Obama Immigration Plan: More Direct Path to Citizenship Than Senate's

Obama Immigration Plan: More Direct Path to Citizenship Than Senate's

President Barack Obama is expected to lay out his principles for immigration reform in a speech in Las Vegas today that will include a potentially quicker path to citizenship than the bipartisan plan a group of senators unveiled earlier this week. 

The president will offer some new details about the White House's immigration reform plan, which expands on a blueprint it released in 2011, a senior administration official told ABC News. But for now Obama will stop short of offering his own piece of legislation because of the progress made by the Senate "Gang of Eight."

 

The White House has sounded positive notes about the Senate group's plan thus far, but the specifics that Obama announces are expected to have some key differences that might cause concern for some Republican senators who have signed onto the senate deal. 

Like the senators' plan, Obama's proposal calls for a pathway to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. The senators' plan would grant "probationary legal status" immediately to eligible undocumented immigrants, but would not allow them to apply for permanent legal status, or a green card, until the border is deemed to be secure. Think of that as a trigger system. 

On the other hand, administration officials told media outlets that they believe a path to citizenship needs to be more straightforward. They believe a trigger system, like the one in the senate plan, could lead to a state of legal limbo for the undocumented immigrants who receive legal status, The Washington Post reported. 

The border-security-first plan, however, is essential to Republican senators who signed onto the Senate "Gang of Eight" deal. 

"I will not be supporting any law that does not ensure that the enforcement things happen," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the group, told conservative blogger Ed Morrissey on his web radio show. 

Obama's plan is likely to include language that would allow same-sex bi-national couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post reported. Under current law, gays and lesbians who are married to U.S. citizens under state laws cannot obtain a green card. Obama's plan would allow them a path to citizenship, but the issue is not mentioned in the Senate "Gang of Eight" proposal. 

As noted by the Post, that language may anger Christian groups who have signaled they would support comprehensive immigration reform. 

But the White House remains optimistic about the progress that has been made so far. An official described the senators' announcement as a "breakthrough" to ABC News because it wasn't clear whether Republicans would sign on to any path to citizenship. 

Some observers couched the Senate group's decision to come out with his plan a day before Obama as an attempt to outfox the White House politically. But administration officials told media outlets they remain generally pleased with the plan and believe that the president's speech could build momentum for a final bill.

The White House reiterated that the president was very encouraged by the Senate's proposal since it includes a pathway to citizenship that is endorsed by Republicans, who have previously opposed immigration reform that includes such a path. 

"Our focus is that this is a positive development," White House spokesman Luis Miranda told ABC/Univision. "We feel very positive that there is a proposal in the first place and that it is consistent with what the president has supported in the past." 

The White House clarified that it is withholding judgment on language in the Senate framework that requires a border security "trigger" to obtain a green card until actual legislative language is released by the senators.

"What we have said is that there needs to be a clear path to citizenship," said Miranda. "We'll wait to see what they flesh out."

Obama embraces progressive agenda in second inaugural address

President Barack Obama Inaugural

Obama embraces progressive agenda in second inaugural address

President Barack Obama delivered a forceful defense of the nation's safety net programs, and vowed to expand gay rights and tackle the problem of climate change in his second inaugural address Monday afternoon.

The speech was a bolder and more specific defense of the president's liberal governing vision than the address he gave four years ago. For his first inaugural address, Obama stuck to a broader outline of his ideals and called on politicians to overcome partisan differences and work together in the face of economic crisis.

On national television and before a crowd of hundreds of thousands of spectators who descended on the Mall, Obama staunchly reiterated his belief that gay people should be allowed to marry.

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law–-for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Obama said. He also mentioned the gay rights Stonewall Riots of the 1960s in the same breath as the Selma civil rights marches.

In the same section of the speech, the president made oblique references to gun violence, equal pay for women and immigration reform. He called for "all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown" to be kept safe from harm.

Earlier in the speech, Obama said to avoid the problem of climate change would "betray our children and future generations," signaling he may also make that issue a key piece of his second-term agenda. He abandoned efforts during his first term to push for so-called "cap and trade" legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The president challenged critics who have argued that the government must reduce its spending and cut back on social welfare programs, including Obama's health care reform law. Obama said that the country must reduce its deficit, but that the nation must work to protect equality of opportunity, in what seemed to be a reference to his battles with congressional Republicans over taxing and spending.

"We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own," he said.

