Envoy dissents on troop boost

Karl Eikenberry’s memos were sent in the days leading up to a critical meeting yesterday between President Obama and his national security team to consider several options prepared by military planners for how to proceed in Afghanistan. The proposals, which mark the last stage of a months-long strategy review, call for between 20,000 to 40,000 more troops and a far broader US involvement in the war.

The Associated Press reported that Obama does not plan to accept any of the options, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when US troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government. The president raised questions that could alter how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and how long they would stay, a senior administration official said, because Obama wants to make it clear that the US commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended.

The last-minute dissent by Eikenberry, who commanded US troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, has rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon - as well as General Stanley McChrystal, said defense officials. McChrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan, has stated that without an increase of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan in the next year, the mission there “will likely result in failure.’’

Eikenberry retired from the military in April 2009 as a senior general in NATO and was sworn in as ambassador the next day. His position as a former commander of US troops in Afghanistan probably will give added weight to his concerns. It will also likely fan growing doubts about US prospects for Afghanistan among an increasingly pessimistic public.

Although Eikenberry’s extensive military experience was one of the main reasons he was chosen by Obama for the top diplomatic job in Afghanistan, the former general had been reluctant as ambassador to weigh in on military issues. Some officials who favor an increase in troops said they were befuddled by last-minute nature of his strongly worded cables.

In his communications with Washington, Eikenberry has expressed deep reservations about Karzai’s erratic behavior and Afghan government corruption, particularly in the senior ranks, said US officials familiar with the cables. US officials were particularly irritated by a interview this week in which Karzai said that the West has little interest in Afghanistan and that its troops are there only for their own reasons. “The West is not here primarily for the sake of Afghanistan,’’ Karzai told PBS. “It is here to fight terrorism. The United States and its allies came to Afghanistan after September 11. Afghanistan was troubled like hell before that, too. Nobody bothered about us.’’

In the cables, Eikenberry also expressed frustration with the relative paucity of money set aside for spending on development and reconstruction this year in Afghanistan. Earlier this summer he asked for $2.5 billion in nonmilitary spending for 2010, a 60 percent increase over what Obama had requested from Congress. But the request has languished.

The ambassador also has worried that sending tens of thousands of additional US troops would increase the Afghan government’s dependence on US support at a time when its security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting.

Eikenberry’s cables emerged as Obama huddled with his national security team yesterday in the White House to discuss options for how to proceed in Afghanistan that at a minimum would send 20,000 additional US troops. Each is accompanied by precise troop figures and estimated annual costs of the additional deployments, which run into the tens of billions of dollars.

Obama, who leaves today on a nine-day trip to Asia, has been seeking a middle ground, as his extended review has found his party largely opposed to expanding the eight-year war and revealed a philosophical division within his administration.