VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBU #1314/01 3371317
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 031315Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0136
INFO RHMCSUU/CDR USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES

UNCLAS BUENOS AIRES 001314 
 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR INR/R/MR, I/GWHA, WHA, WHA/PDA, WHA/BSC, WHA/EPSC 
CDR USSOCOM FOR J-2 IAD/LAMA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KPAO KMDR PREL AR
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: DECEMBER 1 PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADDRESS ON 
AFGHANISTAN; 12/03/09; BUENOS AIRES 
 
REF: STATE 122234 
 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DECEMBER 1 ADDRESS ON 
AFGHANISTAN; 12/03/09; BUENOS AIRES 
 
 
 
¶1. SUMMARY STATEMENT 
 
 
 
All local dailies carry wire service stories and opinion pieces on 
President Obama's West Point speech. Press reaction was cautiously 
positive, praising Obama's determination to put an end to the war, 
but questioning the feasibility of the strategy. The general tone 
was one of skepticism, with most journalists portraying the 
decision to send more troops as a risky bet and questioning whether 
withdrawal would really begin in 2011. Several articles also noted 
the lack of support for the new strategy by European and ISAF 
countries. Key themes were: President Obama's need to beat back the 
Taliban and bring a quicker end to a "costly and unpopular" 
eight-year-long war; the lengthy internal debate about the new 
strategy, which allegedly took several months with President Obama 
meeting not only with members of his Cabinet but with military and 
political advisors as well; President Obama's request for 
additional troops from European countries; concern about increased 
military expenditures given the high U.S. unemployment rate and 
deficit; lack of support for the new strategy by EU and ISAF 
countries; skepticism from some Obama advisers about investing more 
troops and money when the Kabul government is widely seen as 
corrupt and inept; and opinion polls indicating high percentages of 
rejection of the war in Afghanistan. The opinion piece written by 
daily-of-record "La Nacion's" Washington-based correspondent, 
Silvia Pisani, is more critical than the paper's usual pro-US 
editorial position on the issue. 
 
 
 
¶2. FRONT-PAGE HEADLINES 
 
 
 
-   Daily-of-record "La Nacion": "Obama's bet: more troops to 
Afghanistan." 
 
 
 
¶3. IN-PAGE HEADLINES 
 
 
 
-   Daily-of-record "La Nacion": "Obama bets on deploying more 
troops (in Afghanistan)." 
 
 
 
-   Leading circulation "Clarin": "Afghanistan: US will send 30,000 
more troops but will withdraw in 2011." 
 
 
 
-   Centrist "Critica": "Barack Obama goes out to hunt the 
Taliban." 
 
 
 
-   Business-financial "El Cronista": "Obama will send 30,000 more 
troops to Afghanistan and promises to withdraw in 2011." 
 
 
 
-   Business-financial "Buenos Aires Economico": "Obama takes a 
risk: he will send 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan to obtain a 
'fast' victory." 
 
 
 
-   Business-financial "Ambito Financiero": "Obama will send 30,000 
more troops to Afghanistan (withdrawal will start in 2011)." 
 
 
 
-   Left-of-center "Pagina 12": "Obama launches his 'Game over' 
plan." "Obama's war plan divides the EU: two (countries) will send 
(additional) troops and two others will not." 
 
 
-   Liberal, English-language "Buenos Aires Herald": "Obama to 
speed troop deployment to Afghanistan." 
 
 
 
-   Conservative "La Prensa": "Obama sends additional troops to 
Afghanistan." 
 
 
 
¶4. OPINION SUMMARIES 
 
 
 
-   "A risky decision that could mark his presidency" 
 
 
 
Silvia Pisani, daily-of-record "La Nacion," opines (12/02), "This 
is the riskiest decision of the Obama administration, and perhaps 
the most difficult to understand. A Nobel Prize winner has just 
announced more war. 
 