Obama argued that the nation's entitlement programs make America stronger because they protect this chance at equality. "We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm," Obama said. "The commitments we make to each other–-through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security--these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."

The president also warned in the 2,095-word speech that the country cannot succeed if a "shrinking few" succeed economically while the middle class suffers.

Beyonce, Katy Perry to perform at star-studded inauguration

President Barack Obama's inauguration is shaping up to be an event as star-studded as any red carpet, with performances from heavy-hitters like Beyonce, Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, Stevie Wonder, Alicia Keys, Usher and Brad Paisley.

Beyonce will sing the national anthem and James Taylor will sing "America the Beautiful" on the West Front of the Capitol on Monday in Washington. Clarkson will sing "My Country 'Tis of Thee." Planners of the event said the president personally selected the performers.

Pop-rock trio fun., who had a wild year with two No. 1 hits, a near-platinum album and six Grammy nominations, will perform for first lady Michelle Obama, Sasha and Malia and Jill Biden on Saturday at the Kids' Inaugural Ball."It's been amazing year, and 2013 is kicking off with us doing the inauguration ... it's just an incredible thing," said lead singer Nate Ruess. "I think the three of us care so much about Obama and so to be invited, I can't even deal."

The band will be joined at the concert by Perry, Wonder, Keys, Usher, Smokey Robinson, Paisley, Marc Anthony, Mindless Behavior, Nick Cannon and the cast of "Glee."

"I think they're all very talented people. Stevie's my brother and so is Usher," Robinson said in an interview. "I know Katy...I'm very happy to be performing among them."

While there will be no shortage of star power, it's not quite a repeat of the 2009 inauguration when everyone who's anyone flocked to Washington for a televised concert on the Mall.

The first time around, Beyonce was a surprise guest, singing the Etta James classic "At Last" for the Obamas' first dance. Her husband, Jay-Z, was another surprise at the private staff ball, singing "99 Problems but George Bush Ain't One." The Jonas Brothers -- then favorites of the Obama girls -- performed at the kids' concert and U2, Springsteen and so many others performed on the Mall.

There may still be surprises in store, but plenty of performances are assured. Keys, Paisley, Chris Cornell, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Hudson and Anthony will perform at the Commander-in-Chief's Ball on Monday.

Will.i.am, who debuted the song "New Day" at 2009's inauguration, will be at a number of events, including OurTime.org's "General Now Party" on Saturday, which also includes John Legend, Jessica Alba, Common and Flo Rida. Eva Longoria will host the "In Performance at the Kennedy Center" event, which celebrates Latino arts and culture, and will feature Antonio Banderas and Rosario Dawson. And 25-year-old pop party girl Ke$ha will perform a charity concert Monday.

The Creative Coalition will host parties Sunday and Monday that is expected to include Eric Stonestreet, Connie Britton, Taraji P. Henson, Melissa Leo and David Arquette, among others.

Like will.i.am, soul crooner Legend will attend multiple events, including Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Inaugural Ball II with 2 Chainz, Brandy and Pharrell. BET also has a ball that comedian-actor Wayne Brady will host; performers include Bell Biv Devoe, Doug E. Fresh, MC Lyte and Jermaine Dupri. And Pharrell will host an event late Monday that supports education.

Clarkson says she continues to gush when she thinks about all that's going on to celebrate Obama's second term in office.

"I'm excited to be a part of it honestly. I'm more stoked about (it more) than maybe a lot in my career," she said.

President Obama Unveils Sweeping Plan to Curb Gun Violence

Flanked by four children from across the country, President Obama today unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence in America through an extensive package of legislation and executive actions not seen since the 1960s.

Obama is asking Congress to implement mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, not just from licensed dealers; reinstate a ban on some assault-style weapons; ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds; and crackdown on illicit weapon trafficking.

The president's proposal also includes new initiatives for school safety, including a call for more federal aid to states for hiring so-called school resource officers, counselors and psychologists, and improved access to mental health care.

Obama will sign 23 executive actions on gun violence -- policy directives not needing congressional approval, an administration official said. Among them is a directive to federal agencies to beef up the national criminal background check system and a memorandum lifting a freeze on gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control.

The announcement comes one month after a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., left 26 dead, including 20 children. Obama called it the worst moment of his presidency and promised "meaningful action" in response.The proposals were the work of an Obama-appointed task force, led by Vice President Joe Biden, that held 22 meetings on gun violence over the past three weeks. The group received input from more than 220 organizations and dozens of elected officials, a senior administration official said.

