Cutting to the chase

A collection of great quotes from this Washington Post story make it much more quick fun to read. If you're really in a hurry, I hit bold on the key points - but that's about all that's bold about them:

Congressional Democrats have begun promoting a compromise package of additional resources for Afghanistan that would emphasize training for Afghan security forces but deny Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal the additional combat troops he has indicated he needs to regain the initiative against the Taliban insurgency.
<...>
"We basically need a much larger Afghan army much quicker -- that's the bottom line, that's the winning strategy," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
<...>
Levin's argument is echoed by many Democrats in the Senate, which is set to vote this week on a $636 billion defense appropriations bill, including $128 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
<...>
Last week, a Senate panel stripped $900 million from the administration's $6.6 billion request to train and equip Afghan security forces.
In the past, Vice President Biden has advocated a strategy of shrinking the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and concentrating on disrupting al-Qaeda and its allies through drone strikes and Special Forces operations. Now anti-war Democrats on the Hill are pushing for that option.

"We should use the same approach that we take in parts of the world that we have not invaded," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, citing U.S. operations in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said history demands that the administration and Congress vet the mission before committing more forces. "In Vietnam...
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said: "...It's clear we're at a major decision point in Afghanistan, and unfortunately it comes as we're at a major decision point on health care, a major decision point on climate change, a major decision point on financial regulation and the economy," he said.
Much of the opposition to the war is rooted in Obama's political base, which is angry that he is ending one war in Iraq only to expand another in Afghanistan, even though he pledged in his campaign to do just that.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made clear in a meeting with Post editors this week that he supports the counterinsurgency strategy that Obama endorsed in March and that is the basis of McChrystal's plan.

"Basically I share [McChrystal's] view," Rasmussen said. The right policy, he added, "is definitely not an exit strategy. It's of crucial importance to stress that we will stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country."

Rasmussen's comments at the White House...

Of course, our main focus today has been our cooperation in Afghanistan. I say "our" focus deliberately because our operation in Afghanistan is not America's responsibility or burden alone. It is and it will remain a team effort. I agree with President Obama in his approach: strategy first, then resources. The first thing is not numbers. It is to find and fine-tune the right approach to implement the strategy already laid down, and all NATO allies are right now looking at McChrystal's review.

I'm convinced that success in Afghanistan is achievable and will be achieved. And don't make any mistake -- the normal discussion on the right approach should not be misinterpreted as lack of resolve. This Alliance will stand united and we will stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to finish our job.

Q The President today in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary General said that he defined the mission in Afghanistan as dismantling, disrupting, destroying the al Qaeda network, and effectively working with the Afghan government to provide the security necessary for that country. What -- how would you define "effectively working with the Afghan government to provide the security necessary for their country"? Can you explain more what he means by that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think you've got -- I think, as you've seen in places around the world, we've -- while we can help the security environment in the short term, there has to be a training mission for police and security forces that that country can use to secure their own territory, because we cannot stay there forever. Eventually the functions of security and the functions of policing are going to have to be assumed by the Afghans. So obviously some robust training mission has to happen.

Q That's what you mean by -- just kind of open-ended concept of --

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q -- they need to be able to arm themselves and protect themselves?

MR. GIBBS: They have to be able to secure their own physical territory.

Q But that's obviously not the case right now.

MR. GIBBS: And that's why -- that's part of what the President talked about in March and part of what is in -- obviously in the assessment from General McChrystal.
<...>
Q Robert, was Rasmussen speaking for the President when he said today in the Oval Office, "We will stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes"?

MR. GIBBS: Obviously, I'm not going to get into parsing the words of --

Q It's pretty straightforward.

MR. GIBBS: I understand, I just don't currently hold the position of his spokesperson.

Q Well, does the President agree with that?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President believes that we have to do -- we have to, as I said earlier, disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven that would allow it to plan the type of activities that we saw happen in September of 2001 in this country.

Q And that is the objective for which the U.S. will stay in Afghanistan, as long as it takes?

MR. GIBBS: That is the objective of our U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Sweden looks to boost Afghanistan force - "to 630 by 2011". That will probably earn them some scorn from some quarters (I'll pass) - but this quote suggests they don't have a whole lot of faith in "reliable partners" in the effort:

The government and the Social Democrats came to an agreement last autumn that the Swedish force in Afghanistan should be increased to 500 people.

The total number of personnel involved is actually 855, but that includes staff ready to assist with a possible evacuation of the troops from Afghanistan.

Of more interest in the story, this:

The news of Sweden's desire to increase its military presence in Afghanistan comes on the same day that EU defence ministers meeting in Gothenburg agreed that EU nations will wait for results of Afghanistan's elections and for a US decision on strategy there before looking at possible troop reinforcements.
<...>
"This is a debate that must be first held in the United States, before we begin speaking about it at NATO," said German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung, recalling that Germany's contribution is capped at 4,500 troops.

He underlined that any future efforts must involve civilians as much as troops.

French General Henri Bentegeat -- the head of the European Union's military committee grouping the 27-nation bloc's top brass -- said that "a margin does exist of course" to send more troops.

"But it's a question of political willingness," he cautioned.

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.