 
 
"Never before have the rates of rejection of the Afghanistan war 
been so high, with only four of every 10 Americans willing to 
understand why one should be killed there. 
 
 
 
"Obama's step will imply a military expenditure that his fellow 
citizens do not want: in total, some 30 billion dollars per year 
now that the unemployment rate is higher than 10 per cent. 
 
 
 
"Obama addressed a difficult audience, an international community 
that will hardly be satisfied with this. He spoke to some people 
who do not want more war, lawmakers who do not want to approve more 
expenditures, soldiers that are not sure of what they are doing in 
a foreign land and who have the highest rate of suicides ever 
known. 
 
 
 
"For sure, a long time will have passed before the sense of this 
decision is known. Before this is unveiled, Obama will travel to 
Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize." 
 
 
 
-   "Afghanistan: the US will send 30,000 more troops but it will 
withdraw in 2011" 
 
 
 
Ana Baron, leading "Clarin's" Washington-based correspondent, 
writes (12/02), "The number of Americans who compare the 
confrontation in Afghanistan with the war in Vietnam has increased 
remarkably during recent months. This is why President Barack Obama 
announced yesterday that he will send 30,000 more troops to 
Afghanistan while he set July 2011 to start the US withdrawal from 
the country. However, is his strategy realistic? 
 
 
 
"Obama's goal is weakening the Taliban so that Afghan security 
forces can have time and room to develop and can eventually be 
replaced by US troops. The second mission of the US troops to be 
sent to Afghanistan will be to train Afghan security forces to take 
charge when the time comes. 
 
 
 
"While Obama made clear that the 100,000 US soldiers will gradually 
start their withdrawal from Afghanistan, there will be US military 
presence for a long time." 
 
 
 
-   "Barack Obama will go out to hunt the Taliban" 
 
 
Macarena Vidal, centrist "Critica's" Washington-based 
correspondent, highlights (12/02), "The White House's new strategy 
is 'to dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda network and prevent its return 
to Afghanistan.' For this purpose, Obama will increase the number 
of troops at a much faster rhythm than currently. In this way, he 
wants to speed up the training of Afghan forces so that they can 
take charge of the country's security by 2011, when US troops will 
start withdrawing from the country. 
 
 
 
"With this measure, Obama wants to ensure US citizens (who are 
increasingly disappointed with the war) that the stay of troops 
does not have an 'unlimited nature.' The only thing Obama did not 
commit himself to announce is the date when the withdrawal will be 
finished or its rhythm. That will be subject to the 'field 
conditions.'" 
 
 
 
-   "Two (countries) will send (additional) troops and two will 
not" 
 
 
 
Left-of-center "Pagina 12's" Paris-based correspondent Eduardo 
Febbro writes (12/02) "Two countries will send troops and two will 
not. For different reasons, France and Germany refused to send 
additional troops to Afghanistan as requested by President Barack 
Obama. For their part, UK and Spain will endorse the US President's 
strategy. 
 
 
 
"Nonetheless, even with the additional troops from the UK and 
Spain, Barack Obama will not obtain from his allies the 10,000 
additional troops he had requested. 
 
 
 
"Out of the 45 country-members of the International Security 
Assistance Force (of which 26 are NATO members), just a few are 
willing to support Obama's new strategy. 
 
 
 
"Obama's strategy has exasperated many Europeans due to the slow 
implementation of his strategy. Several capital cities consider 
their men have been suffering for eight years and have contributed 
more than what they should to the Afghan cause. The absolutely 
military option has not generated consensus among his allies, 
particularly when Afghan President Hamid Karzai has become an 
embarrassing ally due to the corruption that marked his first term 
in office and the massive fraud in his re-election Afghanistan is 
for many experts a dead-end ally." 
 
 
 
To see more Buenos Aires reporting, visit our 
 
classified website at: 
 
  
http://www.state.sqov.gov/p/wha/buenosaires 
 
 
 
MARTINEZ 
MARTINEZ