The task force recommendations were presented to Obama on Monday.

Obama today also nominated a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which regulates gun sales and leads enforcement of federal gun laws. The agency has been without a confirmed director for six years. Obama appointed acting director Todd Jones, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, to the post, if the Senate confirms him.

The administration's plan also calls for aid to states for the hiring of more so-called school resource officers, counselors and psychologists. Obama also directed the Department of Education to ensure all schools have improved emergency response plans.

The proposals are already being met with stiff opposition from gun-rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, which overnight released a scathing ad attacking the president as an "elitist hypocrite."

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" says the narrator of the NRA ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"

Obama has questioned the value of placing more armed guards at schools around the country, though his proposal does call for placement of more police officers at public schools. The NRA opposes most of the other gun restrictions Obama has proposed.

Convincing Congress to vote for gun control measures will also be a tough task, with many Democrats expressing skepticism that new restrictions on gun sales can be effective, much less pass.

"Is [the assault weapons ban] something that can pass the Senate? Maybe. Is it something that can pass the Senate? I doubt it," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat and gun owners, told a Las Vegas TV station on Friday. "So I think there are things that we know we can do."

Republican leader says Obama must back France in fight against al-Qaida...

A leading Republican called Tuesday for President Barack Obama to support France’s military intervention against the “cancer” of al-Qaida-linked militants in North Africa.

Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that he welcomed France’s decision to send troops and warplanes “to combat this serious security threat” in Mali.

“The vast area of northern Mali gives these al Qaeda-linked militants space to operate, and the weapons flowing out of Libya makes them deadly. This cancer could not go unaddressed,” he said in the statement.

"This isn't avant garde for the French. They have shown leadership in working with Ivory Coast and other African governments to improve security.  Paris understands the high stakes,” he added. "I expect the Obama Administration to honor appropriate requests for intelligence and logistics support from France.”

Royce stressed that “we should have our ally's back" when dealing with the “shared threat.”

France has sent about 500 troops to Mali and is sending about 1,000 more along with armored vehicles.

They are taking on at least three Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Magreb, U.S. national security officials told NBC News Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The sources added that they were being helped by U.S. military and intelligence operations and that the U.S. would also provide transport and refueling capability for the operation. U.S. drones and spy satellites were also being used.

Panetta: No U.S. 'boots on ground'

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday at a press conference in Portugal that "there is no consideration of putting any American boots on the ground at this time" in Mali, The Associated Press reported.

He added that al-Qaida affiliates in Mali did not currently pose a threat to the United States but stressed "ultimately that remains their objective."

On Monday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that “we share the French goal of denying terrorists a safe haven.”

In a statement released by the U.K.’s Foreign Office, political directors of the G8 group of leading nations said they had discussed the situation in Mali at a meeting in London Tuesday and “expressed grave concern.”

“They noted that it is essential to halt the offensive by terrorist groups towards southern Mali, to prevent the collapse of the Malian state, and to accelerate the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions in all their dimensions: political, security and humanitarian,” the statement said.

Debt ceiling debate: Obama stakes out position

America is "not a deadbeat nation", US President Obama has said, warning Republicans not to hold the economy to ransom on the federal borrowing limit.

He told a White House news conference it would be "absurd" to use the debt ceiling as a negotiating chip.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner said a debt ceiling rise should be accompanied by spending cuts.

The US is expected to hit its $16.4tn (£10.2tn) borrowing limit by February unless lawmakers act.

Monday's press conference came a week before the inauguration ceremony in Washington DC that will begin Mr Obama's second term.

'Ransom'

The Democratic president warned lawmakers that they would "not collect a ransom... for not crashing the economy".

"The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they [Republicans] better decide quickly because time is running short," Mr Obama said.

"America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not we should pay the bills we've already racked up," he added.

"We are not a deadbeat nation," Mr Obama said.

Afterwards, Mr Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, acknowledged the economic peril of failing to raise the debt ceiling. But he indicated the House would attach spending cuts to any legislation to raise the borrowing authority.

"The American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time," he said in a statement.

Speaking on a day marking a month on from the massacre at a Connecticut primary school that shocked the nation, Mr Obama also said he would present proposals for gun control later in the week.

He said stronger background checks, control of high capacity magazine clips, and an assault weapons ban were all measures he believed made sense.

"Will all of them get through this Congress?" he asked. "I don't know."

The National Rifle Association and some lawmakers have suggested that any plan to ban assault weapons would not pass Congress.

Ahead of the debt ceiling fight, the White House in recent days has stated it will forgo two extraordinary measures suggested by the president's allies and by left-leaning pundits.

The White House will not order the treasury to mint a $1tn platinum coin - an accounting measure that would allow spending to continue.

Nor will Mr Obama invoke a clause in the 14th amendment to the US constitution declaring that "the validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned".

The last debt ceiling battle between Congress and Mr Obama ended in July 2011. The ceiling was raised $2.4tn in exchange for automatic across-the-board spending cuts scheduled for 1 January 2013.

Mr Obama had previously said he wanted a permanent extension of the debt limit as part of a deal to avoid those spending cuts which, combined with a package of tax rises, was known as the fiscal cliff.

A last-minute deal in Congress avoided most of those tax rises and deferred the spending cuts by two months, but the debt ceiling limit was not part of the negotiations.

In preparation for the debt ceiling fight, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has already cut payments into the pension and disability fund for government workers and to the health benefits fund of postal retirees.

Powell champions Hagel as defense secretary and rips some Republicans

 

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that President Barack Obama’s nominee to be defense secretary, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, was “superbly qualified” and would be a strong advocate for Americans in uniform.

 

This is a guy who would be very careful about putting their lives at risk because he put his life at risk,” Powell told NBC’s David Gregory.

Hagel, who was seriously wounded while serving as an Army infantryman in Vietnam, was a Republican senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009.

“He knows what war is and he will fight a war if it’s necessary, but he’s a guy who will do it with great deliberation and care,” Powell said.

Like Hagel, Powell served in Vietnam. He later was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before serving as secretary of state under George W. Bush. He endorsed Obama’s candidacy in 2008 and in last year’s campaign.

Even before Obama announced the Hagel nomination last week, it came under fire. The Washington Post editorial page opposed him for not supporting economic sanctions against Iran. Powell said Hagel does not rule out the use of military force against Iran. “I think what Chuck Hagel has said is that nothing is ever off the table. But he is one who believes in the prospects for negotiation.” Some supporters of Israel have chided Hagel for saying “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here (on Capitol Hill).” Powell said, “Chuck should have said ‘Israeli lobby,’ not ‘Jewish lobby.’ Perhaps he needs to write on a blackboard a hundred times, ‘It is the Israeli lobby.’”

Powell said Hagel is “a very, very strong supporter of the state of Israel” but “that doesn’t mean you have to agree with every single position that the Israeli government takes.”

If Hagel is confirmed by the Senate, part of his job will be to scale back the $630 billion Pentagon budget. As for Hagel’s comment that the military is “bloated,” Powell said if there are unnecessary parts of the military, then “I hope he does find bloat – and gets rid of it.”

As a senator, Hagel voted for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, but later was harshly critical of Bush’s conduct of the operation. In 2007 Hagel said “before this (Iraq intervention) is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

Hagel also opposed Bush’s Iraq surge strategy in 2007, calling it "the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

But Powell on Sunday firmly defended Bush’s 2003 decision to order the invasion of Iraq and his own role as secretary of state in advocating for that invasion.

Bush in 2003 “had more than sufficient basis to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction that were a danger to the world… and so he undertook a military action. I think that was the correct thing to do,” Powell said. 

But he added, “We did not execute the operation well,” since the fall of Baghdad in 2003 “was just the beginning” of a prolonged peacekeeping operation.

Despite his support for Obama, Powell said, “I’m still a Republican,” but he delivered a prolonged criticism of the Republican Party, rebuking the hawks in the party. “They’ve lost two elections. The American people have made it clear that they are not particularly interested in finding new conflicts to get into.”

“I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is to take a very hard look at itself” and at the attitude of some Republicans toward ethnic minorities, he said, accusing unnamed Republicans of “intolerance” and “(looking) down at minorities.”

Powell criticized – although did not identify by name -- former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who served as chief of staff for President George H. W Bush and as an aide to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney, for calling Obama “lazy” after his first debate performance and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for using the phrase “shuck and jive” in criticizing Obama’s explanation of the administration’s response to attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.

Since Obama nominated Hagel last week to succeed Leon Panetta as defense secretary, the administration has been trying to bolster support for the nomination in the face of criticism from Senate Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, both members of the Armed Services Committee which will conduct Hagel’s confirmation hearing later this month.

In comments on another Sunday morning program, another Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “I honor Chuck Hagel’s service” and “he’s a friend,” but questioned “whether he really believes that the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War. That clearly is not correct – in fact, it’s bizarre.”

He also criticized Hagel for not supporting a move to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. McCain said he wasn’t announcing how he’d vote on the nomination but wanted to hear Hagel’s responses to questions during his confirmation hearing.

Last week, Schumer told WHEC, the NBC affiliate in Rochester, N.Y., that “before I make any determination, it is only fair to sit down and talk with him and ask him some very serious questions about his views on Iran, on the Middle East, on the military in general.”

But in the end it’s highly unlikely that Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, would embarrass Obama by opposing Hagel.

U.S. may remove all troops from Afghanistan after 2014

The Obama administration is considering the possibility of removing all U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission officially finishes at the end of 2014, White House officials said Tuesday.

The comments by Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, come as the Pentagon and White House mull over the number of troops that could be left in Afghanistan after 2014 to fight insurgents and train Afghan security forces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Obama are scheduled to meet on Friday in Washington.

Rhodes said the administration is considering a range of options, with one scenario having no U.S. troops there. The range, according to defense officials, had until recently been between 6,000 and 15,000 U.S. troops possibly remaining in the country, based on an assessment by the U.S. top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen.

"We have an objective of making sure there's no safe haven for al Qaeda within Afghanistan and making sure that the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient, again, to assure the stability of the Afghan government and the denial of that safe haven," Rhodes said.

"That's what causes us to look for different potential troop numbers or not having potential troops in the country," he continued.

Rhodes said there were no expectations of any deal on post-2014 troop levels during the Karzai visit, and he said it could be months before any decision was made.

The White House remains committed to ensuring Afghanistan does not return to its status as a safe haven for Al Qaeda, Rhodes said

"The president does not view these negotiations as having a goal of keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan," he said. "And we're guided by the shared missions that we've agreed to with the Afghans, the training and equipping of their forces, and counterterrorism."

But the United States also is insistent on legal protection for any troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

If there is no agreement on that between the United States and Karzai between now and the end of 2014, then it could lead to a similar situation for the United States as when it left Iraq.

The refusal by the Iraqi government to extend legal protections for U.S. troops after the end of the war in Iraq was a major reason the United States left the country with no residual military training force.

But Karzai has said he would like for U.S. troops to remain after the end of the NATO mission. He also has been highly critical of the troops over the years, following incidents in which U.S. forces have killed civilians.

Attack takes life of British soldier

U.S. defense officials are playing a wait-and-see game on what the Karzai visit will produce.

As one defense official told CNN on Monday about the Afghan president, "It's Karzai; who knows what he will want on any given day?"

US may leave no troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014

US may leave no troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says it might leave no troops in Afghanistan after December 2014, an option that defies the Pentagon's view that thousands of troops may be needed to contain al-Qaida and to strengthen Afghan forces.

"We wouldn't rule out any option," including zero troops, Ben Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser, said Tuesday.

"The U.S. does not have an inherent objective of 'X' number of troops in Afghanistan," Rhodes said. "We have an objective of making sure there is no safe haven for al-Qaida in Afghanistan and making sure that the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient to ensure the stability of the Afghan government."

The U.S. now has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of about 100,000 as recently as 2010. The U.S. and its NATO allies agreed in November 2010 that they would withdraw all their combat troops by the end of 2014, but they have yet to decide what future missions will be necessary and how many troops they would require.

At stake is the risk of Afghanistan's collapse and a return to the chaos of the 1990s that enabled the Taliban to seize power and provide a haven for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Fewer than 100 al-Qaida fighters are believed to remain in Afghanistan, although a larger number are just across the border in Pakistani sanctuaries.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said he foresees a need for a U.S. counterterrorism force in Afghanistan beyond 2014, plus a contingent to train Afghan forces. He is believed to favor an option that would keep about 9,000 troops in the country.

Administration officials in recent days have said they are considering a range of options for a residual U.S. troop presence of as few as 3,000 and as many as 15,000, with the number linked to a specific set of military-related missions like hunting down terrorists.

Asked in a conference call with reporters whether zero was now an option, Rhodes said, "That would be an option we would consider."

His statement could be interpreted as part of an administration negotiating strategy. On Friday Afghan President Hamid Karzai is scheduled to meet President Barack Obama at the White House to discuss ways of framing an enduring partnership beyond 2014.

The two are at odds on numerous issues, including a U.S. demand that any American troops who would remain in Afghanistan after the combat mission ends be granted immunity from prosecution under Afghan law. Karzai has resisted, while emphasizing his need for large-scale U.S. support to maintain an effective security force after 2014.

In announcing last month in Kabul that he had accepted Obama's invitation to visit this week, Karzai made plain his objectives.

"Give us a good army, a good air force and a capability to project Afghan interests in the region," Karzai said, and he would gladly reciprocate by easing the path to legal immunity for U.S. troops.

Karzai is scheduled to meet Thursday with Panetta at the Pentagon and with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department.

Without explicitly mentioning immunity for U.S. troops, Obama's top White House military adviser on Afghanistan, Doug Lute, told reporters Tuesday that the Afghans will have to give the U.S. certain "authorities" if it wants U.S. troops to remain.

"As we know from our Iraq experience, if there are no authorities granted by the sovereign state, then there's not room for a follow-on U.S. military mission," Lute said. He was referring to 2011 negotiations with Iraq that ended with no agreement to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops who would have stayed to help train Iraqi forces. As a result, no U.S. troops remain in Iraq.

David Barno, a retired Army three-star general and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, wrote earlier this week that vigorous debate has been under way inside the administration on a "minimalist approach" for post-2014 Afghanistan.

In an opinion piece for ForeignPolicy.com on Monday, Barno said the "zero option" was less than optimal but "not necessarily an untenable one." Without what he called the stabilizing influence of U.S. troops, Barno cautioned that Afghanistan could "slip back into chaos."

Barno said the Afghan-Pakistan border area where numbers of Islamic extremists are in hiding could become the scene of a prolonged "intelligence war" after 2014, with the U.S. and its Afghan and Pakistan partners sharing intelligence.

"Given its vital importance, this undertaking will endure — regardless of the size of the residual U.S. military presence," he wrote.

Rhodes said Obama is focused on two main outcomes in Afghanistan: ensuring that the country does not revert to being the al-Qaida haven it was prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and getting the government to the point where it can defend itself.

"That's what guides us, and that's what causes us to look for different potential troop numbers — or not having potential troops in the country," Rhodes said.

He predicted that Obama and Karzai would come to no concrete conclusions on international military missions in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and he said it likely would be months before Obama decides how many U.S. troops — if any — he wants to keep there.

Rhodes said Obama remains committed to further reducing the U.S. military presence this year, although the pace of that withdrawal will not be decided for a few months.

Karzai visit a time for tough talk on security, corruption

Vanda Felbab-Brown is a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Her latest book is "Aspiration and Ambivalence: Strategies and Realities of Counterinsurgency and State-Building in Afghanistan."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is meeting this week with President Obama in Washington amid increasing ambivalence in the United States about what to do about the war in Afghanistan.

Americans are tired of the war. Too much blood and treasure has been spent. The White House is grappling with troop numbers for 2013 and with the nature and scope of any U.S. mission after 2014. With the persisting corruption and poor governance of the Afghan government and Karzai's fear that the United States is preparing to abandon him, the relationship between Kabul and Washington has steadily deteriorated.

As the United States radically reduces its mission in Afghanistan, it will leave behind a stalled and perilous security situation and a likely severe economic downturn. Many Afghans expect a collapse into civil war, and few see their political system as legitimate.

Karzai and Obama face thorny issues such as the stalled negotiations with the Taliban. Recently, Kabul has persuaded Pakistan to release some Taliban prisoners to jump-start the negotiations, relegating the United States to the back seat. Much to the displeasure of the International Security Assistance Force, the Afghan government also plans to release several hundred Taliban-linked prisoners, although any real momentum in the negotiations is yet to take place.

Washington needs to be careful that negotiations are structured in a way that enhances Afghanistan's stability and is not merely a fig leaf for U.S. and NATO troop departure. Countering terrorism will be an important U.S. interest after 2014. The Taliban may have soured on al Qaeda, but fully breaking with the terror group is not in the Taliban's best interest. If negotiations give the insurgents de facto control of parts of the country, the Taliban will at best play it both ways: with the jihadists and with the United States.

Negotiations of a status-of-forces agreement after 2014 will also be on the table between Karzai and Obama. Immunity of U.S. soldiers from Afghan prosecution and control over detainees previously have been major sticking points, and any Afghan release of Taliban-linked prisoners will complicate that discussion.

