Blogs and Stories

Judith Miller

The Other Quagmire

BS Top - Miller Holbrooke 174 Alex Wong / Getty Images In a Daily Beast exclusive, Judith Miller reveals new details about the new president’s plans for Afghanistan: She confirms the rumored appointment of Richard Holbrooke as special envoy. Plus she reveals the promise of more NATO troops from France, the new administration’s commitment to President Hamid Karzai (despite grumblings about corruption and incompetence), and worries among Obama’s closest advisers that this war may be—contrary to earlier assumptions—as much of a quagmire as Iraq.

For two years now, as a candidate and as president-elect, Barack Obama has steadfastly called Afghanistan the “central front in the war against terror” and vowed to make defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban “the top priority it should be.” Tackling foreign policy on Day One, he has invited Gen. David Petraeus, the recently installed Central Command chief responsible for the Middle East and much of South Asia, to the Oval Office today.

But as the new president takes charge of the Afghan conflict, to which George W. Bush recently committed additional troops, his foreign-policy team is getting nervous.

“You’re beginning to hear the word ‘quagmire’ being whispered in the corridors,” said one transition-team adviser. “What’s the definition of victory? What’s our exit strategy?”

Richard Holbrooke, tipped as special envoy to the region, has called the US foreign-aid program in Afghanistan “the single worst” he’s seen since Vietnam. “It is a recruiting tool for the Taliban.”

Bruce Riedel, a Middle East analyst and 29-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, has emerged as a key adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan. His assessment of the options, says a source working with the transition team, is likely to be filtered into the broader, government-wide policy review that Obama’s team will commission as its first order of foreign policy business.

Obama also urged Vice President-elect Biden to visit Afghanistan and Pakistan in his final days as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because he wanted a fresh, independent view of what a flood of studies have warned is a dire and deteriorating situation. Sure enough, both Biden and his fellow traveler, Lindsey Graham, concluded that “things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan” before they get better, with casualties likely to increase as the 30,000 more troops are deployed.

Meanwhile, Petraeus is conducting his own policy review of his entire region, which is scheduled to be completed in late February, but he will do doubt share its conclusions so far with the president when they meet.

In her confirmation hearings last week, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton dubbed the administration’s new approach to Afghanistan a “more for more” strategy, involving not only more American forces (some military analysts predict that as many as eight to ten brigades, or 60,000 to 75,000 troops, will ultimately be required for five to ten years), but also more support from America’s NATO allies and better governance from Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Pentagon sources say it’s likely that France will announce after Obama’s inauguration that it will add a “significant” number of troops to the roughly 3,500 deployed in Afghanistan as part of the NATO alliance effort.

Back to Top
January 21, 2009 | 8:11pm
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

duffybloom

JUDITH MILLER? As a reliable investigator and reporter? Citing to anonymous 'advisers?" That is rich.

The Beast seems to have come all-over irony-deaf.

|
|
Reply
8:23 am, Jan 21, 2009

phoussa

are you kiddin me! judith miller. how could you possibly buy anything she has to say. did you put her article in just to stir things up? what a sleasy sell out.

|
|
Reply
9:08 am, Jan 21, 2009

moqueuo

As I solemnly promised after reading her first article here, one more "exclusive" from this woman, and it is my last TheDailyBeast read. She represents everything I loath about the war in Iraq, or anywhere else. Ms. Brown, how could you? Let me retract my earlier ill-wish, though; I do not want your website to go the way Talk has. That is rather too mean, but I no longer want to be a part of it.

|
|
Reply
9:10 am, Jan 21, 2009

bongozap

An "exclusive with Judith Miller"?

Your only choice now is to put a big mea culpa on your main page saying, "We're sorry we were so stupid. We realize Judith Miller not particularly honest, credible or accurate in her reporting, but we thought she'd be a lot of fun. Our bad."

Otherwise, you've just placed a big blinking sign on your website that says, "No news, just unsubstantiated rumors and un-sourced silliness."

I'm considering chucking you from my daily news ritual because of this. I'm pretty sure a lot of other folks are too.

|
|
Reply
9:22 am, Jan 21, 2009

bongozap

To run a story by Judith Miller as genuine news, it takes balls...or massive stupidity.

|
|
Reply
9:25 am, Jan 21, 2009

surlybastard

But what about the WMDs?

|
|
Reply
9:42 am, Jan 21, 2009

surlybastard

Yellowcake! Curveball! Chalabi! We remember Judith.

|
|
Reply
9:43 am, Jan 21, 2009

jlongfr

I, too, made that solemn promise never again to visit this site if they printed anything further from this disgraced "journalist." My next click will be to delete the Daily Beast forever from our bookmarks.

|
|
Reply
10:50 am, Jan 21, 2009

bongozap

A judith Miller "exclusive", eh?

In a world always looking for a better, livelier, more accurate and more insightful source of news...you've just made the journalistic equivalent of a face plant.

|
|
Reply
11:04 am, Jan 21, 2009

wontbefooledagain

Credible report by Judith Miller - oxymoron.

Please stop wasting our time with this senseless drivel from a person who has proven again and again that her words are just propaganda and not viable news.

|
|
Reply
11:18 am, Jan 21, 2009

gpmedic

I have to agree with the others - Ms Miller has done nothing to earn the right to the trust of readers. What in this article can be believed? Give the space to someone who does the work of a journalist.

|
|
Reply
11:27 am, Jan 21, 2009

donjelang

Dear Tina,

Enough with Judith Miller!

|
|
Reply
11:34 am, Jan 21, 2009

damselfly1600

JUDITH MILLER -- are you kidding me? I can't believe that anyone is giving this woman the chance to lie to anyone again. I agree with Jlongfr. I'm done with this site. Appalling after selling out the American people in the name of journalism.

|
|
Reply
12:02 pm, Jan 21, 2009

Mary50

Oh come on, people. Didn't you read Drumheller's piece last week? Judith's sources were the same as the CIAs - the anonymous source named, "Curveball" and everyone in the administration as well as the CIA fell for Curveball's claims. Why does everyone think there is some big conspiracy theory all the time? Miller was smeared by her own company, the NYT. If there is any conspiracy theory going on, it's NYT's not-so-hidden agenda.

|
|
Reply
12:46 pm, Jan 21, 2009

jaytingle

I'm just glad I had a NYT subscription to cancel when the Times issued their worthless mea culpa regarding "Squeaky" and her dubious legs-up journalism. Even Arianna would pass on this crap. Goodbye Daily Beast!

|
|
Reply
1:08 pm, Jan 21, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

The Other Quagmire

by Judith Miller

Info
RSS
Judith Miller
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |