Mop needed. Plumber, too

When it comes to Afghanistan - America's top national security concern today - the "leaks" from the administration have amounted to a flood, with new and seemingly contradictory reports appearing daily in the global media. It's been going on for months, but now President Obama says it's "not appropriate".

Here's a look back at the history of the problem.

CBS - Obama: I'd Fire Afghan Decision Leakers.

"We have deliberations in the situation room for a reason; we're making life and death decisions that affect how our troops are able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing info in the course of deliberations is not appropriate."

"A firing offense?" Reid inquired.

"Absolutely," Mr. Obama responded.

In the same interview, "the president said it's still several weeks before he makes a decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan." He told CNN "we are very close to a decision" on Afghanistan, and "I will announce that decision, certainly in the next several weeks."

Earlier this month, sources revealed to ABC News that "as of now President Obama will likely announce his decision about a new strategy in Afghanistan at some point between the Afghan run-off election, November 7, and the president's departure for Tokyo, Japan, on Wednesday, November 11." But almost immediately afterward other sources revealed that it "appears increasingly likely that Obama will not announce his new Afghanistan strategy until after returning to the United States on Nov. 20." But late last week a leak from senior U.S. officials revealed that

Ambassador Eikenberry's memos expressed "deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said."

...and that could be cause for further delay.

The Gates comparison from the CBS story ("Reid says he asked the president if he's as angry as Defense Secretary Robert Gates about all the leaks...") was in reference to a recent report headlined "Gates Lashes Out at Leakers" in which the secretary was quoted as saying "I am appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on."

"If I found out who" was involved, he said, "it would probably be a career ender."

He also expressed concerns over the complexity of the president's approach to Afghanistan: "How do we signal resolve, and at the same time, signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended?" However, the fact that those were actually administration concerns wasn't officially leaked until the following day:

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to reflect the details and tone of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president's insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy.

As for possible troop numbers, while late October leaks had indicated the president was leaning towards a smaller number, ("...what one official described as "McChrystal Light''), in early November McClatchy declared Obama leaning toward 34,000 more troops for Afghanistan - but noted that "the officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss internal administration planning, cautioned that Obama's decision isn't final.

CBS quickly trumped that story with the dramatic announcement that "informed sources tell CBS News [Obama] intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for". That report prompted an administration response CBS described as "attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones":

Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false.

Last week, McClatchy revealed that according to their sources (no less than six military and administration officials who had requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly), those leaks had "deprived Eikenberry and other officials of the ability to tell Karzai that no more American troops will be forthcoming if he doesn't agree to implement reforms." And worse...

The Obama administration's internal debate over Afghan policy has escalated into a battle of media leaks that's straining relations between officials who're seeking a major troop increase and those who want a more limited approach and a greater focus on domestic priorities.

The feud also has poisoned ties between the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan and the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, and left the administration struggling for leverage to press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to appoint untainted officials to his new government, attack corruption and share power with the parliament and provincial officials.
<...>
A U.S. defense official said the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, feels he was "stabbed in the back" by Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan...

However, they added in perhaps unintentional hilarity, "The official, like others who were interviewed for this article, requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. However, according to a half-dozen U.S. military and administration officials..."

So that might explain why the president is starting to get upset about leaks.

Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman recently described a dramatic scene inside the White House...

It was a tense meeting this morning at the White House, as Ambassador Karl Eikenberry addressed the National Security Council by teleconference from Kabul just hours after the media got hold of his dissent on the crucial question of sending more troops to Afghanistan. "He is very unpopular here," said a National Security Council staffer who described the meeting.

No one was happy to read in The Washington Post that Eikenberry, who commanded the war himself from 2005 to 2007, thinks that the Karzai government needs to demonstrate its commitment to anti-corruption measures before the administration can responsibly authorize another troop increase. The prevailing theory is that "he leaked his own cables" because "he has a beef with McChrystal," the staffer said.

...however, unlike most reporters who have been recipients of leaks, Ackerman later retracted the story: "My original source for the post stands by the account provided. The individual, a National Security Council staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity, has provided truthful and verified information on past stories, and so I trusted the source for this one..." But "White House spokesman Tommy Vietor says he checked with Amb. Eikenberry's office and the teleconference call reported in this post did not occur."

General McChrystal's Afghan report was leaked on September 21.

[Woodward] said he was given the McChrystal report for use in a book about the administration that he plans to publish next year, but he realized that its blunt assessment of Afghanistan, as President Obama is deciding whether to send more troops, "would have been overtaken by events."

