planning further attacks on the United States from safe havens in Pakistan. And he said the Afghanistan government is in peril of falling to the Islamic militants of the Taliban once again.

“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” the president said.

“That is the goal that must be achieved,” Obama added. “That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.”

Obama’s plan will put more U.S. troops and money on the line. He said Pakistan and Afghanistan will be held to account, using benchmarks for progress.

By SEAN MUSSENDEN
Media General News Service

WASHINGTON-Sen. Richard Burr, R-Winston-Salem, delivered the Republican weekly radio address on Saturday and used the moment in the spotlight to criticize the ballooning federal deficit.

“Washington is in a state of denial. Our spending habits haven’t gotten better, they’ve only gotten worse,” he said.

President Obama said this week that he expected the deficit to hit $1.75 trillion this year and $1.2 trillion next year.

“It’s long past time to show restraint and to make the tough choices that will help put our fiscal house in order,” Burr said.

IRAQ PULLOUT
Members of the North Carolina congressional delegation were on hand to watch President Barack Obama announce his Iraq withdrawal timetable Friday at Camp Lejeune.

But it was the absence of one lawmaker that was particularly noteworthy.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-Farmville, represents a district that includes the storied Marine base Obama visited.

Because of a scheduling conflict, Jones was driving home from Washington while Obama was laying out plans to remove all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010.

Though Jones initially voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq, he has come to deeply regret his vote.

He has become perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of the war and is sometimes moved to tears when discussing his vote with reporters and the public.

The walls of his office are covered with pictures of men and women who have died in Iraq since 2003. He blames the Bush administration for manipulating intelligence suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but he also says he should have done a better job reviewing available intelligence himself.

Jones said this week that he was pleased Obama had set a timetable.

“I wish President Bush had said that about four years ago,” he said.

SHULER SPENDING
Rep. Heath Shuler, D-Waynesville, solidified his reputation as one of the most fiscally conservative Democrats in the House by twice voting against the $787 billion stimulus package, one of only a handful of Democrats to do so.

He said many of the spending provisions were wasteful and would do nothing to jump start the economy.
But when it came time to vote this week on another multi-billion-dollar expenditure – the $410 billion budget for the rest of 2009 – Shuler backed it.

Republicans had criticized the measure as stuffed with wasteful earmarks and urged Obama to veto it after it passes the Senate. They expressed concern about the overall level of spending at a time of record deficits.
Shuler said he voted for it because it contained “investments…critical to the future of both our nation and our local communities.”

MCHENRY CENSUS
Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-Cherryville, kept up pressure on the Obama administration over the 2010 Census this week after the president nominated former Washington Gov. Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary.

Obama had chosen Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., for the post. But Gregg decided to step aside after the White House indicated it – not the Commerce Department – would directly oversee the 2010 census.

Before Gregg dropped out, McHenry, the top Republican on a subcommittee that oversees the census, helped flame the dispute by publicly questioning the White House’s decision.

And last week, he sent a letter to Locke asking questions McHenry hopes will come up at Locke’s confirmation hearing in the Senate.

“Do you intend to comply with the partisan ambitions of the President or to fulfill your constitutional obligation as Secretary of Commerce and oversee a fair and accurate 2010 Decennial Census?” McHenry wrote.

Sean Mussenden can be reached at smussenden@mediageneral.com or 202-662-7668.

WASHINGTON  – The United States plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010, 19 months after President Barack Obama’s inauguration, according to administration officials.
 
The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama’s central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration.

The officials said they expect Obama to make the announcement this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

The U.S. military will leave behind a residual force, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to continue advising and training Iraqi security forces, the two officials said. Also staying beyond the 19 months will be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, they said.

A further withdrawal will take place before December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all American troops.

A senior White House official said Tuesday that Obama is at least a day away from making a final decision. He further said an announcement on Wednesday was unlikely, but he said that Obama could discuss Iraq during a trip to North Carolina on Friday.

About 142,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, roughly 14 brigades, about 11,000 above the total in Iraq when President George W. Bush announced in January 2007 that he would “surge” the force to put down the insurgency. He sent an additional 21,000 combat troops to Baghdad and Anbar province.

Although the number of combat brigades has dropped from 20 to 14, the U.S. has increased the number of logistical and other support troops. A brigade is usually about 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

Obama’s campaign promise to withdraw troops in 16 months was based on a military estimate on what would be an orderly pace of removing troops, given the logistical difficulties of removing so many people and tons of equipment, a U.S. military official said.

The 19-month strategy is a compromise between commanders and advisers who are worried that security gains could backslide in Iraq and those who think the bulk of U.S. combat work is long since done.
 
The White House considered at least two other options to withdraw combat forces – one that followed Obama’s 16-month timeline and one that stretched withdrawal over 23 months, the AP reported earlier this month.

Some U.S. commanders have spoken more optimistically in recent months about prospects for reducing the force. Maj. Gen. Michael Oates, who commands U.S. forces in central and southern Iraq, told reporters earlier this month that he believed the gains in stability in that area were now irreversible.

According to officials, Obama had requested a range of options from his top military advisers, including one that would have withdrawn troops in 16 months. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had recently forwarded withdrawal alternatives to the White House for Obama’s consideration.
 
In addition to the U.S. troops to be withdrawn, there is a sizable cadre of contractors who provide services to them who would pack their bags as well. There were 148,050 defense contractor personnel working in Iraq as of December, 39,262 of them U.S. citizens.

There are more than 200 U.S. military installations in Iraq. According to Army officials interviewed by the Government Accountability Office, it can take up to two months to shut down small outposts that hold up to 300 troops. Larger entrenched facilities, like Balad Air Base, could take up to 18 months to close, according to the GAO.

As of Monday, at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. More than 31,000 have been injured.

Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war, according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service.