UPDATE: Video from MSNBC is below the fold. Reaction from Tammy Baldwin is up.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press SecretaryDecember 1, 2009
Remarks of President Barack Obama-
As Prepared for DeliveryThe Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there.As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.
America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.
###
Statement of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
On the Announced Troop Surge in Afghanistan
December 1, 2009
“In 2001, I voted to authorize the use of force to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.I believe our current actions in Afghanistan and President Obama’s proposal for moving forward bear little resemblance to that original, narrowly-focused mission.
I cannot endorse a military surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s time for our troops to come home.”



Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
47 Comments



Michael Steele’s responseMC Steele:
I know I’ll get eaten alive for saying this, but…I don’t blame Obama for this, at all.
He was left with a choice between leaving the US with fewer than 2,000 active duty personnel on hand for an emergency (or, you know, actual threat to the country,) leaving Afghanistan as it is (history tells us this is a bad, bad idea,) or continuing a losing strategy that would drag on endlessly.
He had to make a very tough call here and, hopefully, he made the right one.
Michael Steele who can’t launch a f*ckin website without scraping it the next dayYeah, we think your opinion about National Defense is worthy of our attention…right up there with COWARDLY 5 deferment Cheney.
Looking at the West Pointe audienceI couldn’t help thinking the gays and lesbians sitting there, and their service has to stay a dirty little secret, their spouses won’t get a G*D DAMN presidential letter if they die, they won’t be allowed to be there at their wounded spouses bedside, or their painful rehab walking without their limbs.
I agree with you
Knowing how to get out of a situation should precede getting into itSorry, Chairman Steele, but the epic fail of the Afghanistan war during the Bush years is because there wasn’t any sense of what the objective was. Even catching Bin Laden was abandoned.
I’m glad President Obama is setting limits on this war. We should have been helping the government of Afghanistan prepare to fight its civil war starting back in 2002. Now we have to work all the harder to overcome the mess that has grown since that time.
This is not a good idea, but the alternative is an even worse oneObama was handed a sh*tty diaper by the previous administration.
Instead of remaining focused on Afghanistan, Bush let “mission creep” (and his signature poor judgment) get us heavily involved in Iraq to the detriment of the Afghan campaign.
We can’t just walk out of Afghanistan.
But we could probably accelerate some aspects of our withdrawal from Iraq, turn any remaining obligations in Kosovo to the EU (it’s really more their worry), and begin working on phasing out (or at least major phasing down) major operations in Germany, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and possibly Turkey. We don’t need a huge presence in Europe anymore, the Soviet threat ended 20 years ago.
Then get the job in Afghanistan done, done right, and leave ASAP. Pakistan certainly shares this responsibility because it’s happening right next door, and the buffer area, which Pakistan refers to as an autonomous region is a base for the enemy.
We really need to rethink the strategy of maintaining such a large U.S. military presence in so many places around the world, especially in places where it’s not necessary anymore.
Same hereI was thinking the same thing and it broke my heart.
A waste of American Soldier’s Lives. I know this was a mess started by Bush Co and Cheney. Yes, the US broke Afghanistan. But this is just going to get worse. There will be no stopping of the poppy and opium that comes out of that place. We can’t match the drug lords dollar for dollar. They will out spend us 3 to 1. What a fucking waste of American Soldier’s Lives and American Dollars.
This whole war Bull Shit has gotten me pissed off.
I voted for Obama and I am getting serious buyers remorse. And if this is the way the Democratic Party continues to march? We don’t need them in office.
The government of Afghanistanthe one that is involved in massive corruption, that is involved in drug trafficking, the one that is involved in many human rights abuses, the one that also wants to have women be kept barefoot and pregnant, the one that was “elected” with massive electoral fraud?
History tells us leaving Afghanistan aloneis a bad bad idea you say?
Well, history tells us that invading Afghanistan is an even worse idea.
Never start a land war in Asia!!!Really, don’t you people read????
As for setting limitsthe limits are so limited that they might as well be worthless.
Why can’t Afghanistan just be walked out of?Even the US gov admits that Al Qaeda is practically non-existent in Afghanistan.
Before you cry about protecting the women from the Evil Taliban, you should first read some articles by AFGHAN women, not US aid workers feeding off the invasions trough.
As for rebuilding Afghanistan for the Afghan people, compare US military spending in Afghanistan with US civilian spending.