"I went back to the source or sources and said, 'This definitely belongs in the newspaper,' and they agreed," Woodward said.

The president, one adviser said, is "taking a very deliberate, rational approach, starting at the top" of what he called a "logic chain" that begins with setting objectives, followed by determining a methodology to achieve them. Only when the first two steps are completed, he said, can the third step -- a determination of resources -- be taken.

"Who's to say we need more troops?" this official said. "McChrystal is not responsible for assessing how we're doing against al-Qaeda."

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he'd stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

One Pentagon source said that the leak of the assessment probably came from McChrystal's staff and represented an increased effort by counterinsurgency-focused officers in theater to pressure the administration to raise troop levels, in light of what they see as Obama's wobbling on the issue.

"The secretary of defense does not believe that General McChrystal or his team was responsible for leaking this sensitive information," Morrell continued. "Nor are we wasting our time playing Washington parlor games trying to figure out who did it. ... We have better things to do."

Meanwhile, in an attributed quote, Hillary Clinton announced "there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite." Unfortunately, she didn't name them.

Shortly after, a 'leak' from 'officials' revealed Joe Biden* as head of the opposition (a role he would never confirm or deny):

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden's suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence.

There were actually multiple 'leaks' in this story before the McChrystal report was 'leaked', but that leak was required to really get people's attention. In August, a leak revealed the due-date of McChrystal's report was changed in a secret meeting:

The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote.

A separate leak revealed that "President Barack Obama next month will send Congress a new plan for measuring progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in an effort to build confidence among wavering Democrats and give sharper direction to a costly and increasingly bloody war, White House officials told POLITICO on Saturday." The same story predicted additional leaks could follow:

The document will include specific metrics under nine broad objectives -- some of them classified, and divided roughly half for Afghanistan and half for Pakistan. The list has not been released, but is likely to leak after it goes to lawmakers.

Shortly thereafter, the London Times revealed that "The United States should send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a senior adviser to the American commander in Kabul has told The Times." His name was actually given in the report, however, other reports suggested that "several officials who have taken part in Gen. McChrystal's 60-day review of the war effort said they expect him to ultimately request as many as 10,000 more troops". But according to sources, McChrystal had been told to separate the troop request from his assessment explaining how the numbers were determined.

Regardless of how he resolves the internal debate on troop numbers, Gen. McChrystal's coming report won't include any specific requests for more U.S. troops. Those numbers would instead be detailed in a follow-on document that is set to be delivered to Washington a few weeks after the assessment.

So following the leak of the assessment, as September came to an end "General McChrystal's troop request, which has not been made public, was given to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the general in a meeting in Germany on Friday." Actually, a secret meeting in Germany that was revealed to Fox News (and other sources) via a leak. The story also repeated previous leaks that McChrystal's request would include a large number, a medium number, and a small number of troops, with each figure tied to a probability of success.

The New York Times would credit multiple sources ("officials", "people briefed on the discussion", "White House aides", "some advisers", "other officers", "an Army official, who asked not to be identified because General McChrystal's troop request had not been made public", and "others") for its story headlined "Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers", a story that also said "General McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops" for Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, "officials" leaked additional details of what other officials claimed was the Biden* plan:

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden's suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

And "...a senior defense official said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates now worries that counterinsurgency might no longer be a viable approach for countering the Taliban violence roiling once-stable parts of north and west Afghanistan."

As October began, the Washington Post headlined that according to leaks they'd received, "White House Eyeing Narrower War Effort".

Senior White House officials have begun to make the case for a policy shift in Afghanistan that would send few, if any, new combat troops to the country...

In a three-hour meeting Wednesday at the White House, senior advisers challenged some of the key assumptions in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's blunt assessment...

But White House officials are resisting McChrystal's call for urgency... One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, "A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day."

Among them, according to three senior administration officials who attended the meeting, is McChrystal's contention...

However, in a report on General McChrystal's London speech, the UK's Telegraph would attempt to break the Guiness record for number of vaguely-sourced leaks in one story:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
<...>
An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
<...>
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
<...>
A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."

Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination.
<...>
White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.
<...>
As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

Within days, a New York Times headline declared "Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force". They identified their source for that leaked information from a closed-door meeting between the president and congressional officials as "White House officials".

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there...

Meeting with leaders from both parties at the White House, Mr. Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to "dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan," as White House officials later described his remarks.

The story also cited "several people in the room", "one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting", "participants", and "those in attendance".

Meanwhile, back at the Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran revealed that "With the costs now clearer, some officials at the National Security Council and the State Department who voiced support for counterinsurgency in March have started to consider other options."