Karzai has seemed determined to secure commitments from Washington to deliver military enablers until Afghan support forces have built up. The Afghan National Security Forces have improved but cannot function without international enablers -- in areas such as air support, medevac, intelligence and logistical assets and maintenance -- for several years to come. But Washington has signaled that it is contemplating very small troop levels after 2014, as low as 3,000. Their mission would most likely be limited to counterterrorism efforts.

Everyone is hedging their bets in light of the transition uncertainties and the real possibility of a major security meltdown after 2014. Afghan army commanders are leaking intelligence and weapons to insurgents; Afghan families are sending one son to join the army, one to the Taliban and one to the local warlord's militia.

Patronage networks pervade the Afghan forces, and a crucial question is whether they can avoid splintering along ethnic and patronage lines after 2014. If security forces do fall apart, the chances of Taliban control of large portions of the country and a civil war are much greater. Obama can use the summit to announce concrete measures -- such as providing enablers -- to demonstrate U.S. commitment to heading off a security meltdown. The United States and international security forces also need to strongly focus on countering the rifts within the Afghan army.

Assisting the Afghan army after 2014 is important. But even with better security, it is doubtful that Afghanistan can be stable without improvements in its government.

Afghanistan's political system is preoccupied with the 2014 elections. Corruption, serious crime, land theft and other usurpation of resources, nepotism, a lack of rule of law and exclusionary patronage networks afflict governance. Afghans crave accountability and justice and resent the current mafia-like rule. Whether the 2014 elections will usher in better leaders or trigger violent conflict is another huge question mark.

Emphasizing good governance, not sacrificing it to short-term military expediencies by embracing thuggish government officials, is as important as leaving Afghanistan in a measured and unrushed way -- one that doesn't jeopardize the fledgling institutional and security capacity that the country has managed to build up.

Karzai has been deaf and blind to the reality that reducing corruption, improving governance and allowing for a more pluralistic political system are essential for Afghanistan's stability. His visit provides an opportunity to deliver the message again -- and strongly.

Hagel would face uphill battle for Pentagon's top job if picked by Obama

Washington –  Chuck Hagel likely would face opposition from both liberals and conservatives for his past stances and comments if President Obama nominates the former Republican senator for the top spot at the Pentagon -- as sources tell Fox News is expected, as early as next week.

Hagel’s name has been floated around Washington for weeks as Obama's top choice for the next secretary of defense, but pro-Israel groups, conservatives and gay rights organizations all have raised objections, respectively citing comments he made about a gay former diplomat and his views on Iran and Israel.

Confirmation hearings wouldn't be easy.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has signaled he’ll move to block the bid unless Hagel withdraws his opposition to the U.S. trade embargo against Castro’s Cuba.  

Other lawmakers have expressed concern over Hagel’s resistance to sanctions against Iran and to the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

Hagel went on an apology spree in late December and back-peddled on comments he made about the sexual orientation of an ambassador candidate during a 1998 interview, but the country’s largest gay and lesbian groups said they were unimpressed and questioned his sincerity.

The controversy stems from comments he made during a debate over the nomination of James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg. Hagel had said Hormel was “openly aggressively gay.”

“My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive,” Hagel said in a written statement. “They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights.”

The White House has had to come to the former Nebraska senator's defense multiple times since word leaked that he may be considered for a spot in Obama’s Cabinet.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against his bid.

Indiana Sen. Dan Coats, a Republican, blasted Hagel in an interview with radio host Tom Rose. 

"Chuck has alienated an awful lot of people," Coats said. "There have been grace concerns about this possible nomination among Republicans and among people who know and have served with Chuck Hagel. We watched Chuck take positions that are, frankly, many of them are to the left of Barack Obama."

He continued: "Hagel has moved from a conservative Republican coming out of Nebraska to someone that looks like they are out of the most leftist state in the country and exceeding even a lot of Democrats, who also have concerns about his ideology and where he is coming from. I think it would be a mistake for the president to put his nomination up."

When asked about the pulse of Republicans on Hagel, Sen. Linsey Graham, R-S.C., told Chris Wallace on Sunday, "I can tell you there would be very little Republican support for his nomination. At the end of the day, there will be very few votes.”

But there are some supporters and they point to his infantry service in Vietnam – where he was awarded two Purple Hearts – as proof that he’s qualified to lead the department. Hagel also served as the deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration during the Reagan administration, as well as the head of the USO, and was co-author of the 9/11 GI bill.