Asia doesn’t have anything to do with the issueNEVER fight an opponent on their turf, the local population are willing to hide. They know the area infinitely better than you ever will, and if non combatants will hide them, you’ll never win.
I keep thinking Russia and China are laughing at the USAs we get mired in an unending war in Afghanistan.
Unless there were equal allies of NATO and other G8 nations willing to really help solve Afghanistan, to me it seems bleak at best. I recommend arming women of Afghanistan, declare victory, and leave.
ROFLOLDon’t worry Keori I don’t read, but I saw the movie: Inconceivable!!
Damn all that…All I could see was the fact that these kids where to damn young to be in anybody’s war–gay, str8, bi, or even the future transgenders!
I think we are not giving Obama the benefit of the doubtAfter all last year around this time we were talking about another unending and useless war only it was in Iraq.
I was glad to see…this bit “We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011″ & “taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” I agree that the time to end the wars is sooner rather than later, but a part of me is glad to at least see some kind of end in sight even if it is 18 months away.
No one can rule Afghanistaneven the Taliban had control only over certain areas, as it is a patchwork of domains ruled by warlords. The Soviets has a miserable time there, partly due to our arming the groups that eventually became the Taliban. The British has their adventure there, The Romanovs made a grab at it…if they no longer want you there, they will make the cost of squatting in their nation painfully high
I’m not sure that the US broke AfghanistanMy memory is a bit hazy, so I may be wrong, but it seems that Afghanistan has been broken for its entire existence. Its not a nation. It is a country whose borders were established by the great powers. The tribes and power brokers in the the different regions of Afghanistan have always been very resistant to central power in Kabul.
Even the Taliban didn’t have full control of Afghanistan, although they were pretty close, having won more and more territory throughout the 90s and 00s. But they were still fighting to win the northern part of the country when the US intervened.
You’re right – government in Afghanistan is abhorrentBut all of those problems you mention will continue if the West doesn’t do something to reform it.
Yep.
And YET AGAIN….
Our Commander-in-Chief has the balls to stand there and rhapsodize about America treasuring Freedom and the sacrifice of American servicemen and women but doesn’t have the balls to use his Congressionally authorizied powers to freeze discharges of gay servicemembers when HE himself has said that such discharges weaken national security!
How are we to trust the life and death decisions of a man who contradicts HIMSELF? Who has signaled repeatedly that he makes decisions based upon the desires of the dinosaurs in the Pentagon. Who…surely I was not the only one who noticed it…actually felt the need to “butch up” his delivery last night with clipped words, sentences, and cadence, while looking fiercely serious?
Who COULD have chosen THIS time, wrapped in the flag to announce:
The Barack Obama so many thought they elected would have said that last night.
I’m not understanding the logicof the “lets withdraw” folks.
That is an easy statement to make in the comfort of home. But the question is reallyu about what sort of Afganistan will we leave behind.
The President, pretty clearly stated that his goal is to start leaving in 2011 (as we are wrapping up in Iraq). My sense is that the additional troops are necessary in order to have an orderly and responsible withdrawl.
The reality is that the war in Afghanistan, the war that we really needed to fight, was ALWAYS low on man power. The situation there was a huge clusterfuck that had been allowed to fester by the Bush administration. The situation now is that they want troops to help stabalize the environment so that we can leave without having waves of people running in fear behind the troops begging to be air lifted off the roof of the Embassy.
No one seems to want to answer the question of what do we do if we pull out now and Afghanistan turns back into what it was before we arrived? I would hat to think that come 2021 we’ll have to start talking about going back because the same group of thungs that attacked us in 2001 were able to set up camp and do it again.
Don’t be fooled…
That word choice “remove our combat brigades…and all our troops” is shamefully dishonest because it says nothing about the tens of thousands of mercenaries [Remember Blackwater? They now go under the name Xe.] we will still be paying for between Iraq and Afghanistan…worse because they have the $$$$ motivation to PERPETUATE our occupation but are not controlled by the UCMJ. In many places, there harsh treatment of locals has only increased hatred of America.
The subject of Afghanistan is much more complicated than just how many uniformed American troops we have there, and, as citizens, we deserve to know the FULL truth of our involvement there.
Yeah, I strongly agree with thisAnd, actually, Afghanistan has been a powder keg waiting to explode since the Soviets left.
I mean, it’s a quagmire not of Obama’s own making to be sure and there are no easy answers to this.