"It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes," said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.

Shortly thereafter the president won the Nobel Peace Prize. The following day, the London Times quoted a "senior official" who said that "President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander".

Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call.

Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander.

And while George Stephanopoulus might have thought his leak (describing "key questions tied to any troop recommendation" revolved around the future of the Afghan Government) was a scoop...

Several Administration officials tell me that President Obama's national security team will generate new military and strategic options for Afghanistan beyond the recommendations already presented by General Stanley McChrystal...

Several of the principals involved in Obama's strategy review have told me that their ultimate position on troop levels will depend on whether a plausible government, newly committed to reform, emerges when the Afghanistan election process is finally completed.

However, Martha Raddatz had quite a bombshell: "The troop request on the desks of the president and his national security team outlines three options, according to a source familiar with the document." That was hardly news, but the newly-leaked numbers were:

One path is not to send anymore troops to Afghanistan, considered a "high risk option." The second is to send 40,000 troops, and the third calls for a major increase in troops, far more than 40,000.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, according to the source, recommends the "middle" option of 40,000 as the minimum number needed to have a chance of success in Afghanistan...

And "Other sources who have seen the request say the high number of troops requested is 80,000."

That was certainly different than Klein's (and everyone else's) earlier report: "...the military's all-in option, a request for 40,000 more troops, is just that: an option. It is the upper end of three options that McChrystal has offered the President, I'm told; the low option was 10,000 troops, and the middle one was 25,000."

Meanwhile, Newsweek reported (in a long cover story on Joe Biden*) that everything you'd heard about "his" plan for Afghanistan ("Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence... American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan") was wrong:

Biden has been incorrectly characterized as a dove who wants to pull out of Afghanistan. In fact, according to his "Counterterrorism-Plus" paper, he wants to maintain a large troop presence. He also favors a greater emphasis on training Afghan troops--and defending Kabul and Kandahar--than on chasing the Taliban around the countryside, and he wants more diplomatic efforts to try to peel away those Taliban who can be bought with money or other inducements (like political power).

However, they did not reveal their source for (or publish) "his Counterterrorism-Plus" paper".

In England, leaks had become so confusing that The Guardian would report "Obama quietly deploying 13,000 more US troops to Afghanistan" - a story based on original leaks to the Washington Post, but completely wrong.

As the end of October neared...

President Obama's advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.

Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision and has other options available to him, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed.
<...>
One administration official said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, had briefed Mr. Obama's advisers on how he would deploy any new troops under the approach being considered by the White House. The first two additional combat brigades would go south, including one to Kandahar, while a third would be sent to eastern Afghanistan and a fourth would be used flexibly across the nation, said the official, who like others insisted on anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

A "senior administration official who has participated in the Afghanistan policy review and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it" told the Washington Post that Obama had requested data on provincial governments. ...the Post reports the request for detail "reflects the administration's turn toward Afghanistan's provincial governors, tribal leaders and local militias as potentially more effective partners in the effort than a historically weak central government that is confronting questions of legitimacy after the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election".

Earlier in the month, Republicans had begun earnestly attacking the president for what they considered "dithering" on Afghanistan.

And that brings us to November, where our story began with reports of 40,000 troops approaching Afghanistan, according to officials. Last week the New York Times reported:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama has not made a decision about his new military strategy for Afghanistan. And the White House is happy to say so.

It's been 22 days since Mr. Obama was first accused by former Vice President Dick Cheney of "dithering" as he decides about sending more troops to Afghanistan. An announcement is still very likely at least two weeks away -- perhaps more -- and White House officials have purposely made no apologies for the extended timetable.

"Contrary to published reports," an administration official said late Wednesday, "the president has not made a decision about the options presented."

Officials said that in the meeting, the eighth in the Situation Room on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last two months, Mr. Obama pressed for clarifications on a series of questions.

As far as that "series of questions" goes, Bob Woodward (who you may recall started all the fun in the first place) "revealed that the President has no fewer than 32 issues on the table that need answers before he can decide how to go forward on Afghanistan. We're not sure who he heard that from.

And while we've barely scratched the surface of leak reports over the last few months, now that the leaking has stopped perhaps the president will get on to the other 31.

Update - the Washington Post today:

President Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday, senior aides said Thursday.
<...>
Obama said in interviews Wednesday that he would reveal his decision within the next several weeks. On Thursday, aides clarified that there would be no announcement before Thanksgiving, one week away. Senior administration officials said Obama intends to meet with his national security team again before going public with his plans.

*Footnote: Joe Biden is Vice President of the United States.