In an interview with NBC's Savannah Guthrie, President Obama said his administration may have a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan before the runoff election -- but he still may not announce it until after the results are determined.
"I think it is entirely possible that we have a strategy formulated before a runoff is determined. We may not announce it," he said.
"It is important to make sure that we understand the landscape and the partner we're gonna be dealing with," he said, because the strategy depends on civilian efforts and weeding out corruption, as well as military forces.
Part of his strategy decision includes whether to send more troops. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has requested 40,000 more troops.
"We're gonna take the time to get this right," Obama said, but added that "We're not gonna drag this out. ... The sooner we get a sound approach in place and personnel in place, the better off we're going to be."
Some, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), have said Obama should make a decision before the runoff.
But Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), after a meeting with Obama at the Oval Office today, said it's "common sense" that he would wait until after the election.
Kerry just returned from Afghanistan where he helped persuade President Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff.
Presidential elections were held this summer, but evidence of widespread fraud and corruption caused UN-backed investigators to throw out a third of Karzai's votes. Karzai and his main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, will compete in a runoff election Nov. 7.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

RobbyLove
October 21, 2009 4:19 PM
Why? Because after the runoff the government won't be corrupt? Because we think there won't be fraud in the election? What, exactly, do we think will be different after the runoff?
Regardless of whether Abdullah or Karzai wins, or there is a coalition established, the stench of the Afghan government will be the same.
This is mealy-mouthed foot dragging at its worst.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 21, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to RobbyLove
Nonsense. A coalition Gov. based on a power-sharing agreement on the run-off results would be a basis for improving legitimacy of the central Gov. and as a way to move forward in fighting the corruption which you seem to think is a valid basis for invalidating any and all government in Kabul.
You seem intent on accusing the administration of being mealy-mouthed and foot dragging, facts or legitimate reason for careful deliberation and the legitimate need for assessing the political realities on the ground in Afghanistan be damned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
October 21, 2009 5:44 PM in reply to RobbyLove
"What, exactly, do we think will be different after the runoff?"
If the situation is so hopeless do you suggest we leave now and hope for a hail Mary pass against Al'Qaida?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RobbyLove
October 21, 2009 6:30 PM in reply to FebM
So you guys think the runoff will not have ballot stuffing? You think whatever government is in place will be less corrupt, even with the same people in place? That's just plain ol' head-in-the-sand ignorance.
Worse, does the President really think this, too? I don't believe he does. That's why I say it's mealy-mouthed foot dragging.
Logically, we know the Afghan government won't be any different. It's just going to be another shade of puke. So this claim about waiting until the election is over is an obvious stalling tactic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billjamieson
October 21, 2009 6:46 PM in reply to RobbyLove
It would be irresponsible for the president to repeat the Bush mistake of sending soldiers and Marines into harm’s way without doing proper diligence. Obama must tap the best minds among the nation’s military and civilian leaders, and then build a consensus war strategy that can gain the support of the American people. He needs to enlist the support of our allies, ensure that the political leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan will make trustworthy partners, and that we have the human, hardware and financial resources to stay the course.
It seems clear to me that the only way to “win” in central Asia is to win the hearts and minds of a people whose culture we haven’t taken the time to understand. Our tactics-without-strategy have hardened Pakistani and Afghani hearts against us and filled their minds with hatred. Bombing villages, destroying homes and killing civilians who we dismiss as collateral damage is a sure way to lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
some other george
October 21, 2009 4:24 PM
so, when Dubya was president did NBC and other MSM put words like "gonna" in his mouth when quoting him? Intentionally demeaning? We report, you decide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RobbyLove
October 21, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to some other george
And did they put all of the "........" pauses in there every time W needed to jump-start a brain cell or two?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 21, 2009 4:45 PM
I think Obama is doing just as he should in this case. I amn glad he is taking his time. I hope he says No to McKrystal and Gates. I think its time to replace Gates too
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GBHeron
October 21, 2009 5:25 PM
Lieberman opposes it? That's all I need to know. Waiting until after the runoff now has my full support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?