I just saw a bit of Hillary’s testimonydefending this latest villainy. And you’ll never guess what: one of her rationales for increasing our occupying force was…9/11!
9/11! 9/11! Booga-booga-boo! You have to support our war because of 9/11! It’s time for every one to face up to the unavoidable fact that in last year’s election, George Bush won a third term.
We’re supposed to believe that $30 billion is worth spending on this war, not to mention countless lives (but we can’t afford to give our troops health care when they return home).
We’re supposed to believe that, although no one in history has been able to subdue/pacify (read: conquer) Afghanistan, not Alexander the Great and not anyone since, Stanley McChrystal will be able to do it. That the American military, which couldn’t win in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq will be able to accomplish what no one has been able to do in 2000 years. And that’s not to consider whether it’s worth doing at all, which is severely arguable.
We’re supposed to believe that an administration that has continued both of Bush’s wars and is now trying to justify them using Bush’s spurious talking points represents “change.” Hah!
Are you suggestingthat the West is going to “reform” that government the way it “reformed” various abhorrent governments that western nations supported in Latin America, in Iran?
Hyperbole asideThe war in Afganistan was always about 9/11. Unlike Iraq, whihc had nothinig to do with the 3000 dead people in New York and DC, Afghanistan was directly involved.
One of the main criticisms of the US immidiately following the attacks was that we used Afghanistan against the Soviets and then tossed them aside like an old can.
Afghanistan DOES matter. In the long run, the condition in which we leave the country when we finally do withdraw matters.
This is not an easy situation with simple answers like you are suggesting.
NOBut what we want is a government in place that will not tolerate terrorist organizations setting up training camps on their soil and have the power to make their wishes stick.
Supporting the invasion and continued occupation of another countryis an easy statement to make in the comfort of home. Supporting the invasion and continued occupation of another country is easy when you aren’t being blown to bloody bits of meat by people who want to “help” in the name of human rights. But the question is about what sort Afghanistan you leave behind when you are through.
The reality is that if the US was actually genuinely concerned about human rights, it would not be supporting a government whose members have been accused by Human Rights Watch of gross human rights abuses. The reality is that if the US was actually genuinely concerned about women’s rights in Afghanistan, it would not be supporting a government whose supporters / members have threatened women politicians such as Malalai Joya with rape.
Even Obama’s own commander McChrystal has admitted that Al Qaeda is basically non-existent in Afghanistan, and that the resistance is local in origin and focus. IE their goal is to kick out foreign invaders.
That is what none of the supporters of the continued invasion want to address and want to gloss over.
And why do you think that Al Qaeda can’t set up camp elsewhere? What makes Afghanistan so special that they would set up camp there again? In fact, what makes you think that they can’t set up camp in Saudi Arabia, or in the UK, or in the US, or in Germany, or basically in any country in the world? Where were those thugs from? Where were those thugs trained? Where were they living?
The reality is that if the US was actually genuinely interested in building a democratic, stable Afghanistan, US civilian spending would not be a pittance of US military spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Those figures were BEFORE the escalation, which would jack up military spending even more.
We had spaghetti at our house four times last month.Four! Just think of it! Is that too many?
I side with you on this although…1) Al Queda has also changed and it appears that Pakistan is more the problem than Afghanistan as it concerns Al Queda.
2) Now if we are no longer fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan, then what are we doing there if we are not rebuilding. Afghanistan was destabilized before Sept. 11, 2001 and will be regardless of what we do from this point on.
In other words, this is nation building at this point which Bush said that he would never do. (Granted, Obama has never said anything about “nation building”).
Well, yes, but…Obama wasn’t president when we invaded it. lol
I still don’t get how anybody thought they were electing THAT Barack Obama…Time and again during the primary campaign he showed signs of extraordinary cowardice when it came to GLBT people, his record on Iraq contradicted itself repeatedly, his “three spiritual mentors” were all kooks, his health care plan was easily the weakest of the big Dem 3… I cannot identify a single issue upon which Obama was this big ol’ progressive every other liberal I know seems to have thought he was.
Ditto.
And we’re still there…thanks to Obama.
As several people have pointed out earliler in this thread,Afghanistan has never been stable. We didn’t destabilize it; the Russians didn’t; the Taliban didn’t; al Qaeda didn’t. Attempting “nation building” (whether or not we use that phrase) in a region where there has never been a stable, unified government, and where both geography, history and the local culture all militate against it, is a fool’s errand. No one should die for it. No one.
