<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>LittleAlex's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>http://www.intensedebate.com/users/494028</link>
		<description>Comments by LittleAlex</description>
<item>
<title>News From Antiwar.com : Report: Obama Rules Out 'Biden Option' on Afghanistan</title>
<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/#IDComment37762056</link>
<description>The New York Times was reporting yesterday that the &amp;quot;Biden Option&amp;quot; isn&amp;#039;t the &amp;quot;significant reduction in troops&amp;quot; the London Times is reporting it is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wp.me/pnWUd-22n&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://wp.me/pnWUd-22n&lt;/a&gt;  From my understanding, the &amp;quot;Biden Option&amp;quot; is a remobilization of troops to the border, away from policing, to underplay the perception of propping up Kabul with the strategy shift of an &amp;#039;intel surge&amp;#039; and strong-arming the Pak gov&amp;#039;t to put ISAF troops alongside the Pak Army on the ground. I could be wrong, but Obama officials said after that meeting that a &amp;quot;significant reduction in troops&amp;quot; wasn&amp;#039;t even an option on the table, yet the &amp;quot;Biden Option&amp;quot; still is, from what I gathered in that NYT report. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Oct 2009 02:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/#IDComment37762056</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>