And he notion that sending more troops to carpet-bomb more Afghan wedding parties will somehow make the US safer would be downright whimsical if it wasn’t so wrong-headedly evil.
No kool-aidI’m proud I didn’t drink the kool-aid and join the worship-cult when Obama was running for president. However, I decided I could treat the election like taking out the garbage or doing the laundry, a trivial yet necessary task for civilized living. So I voted for him, fully prepared for him to pan out as a more literate and less psycho version of Bush. Just a more hip version, as it turns out, but no less psycho. There’s no hope there. Shouldn’t we focus instead on educating young people so they don’t volunteer to go and die and kill others for nothing?
The US has no, repeat no, right to be in Afghanistan and no legitimate interests there.The simple truth is that the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have only one purpose and that’s to increase the profitability of oil companies and the military industrial complex.
Obama is making the same terrible mistake Nixon made when he called for ‘phased withdrawal’ while expanding the war. There can be no doubt that these wars, coupled with American support for the ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies of their zionist client state will lead to the murder of many more GIs and civilians. Those who support Obama’s wars support those murders.
And there can be no doubt that these wars will end the same way they did in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. That is with the utter humiliation of Obama, the military brass, corporate merchants of death and their political lap dogs. They’ll be defeated at the hands of insurgents and the civilian and GI antiwar movements. The question is how many GIs and how many tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians will be murdered in the meantime.
The multiple US attacks are racist in character and have nothing to do with ending terror. They vastly increase the danger of further terrorist attacks on US civilians because the real terrorists are the US military commanders and those of its satellite states who have killed over a million in Iraq and thousands in Palestine and Afghanistan. Those who support Obama’s wars support racsim imposed by the military.
These wars don’t lessen the danger American civilian’s face from terrorists; they exponentially multiply them especially when you consider in Pakistan some members of the volatile and very anti-American armed forces have their fingers on the firing buttons of nuclear weapons. Those who support Obama’s wars endanger all of us.
These wars are a criminal folly at a time when the US economy is in failure mode and when massive long-lasting unemployment and homelessness are on the rise. Those who support Obama’s wars support diverting money from helping Americans, especially GLBT folks, as the economy collapses around them.
A few weeks after Obama was elected (with a bit over a third of the eligible vote) and Democrats won super majorities in the House and Senate I said that they were extinct, even if they were too stupid to figure it out. This is another nail in their political coffin. A big nail.
SciFi Geek, Please tell the truth. . The war in Iraq has always been about stealing their oil. The war against Afghanistan and Pakistan has always been about controlling gas pipelines.
The vicious terrorist attacks of 9-11 were an excuse for Bush2 to continue the genocidal wars of Bush1 and Clinton. The US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued US funding of ethnic cleansing by the zionists in Palestine and the US air strikes against Pakistani civilians have multiplied the numbers of anti-American terrorist exponentially. The potential terrorists in Pakistan have nukes.
Obama’s escalation puts us all in great danger.
The US has no legitimate rights or interests in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Turkey, Lebanon, the Gulf States, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan. To claim that we do is racist.
Lynn, the governments of Mississippi, Texas, Alabama and Louisiana are backward, antiunion and infested by christians and racists.Here’s the telephone number of the Embassy of the Republic of Angola: 202.785.1156. They’re anticolonialist and socialist and they take a dim view of union busters, cultists and racists.
Give em a call and maybe they can intervene and you know, do some nation building. If everyone agrees ask them to start in Texas. A few divisions of ‘advisors’ ought to do the trick, don’t you think?
How arrogant. How racist. “Its not a nation.”
They seem to think they are and that thinking is what allowed them to defeat the Russians (twice), the English and it’s what’ll send Obama and the military brass scurrying home with thier tails between their legs.
The Westis NOT attempting nation building in Afghanistan. If it was, civilian spending would not be a pittance compared to military spending.
The US, UK, Germany, are all behaving in the manner of classic occupation forces.
The US and the USSR DID destabilise Afghanistan. It might not have been the most stable of nations before the past 30 years of war, but it was a nation. 30 years of almost continuous war fueled by the realpolitikal games of the US and the USSR will destroy any nation.
NOWhat you want is a puppet government.
What you CLAIM to want cannot be achieved with the military force you are using.